Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (05.31.24)

 

It is no exaggeration to say that 2015’s Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favorite action films of all time. It’s gritty, succinct, completely unhinged, and once the pedal is put to the metal it never, ever lets up. With Fury Road’s relentless, high-octane pace it is a bit incongruous that the long-awaited follow up/prequel Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga took its sweet time making it to theaters, and once I finally got to watch it I was initially thrown for a bit of a loop-- the latest film in George Miller’s post-apocalyptic Aussie saga is considerably slower in a few segments than its predecessor. But once I got past that initial speed bump what I discovered was a beautifully insane film that, while not a classic like Fury Road, is still a whole lot of fun for genre film fans.

Unlike Mad Max: Fury Road, which takes place across a couple of days, Furiosa’s plot stretches on for over a decade, and this wider time-frame causes some noticeable variations in pace. The titular character that Charlize Theron originated in 2015 is here portrayed by Alyla Browne as a child and Anya Taylor-Joy as an adult, and while Browne does a fantastic job the story itself is kind of boring until things switch to the Taylor-Joy era about forty minutes in. Despite bursts of action things start off strangely lethargic, a fact that probably speaks more to the crazy velocity of Fury Road than any flaw in Furiosa.

This relatively slow first half stays afloat largely thanks to the presence of Chris Hemsworth, who gives an energetic and impressive performance as the film’s villain Dementus (if you thought “Furiosa” was the only unabashedly stupid name in the movie then you probably don’t know Mad Max). Anya Taylor-Joy is wonderful to watch as well, but as her character is much more moody and subdued it falls to Hemsworth to keep the slow parts from becoming too dull. The taciturn nature of Furiosa’s character also makes her a bit of enigma with not a lot of overt character development, but ultimately we know what we need to know, and that’s enough.

When there is action in Furiosa (and there is plenty of it, don’t you worry about that) it is just as stylish and well-shot as what came before it, a smorgasbord of practical and creative stunts that further underlines the filmmaking prowess of George Miller. True, the biggest and most impressive of these scenes is very similar to what we saw in Fury Road, but it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Furiosa is in an Odyssey that is like the actual Odyssey in that there is a clear goal that is often beset by lengthy distractions. It is big, it is simple, and it is loud—pretty much everything I wanted from a prequel to one of the best action films of the twenty-first century. If you like grit and you like crazy, you have to witness Furiosa.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is now playing in theaters.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on May 31^st, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (05.24.24)

 

It is hard to name a movie trilogy as perfect as the Planet of the Apes prequels starring Andy Serkis as monkey-savior Caesar, clumsy titles aside (seriously... why on earth does Rise of come before Dawn of?). But despite the trilogy’s conclusive ending it was always inevitable that the mostly-lucrative Apes series would continue into a tenth entry as long as there was money to be made, and I was just happy to learn that Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (maybe awkward titles are just inherent to the series) wasn’t yet another reboot. The Serkis trilogy was always going to be a tough act to follow, but despite the odds they pulled it off: Kingdom is great.

Set several generations after Caesar’s story wraps up (and no, you don’t really need to be familiar with this story, nor any or the other previous movies in the series, to understand what’s going on in this one), Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes focuses on a new damn dirty ape named Noa who clashes with the titular Kingdom and learns about those damn dirty humans who preceded them. The CGI is excellent in its inconspicuousness, and just a few minutes in I forgot that I was watching what was essentially a sophisticated cartoon (barring an actual human or two) and not actual monkeys who had learned how to talk. This also speaks to the ability of the actors, who are sometimes a bit hard to understand when they communicate in their halting apey cadence, but as long as I was paying complete attention to what was going on I didn’t have much of a problem.

This is partly because Kingdom has a fairly straightforward story with a clear goal, but it isn’t the kind of story that spells everything out for the audience either. There is some conflict between Noa and Mae, our main human hero, that I didn’t really understand until I thought about it afterwards, but maybe I’m just dumb and don’t understand what might be obvious to other people. The ending in particular was a bit confusing to me in its implications, but again, I figured it out eventually. Honestly I prefer it that way; there’s nothing worse than a movie that feels the need to over-explain to its audience.

 

Somehow Kingdom feels much shorter than its two-and-a-half hour runtime, a fact that speaks to solid directing and editing. The first half is a bit more interesting than the second, but it never gets boring, nor do things ever really slow down. It’s also a pretty film that never fails to showcase the haunting beauty of nature retaking the land that sits beneath the infrastructure of our modern age.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes not only meets the bar set by previous films but might also arguably raise it. Humanity’s future may be uncertain, but for the apes it is looking pretty good.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is now playing in theaters.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on May 24^th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com.

