Review by Sean Boelman
After the success of their first Neil Gaiman adaptation, The Sandman, it only makes sense that Netflix would want to get all-in on the Gaiman business. Based on characters introduced in the aforementioned comics before being spun off into their own series, Dead Boy Detectives brings a flawed but fun macabre noir to the streaming service’s library that will surely be the next obsession of young subscribers everywhere.
Dead Boy Detectives follows two ghosts who decide not to enter the afterlife, opting instead to stay on Earth and investigate supernatural crimes. If you split the difference between a spookier Sherlock Holmes and a campier X-Files, that’s about where Dead Boy Detectives falls. It’s dark and mature enough to entertain adults but not so edgy as to be too much for a pre-teen/teen audience. (It is TV-MA for some f-bombs, but it’s pretty tame as far as streaming series go.) The show presents a series of interesting cases, and while some are more exciting than others, the duller episodes are nicely padded with other conflicts, like romance or an overarching supernatural threat. In this way, the show does an excellent job of capturing the anthology-esque nature of a comic adaptation while still giving us plenty to care about in the grand scheme of things. Of course, a series like this is only as good as its leads, and the actors who play the eponymous duo are tremendous discoveries. George Rexstrew is a complete newcomer, with only a short film credit to his name, and Jayden Revri has only a few more. However, they bring charm and confidence to their roles that would rival the young leads of any major franchise. They are funny, likable, and have excellent chemistry with one another.
This is also the rare show that doesn’t pad its supporting cast with big names to steal the show — a wise decision considering how talented Rexstrew and Revri are. The most recognizable recurring star is Lukas Gage, who’s admittedly delicious as one of the show’s secondary antagonists. But the rest of the ensemble, including Kassius Nelson, Yuyu Kitamura, and Michael Beach, among others, all do a great job of infusing personality into their characters.
However, this large ensemble is also where the show begins to falter. Ultimately, Dead Boy Detectives juggles too many storylines. Between the leading trio’s overall arcs, the individual cases, and the arcs of several characters they meet along the way (from the butcher that rents our heroes their space to their dealer of magical antiques), there’s so much happening in the story that it feels hyperactive within the confines of an eight-episode season. The series's below-the-line aspects also sometimes let it down. The world of any Neil Gaiman creation is incredibly rich, and show creator Steve Yockey and his staff of writers take some big swings with Dead Boy Detectives. Unfortunately, a few of those swings are held back by budget. Some of the set pieces have flagship-level ambition, but since this is the first season of an “untested” IP, they don’t get quite the scale they seemed to hope for, drawing viewers out of the world. Nevertheless, Dead Boy Detectives manages to be a genuinely good time throughout the entirety of its eight-episode run. It has its fair share of cheese, but its world is so vibrant that viewers will be clamoring to spend more time with these characters. Hopefully, this will inspire Netflix to put even more behind the next season and future Gaiman adaptations. Dead Boy Detectives is now streaming on Netflix. All eight episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5
0 Comments
Review by Sean Boelman
A movie with the pedigree of the Cronenberg name should really be making a bigger splash than Caitlin Cronenberg’s feature debut, Humane. Thus, with its relatively low-key release, it will come as little surprise to cinephiles that Humane is, frankly, not very good, suffering from wildly uneven writing by Michael Sparaga, who wastes the potential of his premise.
The film is set in a near future, where humanity is on the brink of a collapse due to an environmental catastrophe, and a program has begun where people can be voluntarily euthanized in exchange for a substantial payment to a beneficiary. A family finds itself at a difficult crossroads when their father announces he plans to enlist in the program. While this premise is incredibly intriguing, the novelty of the idea wears off after the first act, leading to a remaining two-thirds that’s extremely contrived — sometimes even laughably so. Although the antics are mostly entertaining, they’re so ridiculous that it’s hard to take the movie seriously. At a certain point, the lines between the intentional dark humor and the laughter it elicits from ham-fisted writing become indistinguishably blurred. Humane is the type of movie that wears its message on its sleeve. No audience member will walk away remotely confused about the film’s environmentalist and anti-capitalist messages. While this horror-tinged sci-fi premise could have been a thought-provoking way to explore these themes, Sparaga’s script seems far less interested in provoking thought in viewers than telling them how they should think and behave.
