Brats (07.19.24)

 

If you lived during the 80s there is a very strong possibility that you knew of the Brat Pack. A loose coalition of similarly-aged actors at the forefront of a teenage Hollywood revolution, members of the Pack starred in a handful of groundbreaking films that defined a generation, from The Breakfast Club to St. Elmo's Fire to Pretty in Pink. But apparently the phrase “Brat Pack” was reductive, and if you didn’t know that then Andrew McCarthy, himself an alum of the rowdy crew of misfits as well as the director of Hulu’s new original documentary Brats, will spend an hour and a half of your life telling you so.

Ostensibly a documentary chronicling the careers and lives of the titular Pack, Brats is much more of a therapeutic journey for McCarthy as he grapples with the label that was thrust upon him. The chip that is always present on his shoulder is the true star of the documentary, presenting itself even when it makes for awkward viewing (the interview with Emilio Estevez is particularly painful). Some of the other Brats clearly didn’t see the big deal he was making of the label, no matter how many times McCarthy insists otherwise, and in many ways the documentary feels like a thesis statement in search of validation, rather than a conclusion reached naturally through supporting evidence. Andrew McCarthy believes that the phrase “Brat Pack” derailed his career, which is, on its face, a thing that can be sympathized with, and it may even be true. But it’s hard to take his complaints too seriously when he is interviewing his fellow Brats (some of which have had very respectable careers post-80s, such as Rob Lowe and Demi Moore) in their giant, beautiful houses. Many kids would have killed to be in the Brat Pack at the height of their fame, and here you are complaining that things didn’t go exactly your way because of a relatively harmless nickname? It’s self-indulgent and, dare I say, a bit bratty.

Brats has some occasionally interesting moments outside of McCarthy’s labeling complaint, such as when the issue of racial representation (or the lack thereof, to be more accurate) in 80s coming-of-age films arises, or the discussion of the importance of music in the Brat Pack films, but these moments are always superficial and skin-deep. It always comes back to the phrase “Brat Pack” being bad, and it’s just very hard to care. To paraphrase Rob Lowe, the person who seems to have the best perspective on these things, this isn’t a cure for cancer we’re talking about here; we’re talking about a handful of classic films and the nitpicks of the very lucky people who made them. Brats is the ultimate exercise in whining about first-world problems, and this hardly makes for interesting viewing. If you’re not already a fan of these films you won’t care, and if you are then Brats might just leave a bad taste in your mouth. I say skip it.

Brats is now available on Hulu.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on July 19^th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com.

A Quiet Place: Day One (07.05.24)

 

When John Krasinski made the transition from acting to directing and writing he surprised expectant fans by debuting not with a quirky comedy but with a novel and effective horror film, A Quiet Place. Drawn to the simple idea of a father giving everything to protect his children, the scariness of the film was always secondary to the Office alum, but what started as a tense little story of a family trying to survive in a world of aliens with an intense desire to maul everything that makes the slightest sound eventually did what most successful films do: It became a big ‘ol series. Yet despite this the second film did not lose its intimate and personal nature, and the prequel/spinoff, A Quiet Place: Day One, follows suit, much to its benefit. 

Those expecting answers to just who these aliens are, how they arrived, and what their life goals are will be disappointed. Like the previous two films Day One focuses on the experiences of everyday people who know just as much as the audience does when the decibel detesting demons drop, and it never really moves beyond our main character Samira, who is played wonderfully by Lupita Nyong'o, and her new apocalypse buddy Eric, portrayed equally as well by Stranger Things’ Joseph Quinn. By focusing on Samira and her already-tragic story Day One retains an appealing heart throughout, a factor that would have been very easy to overlook for a film with a much larger budget and body count than its equally effective forbearers. 