The Fall Guy (05.10.24)

 

Movies are silly things when you really think about it, yet people can take them so unbelievably seriously at the same time. Some people will even risk their lives to see that just a few seconds of a film looks good, and it is these lamentably ignored thrill-seekers, the stuntpeople, that The Fall Guy, a movie loosely based on the 80s television show of the same name, looks to celebrate in style. I was not expecting much from this film, to be honest—I thought the trailers made it look rather unoriginal and unfunny. But boy oh boy was I wrong, as The Fall Guy was easily some of the most fun I have had in theaters all year.

Directed by David Leitch, a former stunt performer himself and the guy behind such films as Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2, and Hobbs & Shaw, the action in The Fall Guy is appropriately brilliant, creative, and exciting, and some of it actually features star Ryan Gosling doing his own stunts, a smart meta twist that plays well with his character being a stuntperson who finds himself thrust into a real-life violent situation. I am a sucker for meta-ness and movies about making movies, and The Fall Guy instantly charmed me with its double meanings and winking references, a feat that’s sometimes hard to pull off without being annoying. It is a fun peek behind the camera (well, not the actual cameras, but you know what I mean), and when combined with a slick (if fairly straightforward and uninspired) crime conspiracy it makes for a potent concoction, even with the third act feeling a bit excessive and overlong.

But as exciting as these factors are on their own merits The Fall Guy would be little more than a blip if it weren’t for the third delicious part of the metaphorical movie casserole: The rom-com. Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are delightful to watch, their chemistry so electric that it would make me a little nervous if I were one of their real-life spouses (from my lips to God’s ears). The com part of the rom-com is very good as well, ensuring that there are plenty of laughs as you root for them to just kiss and make up already. These two, along with a supporting cast made up of hilarious people like Ted Lasso’s Hannah Waddingham and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, know how to handle comedy.

Action, romance, laughs, and a behind-the-scenes glimpse into some of the most underappreciated people in Hollywood... it’s really astounding how much The Fall Guy fits in, and even more astounding that it does each of these things equally well. Do I wish that the crime story was a little more engaging? Sure. Do I wish that it were a bit shorter? Definitely. But this is a film that has a little something for everyone no matter what their tastes, and just like the stuntpeople that made it possible if you decide to see it you will be in for a wild ride.

The Fall Guy is now playing in theaters.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on May 10^th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com

What Jennifer Did (05.03.24)

 

You don’t need to do much to impress me when it comes to documentaries. As long as they report the facts and feature subjects that are at least vaguely interesting I can usually at least stomach them, all other factors like music and editing aside. That being said What Jennifer Did, a look into the 2010 murder of Bich Pan and the attempted murder of Huei Pan, turned out to be more engaging than I expected it to be— the twists and turns in the case are well parceled out, the usual film flourishes aren’t all that distracting, and the runtime is very palatable—but just how accurate is it? That is the big question surrounding Netflix’s latest true crime documentary, and it’s an important one, if not the most important one to me.

Not long after What Jennifer Did was released a couple of the pictures featured in it fell under scrutiny, with many armchair experts and actual experts claiming that they had all the hallmarks of AI-generated imagery. The pictures themselves are completely innocuous and irrelevant to the case, only being included as a little background flavor, but their presence does raise the question of whether or not the documentary can be trusted as a whole. If they manipulated these two pictures, what else did they manipulate? Executive producer Jeremy Grimaldi has responded to these accusations, claiming that the images in question are legitimate and that the telltale distortion in them was a purposeful choice in order to help protect the identities of those who provided them, and I am inclined to believe him—why create such banal images when thousands of actual pictures just like them must surely exist?

Questions of veracity aside, What Jennifer Did is solid entertainment in its own right. The revelations are well paced, new bombshells of information dropping frequently enough that the audience is always kept on their toes but not so frequently that things aren’t given enough time to sink in and breathe. The film mostly relies on interviews, those conducted in the course of the actual police investigation and those filmed after the fact, and when it does lean on dramatic reenactments they are understated and don’t pull any focus from the reality of the situation. And perhaps the best part of What Jennifer Did is its length—instead of opting for the excessive eight episode format that is popular with documentary makers these days it drops into your living room, tells its story in an hour and a half, and gets out.

With the AI image controversy surrounding it I would say to approach What Jennifer Did skeptically, but that’s really no different than how anyone should approach any documentary. It and others of its ilk exist ultimately to tell a story and entertain, and whether that story is distorted or not is up to better people than me to decide. But What Jennifer Did succeeded in what it set out to do—thrill and entertain—and that’s enough for me.

What Jennifer Did is now available on Netflix.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on May 3^rd, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com.