However, the main area where Sparaga’s script falters is that it does not give the audience any characters to care about. There have been plenty of satires about rich, unsympathetic a**holes that have worked quite well, but Humane does not join those ranks. The intention is clearly to remind the audience of our need to reconnect with our humanity by showing us characters who are so egregiously severed from it, but it’s hard to really resonate with this decision if you’re rooting for most of the characters to die.
Still, despite the utterly flat archetypes of characters they are given, the talented cast manages to make the most of their roles. Jay Baruchel and Emily Hampshire are both gleefully over the top, and Sebastian Chacon is the most grounded of the cast. However, it’s the supporting cast that shines the brightest. Peter Gallagher’s turn is utterly commanding, carrying the first act (that ends up being the strongest portion of the movie), and character actor Enrico Colantoni is the only reason viewers will remain invested in the back two-thirds. Apart from a few graphics — like fake newscasts and public service announcements — whose quality does begin to show the film’s budget, the below-the-line aspects of Humane are mostly solid. It’s not a particularly gruesome picture, with only a few short (but effective and impactful) bursts of violence. Instead, Cronenberg opts to build tension through claustrophobia and does so quite well within the confined setting. It’s a shame that Humane is Caitlin Cronenberg’s feature directorial debut because she’ll be blamed for many of the movie’s problems that really lie with Michael Sparaga’s script. It’s really not possible to tell if she has the same juice as her brother (or her father, for that matter) until she gets her hands on a better script. As for the movie itself, it’s torn down by tedium and heavy-handedness. Humane hits theaters on April 26. Rating: 2.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
The first film of Zack Snyder's would-be franchise-starter sci-fi epic, Rebel Moon, was released in December to very little fanfare. Many were frustrated by its dependence on formula and generic tropes. Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver, shot simultaneously with the first one, isn't much less generic, but it is much more fun to watch.
This continuation picks up after the first movie, with Kora (Sofia Boutella) having killed the admiral Atticus Noble, and she and her band of warriors returning to the village, thinking they have avoided the oncoming conflict. However, as we know, Noble is not dead, and he is coming to siege the village. What comes is two hours of action ripped straight out of Akira Kurosawa’s films — it's about as blatant of a knockoff of Seven Samurai as you can find. (Worse yet, you can't even call it “Seven Samurai in Space” because so little of it actually has the sci-fi element.) One of the more surprising things about The Scargiver is that it clocks in a full 10 minutes shorter than the first movie and moves so much faster. The entirety of Part One is rendered meaningless by the opening narration of this sequel. The first film essentially functions as a feature-length version of a Star Wars opening credits scroll to this movie’s conflict. Part Two has a lot more happening, but that doesn’t make it any less generic. The area in which Rebel Moon’s generic nature becomes most evident is its character development. This sequel gives us more reason to care about and buy into these warriors’ stories, but each of their motivations against the villainous "Motherworld" (the “Empire” stand-in) is very bland. In the middle of the film, we hear the stories of each of the warriors and why they came to this fight, and they’re a rehash of every tragic backstory you’ve ever heard. While it’s incredibly easy to root for a band of peasants sticking it to the man, you might have a hard time remembering their names by the time the credits roll.
If audiences take one thing away from Rebel Moon - Part Two, it should be that Skrein is a much better actor than we give him credit for. Although his role is ridiculous, he acts the hell out of it. His inspired, menacing turn as the antagonist is the main thing that keeps the movie entertaining.
Unfortunately, the rest of the cast does not fare the same way. Boutella is not a compelling lead. Any of the allure she has shown in previous films is absent here in a role that is essentially a blank slate, and she is not able to paint on it. Djimon Hounsou is fine, but nothing particularly spectacular. He does the same thing here as he does in every other movie. Anthony Hopkins is humorously wasted. The rest of the cast makes little impression. Of course, most people are watching Rebel Moon for its visuals and action. Although the film has many of Zack Snyder’s stylistic flourishes, it's much less inspired than a lot of his work. The world isn't very distinctive, feeling far too Earth-like for its own good. From a below-the-line standpoint, the CGI, score, and sound design are all solid but not astounding. Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver is certainly more movie than its predecessor. There's more story, more action, more slow motion, more cheese, and more of everything else you would expect from late-stage Zack Snyder. Whether that's a good or a bad thing to you depends on whether you're a fan of the filmmaker. But do we need four more of these? Probably not. Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver hits Netflix on April 19. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers immediately became one of the most anticipated movies of 2024 after it was delayed from its prime awards season release last year due to the strikes. Unfortunately, the steamy drama was not worth the wait, boasting some solid performances and lots of style, but all in the service of a frustrating script.
The film stars Zendaya as a once-bustling tennis prodigy who, after a career-ending injury, has managed to stay on the court as a coach to her husband, only to be caught up in drama when he has to face his former best friend — also a former lover of hers. For something that’s literally being sold as a tennis threesome movie, the delicious moments are few and far between. Although the film’s highs are indeed very high, it’s surprisingly mostly tepid. Kurtizkes tells this story in a nonlinear structure, and while this decision has a narrative justification, it ruins the movie’s momentum. Every time you get really invested in the storyline, it cuts to another timeline. And with a runtime of 2 hours and 11 minutes, the nonlinear structure adds a lot of unnecessary fluff. Zendaya’s performance in the film is excellent, with a level of charisma and confidence that’s incredibly easy to watch. Yet, despite having a great screen presence, she knows when to cede to her co-stars, which is the mark of a truly talented performer. Josh O’Connor is also great, splitting the difference between charming and cuckish, nailing the perfect amount of tension with Zendaya.
However, much like in architecture, where a triangular structure will collapse if one of its sides is compromised, Mike Faist threatens to pull Kuritzkes’s love triangle apart. Faist simply can’t hold his own against the two more compelling actors — whether it’s his fault or the script’s is debatable. His performance is passable during the portions of the movie where he’s playing older, but he struggles when playing the younger version of the character.
Challengers also suffers from being Guadagnino’s most overly indulgent film yet. The movie is hyper-stylized, from a blaring score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross that can overwhelm at times to fast-paced editing and gimmicky shots that look cool but are used fleetingly with little narrative impact. This film has a massive amount of energy, but it’s largely wasted. Some other aspects of the movie simply aren’t aesthetically pleasing. The sheer number of CGI tennis balls that fly directly into the camera is one of the more baffling decisions in the film. It’s clear that Guadagnino is trying to make viewers feel immersed in the game's action, but tennis is already a mostly cinematic sport as-is. There’s no need to force it like this. Challengers is a flamboyant and extravagant film, but it’s also incredibly overwrought and overproduced. While the result is often entertaining, it’s not the astounding melodrama that it had the potential to be with the talent it has in front of and behind the camera. It’s mostly forgettable, which is the first time that can be said about one of Guadagnino’s movies in quite a while. Challengers hits theaters on April 26. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
The Fallout games are some of the most popular open-world games there are, giving the new Prime Video series plenty of room to explore. There’s clearly a ton of passion from everyone involved in the Fallout adaptation — from the writers to the cast and the directors — and it shows, allowing the series to be a fun, exciting dive into this familiar world, even if it bites off a bit more than it can chew.
Adapted from the iconic game series by Bethesda, Fallout explores a post-apocalyptic version of Los Angeles where survivors have formed different throngs to protect themselves. The show gives audiences the opportunity to see the world of the Wasteland from several perspectives, but this makes it feel a little unfocused and overambitious. The most interesting storyline is led by Walton Goggins (The Righteous Gemstones, The Hateful Eight), who plays a gunslinger Ghoul who used to be a beloved television star. This storyline works not only because it lends the project a heavy Western influence but also because it’s where most of the social commentary comes in. Through this storyline, the show explores its themes of social stratification before and after the apocalypse. Unfortunately, the series seems much more interested in the storyline of the Vault Dweller Lucy, played by Ella Purnell (Army of the Dead), probably because this is the category through which most players would experience the game. Her arc is far less interesting — a fish-out-of-water storyline with a rescue mission. Purnell is charming enough but doesn’t hold a candle to Goggins.
The final of the three leads is Aaron Moten, who plays a newcomer to the Brotherhood of Steel. Of the three storylines, this one underwhelms despite having the most potential. The surface society gets far less development and exploration than the society formed in the Vaults, yet the surface is a much more interesting world to explore.
There’s potential in the Vaults — a possibility of exploring these pockets as microcosms of society — but the show doesn’t quite get there. We do see glimpses of the Vault Dwellers that Lucy left behind to explore the world, but these feel like they primarily exist to set up future seasons of the show rather than explore the themes in their own right. If this all feels a little disjointed, that’s because it is. However, showrunners Geneva Robertson-Dworet and Graham Wagner, along with the directors (a staff that includes Westworld creator Jonathan Nolan), are able to imbue the series with such a narrative momentum that it is easy to overlook some of the show’s narrative inconsistencies. And the retrofuturist world of the games is brought to life at such a massive scale that it’s fully immersive. Fallout may not reach its full potential as a thought-provoking sci-fi epic, but if you’re just looking for an entertaining adventure, the series delivers in that regard. Thanks to a committed cast and incredible production values, this is sure to be a hit despite its scattershot narrative. Fallout streams on Prime Video beginning April 11. All eight episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Robert Kenner’s Food, Inc. is one of the most influential documentaries of the century, having earned an Oscar nomination and inspired widespread change in the food industry. Unfortunately, its sequel, Food, Inc. 2, is likely to be as revolutionary — as it ends up feeling well-meaning but too tepid for its own good.
In this documentary, the filmmakers join authors Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser in an exploration of the vulnerabilities of the modern food industry, pointing out that we are on a path to destruction if something does not change. It’s clear that this, like its predecessor, is meant to be a call to action, but viewers will be left wondering what action they should take. While Food, Inc. took an almost gonzo approach to the food industry, throwing the audience headfirst into the horrors of factory farming, this follow-up is much more interested in the man behind the curtain. The movie explores some of the corporate and societal tactics that are used to essentially “addict” Americans to factory-produced processed foods. To communicate this message, the filmmakers interview a wide variety of experts, from farmers to nutritionists and even politicians like Senator Cory Booker. However, herein lies one of the film’s biggest issues. In painting with such broad strokes, Food, Inc. 2 fails to convey the sense of urgency that its predecessor has.
Every time the movie feels like it is about to make an important political statement, it reroutes and detours into something else. The food industry is a very big topic with many issues that must be addressed, but a ninety-odd-minute documentary is simply not enough to explore every topic the filmmakers want to with the depth it demands.
While the first film was, for many, an eye-opening exposé of the dangers, injustices, and disgustingness of factory farming, those who keep up with the news will hardly be surprised by anything this sequel has to say. In many ways, it feels like the movie is lamenting the fact that this is what our world has become, offering little in the way of an actionable solution until the rushed final minutes. Of course, Kenner and his co-director Melissa Robledo (who steps up from producing duties on the first film) deliver their message with just as much gripping sensationalism as before. The fast-paced editing and abundance of infographics would make you think that the message being shared is some sort of groundbreaking research when it’s something we’ve known in the decade and a half since the first movie’s release. That’s not to say that Food, Inc. 2 doesn’t have merit — its message means well, and for those who are out of the loop, it might be effective as a call to action. However, Kenner and Robledo would have been much better off structuring this as a reminder of this pervasive issue instead of attempting to claim that they were pulling back the curtain on it. Food, Inc. 2 screens in theaters for one night only on April 9 prior to its VOD release on April 12. Rating: 3/5 [Overlook 2024] ALL YOU NEED IS DEATH -- Beguiling Irish Folk Horror Frustrates Narratively4/5/2024
Review by Sean Boelman
For better or worse, Paul Duane’s All You Need Is Death is an incredibly strange and esoteric film. Although it will win over some fans, and it’s hard to deny the movie’s atmospheric strengths, this folk horror suffers from an aimless narrative and many inconsistencies undermining any of Duane's stylistic flourishes.
The film follows a couple who specialize in collecting rare folk ballads as they unintentionally release an ancient evil after discovering a long-forgotten, ancient taboo song. It’s a unique premise, but it’s not fully fleshed out and Duane’s script lacks the narrative drive to keep the viewer invested after this initial hook. Those familiar with this style of horror will not be surprised to find that the pacing is incredibly slow. The first two-thirds of the movie is spent building an eerie atmosphere, only for the final act to go off the rails. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t earn this unhinged finale, nor does it feel particularly satisfying. However, All You Need Is Death stands out from a lot of other movies in the folk horror genre because of how incredibly culturally specific it is, which ends up being a bit of a double-edged sword. While it does mean that the film does not fall back on the generic symbolism of the genre, it also causes some of the symbolism to not resonate as well with audiences who are not well-read on this culture.
The most intriguing thing about All You Need Is Death is how it uses its Irish folk music motifs. It should come as no surprise that Duane is so interested in the musicality of the movie, considering that much of his background is in music videos and music documentaries. Nonetheless, it’s impressive how Duane strikes the balance between beguiling and unsettling when it comes to the atmosphere. It uses these songs in a way that’s uncanny but not disrespectful to the culture they represent.
One can only wish that Duane exerted the same level of control and mastery over the rest of his style. Of course, some of the film’s problems, like its occasionally cheesy-looking effects or lackluster sound mixing, can be forgiven due to its independent nature and low budget. Others, like questionable framing, are more deliberate aesthetic choices that simply don’t work. The performances are also wildly inconsistent. Although some in the supporting cast turn in performances like they are acting in a campy B-movie, the leads take themselves too seriously. It doesn’t help that the characters they play are so peculiar that it’s hard to buy into anything they do. All You Need Is Death deserves praise for going to some of the weirder lengths it traverses and its incredible use of folk music, but this does not amount to a compelling watch as a whole. Still, it’s an auspicious narrative feature debut that suggests a bright future for Duane if he is able to work within the confines of a more traditional script. All You Need Is Death is screening at the 2024 Overlook Film Festival, which runs April 4-7 in New Orleans, LA. Rating: 2.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
French filmmaker Quentin Dupieux has reached a point in his career where he’s able to crank out multiple films a year, surprisingly without suffering from diminishing returns. The first of his two 2023 pictures to make its debut stateside, Yannick, is a brief but potent satire that sees him straying away from his recent maximalist tendencies without losing sight of what makes his voice so distinctive.
The movie follows a jaded construction worker who decides to see a play on a rare night off. However, when the performance is not to his standards, he decides to take matters into his own hands and demand a more entertaining evening. Shot quickly and quietly, Dupieux’s latest is the type of film that doesn’t feel subversive until you start peeling back its layers. As is the case with most of Dupieux’s output, Yannick is delightfully brief, clocking in at a mere 67 minutes in total. However, Yannick is minimalist in even more ways than that. The entire movie is set in the confines of a single location — a small theatre — and has a much more grounded plot than his usual repertoire. The absurdity comes not from whimsy and fantasy but from the frankness with which Dupieux approaches this topic. It will come as no surprise that Yannick is Dupieux’s most meta film since Reality and perhaps even exceeds it in terms of self-referential commentary. Dupieux is clearly reflecting on the criticisms that have been levied against him in the past, with the end message being that, above all else, he just wants to give people a good time. He succeeds in that goal with flying colors.
Although this lacks the laugh-out-loud humor of Dupieux’s past work, its incredibly sharp observations are often quite funny. It’s definitely a lot more esoteric than most of the French filmmaker’s comedy, but those who have been following Dupieux’s work for a while, or are at least attuned to the idiosyncrasies of French comedy, will be able to get on the movie’s sardonic wavelength.
Part of what makes Yannick work so much better than other satires exploring the relationship between artist and audience is that Dupieux does not feel like he is asking for pity or even sympathy. He doesn’t villainize the stand-in for critics — in fact, he’s the most sympathetic character of the bunch. But as an artist, he also shines a light on the artists’ perspective and the effort and passion they put into their craft, even if it doesn’t turn out as expected. Raphaël Quenard is hilarious and unexpectedly charming as the eponymous interruptor. For a character who spends most of the runtime shouting and complaining, Quenard manages to not come across as whiny. The rest of the ensemble is also good, mostly functioning to bounce off Quenard. Yannick puts up a low-key guise, but if you really engage with the film on its own level, it’s one of Dupieux’s most nuanced works. Although its focus on meta-commentary makes this a mostly fans-only affair, those accustomed to the absurdist filmmaker’s ways have another delight on their hands. Yannick streams on Mubi beginning April 5. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Created and directed in its entirety by Steven Zaillian (Oscar-winning screenwriter of Schindler’s List), the new miniseries Ripley is unquestionably indulgent but fittingly so for its source material. From the lead performance to the astounding cinematography, this psychological thriller has a lot to like.
Adapted from Patricia Highsmith’s novel The Talented Mr. Ripley, this new series follows a man who is hired by the father of a wealthy socialite to bring his son back home, kicking off a dangerous web of lies and murder. Although many of the main beats will be known to audiences who have read Highsmith’s work or seen previous adaptations (including Anthony Minghella’s 1998 film), Ripley remains fresh thanks to incredible execution. One would hope that the eight-episode miniseries format would give writer-director Steven Zaillian more opportunity to explore the characters and themes of Highsmith’s work. For the most part, the added runtime instead goes to indulgence, but Zaillian has such an incredible grasp of the cinematic language that he draws viewers into the longer scenes, whether they’re dialogue-heavy or nearly free of speech. This slower pacing is sure to put off viewers who are not willing to be patient. It takes until about the third episode for anything explosive to happen, which is certainly abnormal for a thriller like this. Still, so many of the show’s sequences are incredible at capturing the essence of Highsmith’s character and writing that it’s hard to deny its effectiveness.
Zaillian has also succeeded in making one of the most visually delicious series in streaming history. Of course, it certainly helps that the show is essentially a travelogue across the most beautiful vistas in Europe, but the pristine black-and-white cinematography was a brilliant decision, creating both atmosphere and beauty.
However, if there’s one person responsible for most of the success of this new adaptation, it’s Andrew Scott. The actor yet again proves that he’s one of the most gifted working today, bringing the suave yet deceitful charm necessary for this role. Ripley is a character that many actors have tried their hand at, and Scott really manages to make it his own, thriving in the nuance of the audience’s shifting perception of the eponymous fraudster. One of the main areas where Ripley departs from the earlier adaptation of Highsmith’s novel is that the supporting cast does not hold their own against the lead. Johnny Flynn and Dakota Fanning are fine but forgettable — especially when compared to Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. However, there are a few performances that stand out beyond Scott’s. The main one that comes to mind is Eliot Sumner, who only gets one episode but absolutely devours their part. Ripley may be a bit slow to start, but there are many gripping episodes and sequences that make this adaptation worthy of your time, even if you know the story. And with Andrew Scott bringing such an incredible version of the iconic character to the small screen, one can only hope that this mini-series becomes an anthology, as Highsmith wrote plenty more of these adventures that could be adapted. Ripley is now streaming on Netflix. All eight episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5 [SXSW 2024] TIMESTALKER -- Indie Sci-Fi Romance Is Occasionally Derivative, but Usually Fun3/23/2024
Review by Sean Boelman
Alice Lowe’s directorial debut, Prevenge, was a microbudget horror-comedy that found a cult following thanks to its wacky concept and wicked sense of humor. Her sophomore feature, Timestalker, is much more ambitious, and while it’s not exactly original, it does reaffirm Lowe as an exciting new filmmaker on the genre scene.
The film follows a woman through several eras as she is reincarnated time and time again after falling in love with the wrong man and coming to an untimely end. It’s a mix of sci-fi, horror-comedy, star-crossed lovers romance, and paranoia thriller, and while it’s a lot for one movie, the experience is pretty consistently entertaining. Both narratively and stylistically, Timestalker lives in the shadow of other, more effective movies that have been released recently. Unfortunately, Everything Everywhere All at Once becomes an immediate comparison because of some of the editing and cinematography choices, and the screenplay shares a shade similar to Bertrand Bonello’s The Beast. (Although Timestalker was being ideated before the release of the aforementioned films, it is the unfortunate victim of timing.) Lowe also struggles with the character dynamics. Throughout the movie, the characters’ motivations become more complex as the truth of their realities is revealed. Lowe certainly deserves points for the ambition of her script, even if not all of the film’s big swings pay off satisfyingly. The movie’s themes are intriguing, exploring the spectrum between love and obsession. The commentary doesn’t run particularly deep, and any subtext becomes text in a third-act exposition dump meant to pull the rug out from under the audience and ends up spelling out what the audience should feel about the past hour and a half of conflict. Still, Timestalker is very successful in its production values, especially considering that this is an independent production with a modest budget. The production design and costuming work are impressive, which is quite a feat since the story is set in multiple time periods. And while there’s not a ton of gore, the special effects, when present, are quite good. The strongest aspect of Timestalker, though, is its cast. Lowe plays the lead role and perfectly captures the balance between charm and nuisance. The supporting cast also shines, though, with a funny performance by Nick Frost, an enigmatic turn by Jacob Anderson, and incredibly lovable appearances by Aneurin Barnard and Tanya Reynolds. Timestalker isn’t nearly as innovative or fresh as it seems to think it is, but it is a ton of fun. Strong direction, good gags, and a committed cast elevate this movie — and while it’s unfortunate that it will be overshadowed by similar films that have come out recently, it will likely find a good deal of stalkers fans among a cult audience. Timestalker screened at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which ran March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 3.5/5 |
Archives
April 2024
Authors
All
|