But Day One is still a very thrilling experience, especially because director/writer Michael Sarnoski seems to understand two very important things about the horror genre—One, having a pet in the mix (in this case Frodo the cat and Eric the not-unlike-a-puppy) always raises tensions to bloodcurdling levels, and two, Lupita Nyong'o has one of the most convincing scared faces in Hollywood. Like its predecessors the film isn’t exactly scary per-say, but it is intense, and like A Quiet Place and A Quiet Place: Part II it requires some suspension of disbelief simply because of its premise (why aren’t the aliens attracted to the noises that other aliens make, for instance?) And watching the film in theaters is a particularly unique and enjoyable experience, as there is nothing quite like sitting amongst a group of people who are subconsciously trying to make as little sound as possible lest the illusion being shared be broken (I have never finished a movie with so much popcorn left over... that stuff is really loud when it wants to be). 

A Quiet Place: Day One is otherwise perfect for popcorn—a fun movie that makes for great summer viewing. Anchored by a simple yet heartwarming story it is a thriller that thrills, and fans of the other two films should definitely catch it in theaters before it’s gone. And try not to worry too much about the cat... I promise that Frodo is more resourceful and capable than most of us would be in that situation. 

A Quiet Place: Day One is now playing in theaters.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on July 5^th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com

Hit Man (06.28.24)

 

Sometimes it can be hard to pin down a film’s genre. A movie can dive into so many pools in one go that it feels like it fully swims in none of them, or it can have hints of a flavor or two yet never commit to any one taste, leaving the audience confused as to what they just consumed. Hit Man is the latter of my lamentably mixed metaphors: It’s a romance that isn’t really romantic, a comedy that isn’t really that funny, and a crime story that doesn’t delve too deeply into the law and the punishments of those who break it. But despite its nebulous genre I actually enjoyed Hit Man for the most part, mostly thanks to some incredible acting and the chemistry of the two leads.

Glen Powell, a guy who I previously only knew as the cocky pilot from Top Gun: Maverick that wasn’t Tom Cruise, both co-wrote and stars in Hit Man, and damn does he do a good job, if you pardon my French. His character Gary, a mild-mannered psychology professor with a part-time gig as an undercover agent who pretends to be a hitman in order to entrap potential customers, allows for an incredible range of people to play-- Gary himself is meek and dorky, his main alter ego smooth, assertive, and tough. Over the course of the film he effortlessly takes on other personas as well, from a Russian mobster to a murderous redneck, and every one of them is fun to watch. Powell’s acting ability and charisma is the primary force driving the film forward, especially when it is complemented by his electric chemistry with Adria Arjona, who plays his love interest, Madison.

But despite this chemistry it’s not a love that I ever believed in, and they are not a couple I ever rooted for, a bad sign for what Wikipedia describes as a romantic comedy. It’s not a very funny film either, not because it has jokes that don’t work but because it doesn’t  really go for any jokes at all. The plot that gets the characters to the expression of the “l” word is fraught with illogical leaps, and much of the conflict seems artificially generated by characters keeping secrets when there is no apparent reason for them to be doing so and lying just for the heck of it until it is too late for an easy resolution. This point of no return doesn’t happen until the ninety minute mark: Every bit of conflict up until that point could have been resolved with zero negative consequences if the people in the film weren’t purposefully trying to generate enough content to fill an hour and a half. It’s frustrating and a little bit bemusing, to say the least. And that ending? It would have been one thing to leave me dissatisfied, but it’s quite another to leave me actively disliking the main characters and wishing they were robbed of the happy resolution that they thought they were owed for some reason.

Thanks to Glen Powell the actor Hit Man is perfectly watchable and enjoyable, but Glen Powell the writer might need to brush up in his skills just a bit if he wants his characters to inhabit a believable and worthwhile world next time.  

Hit Man is now available on Netflix.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on June 28^th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com/

The Acolyte (06.21.24)

 

Nobody hates Star Wars as much as Star Wars fans. This is the unofficial motto of the fandom, an attempt to explain why complaints accompany any new release in the franchise like fleas accompany an unwashed Wookie. A lot of this is can be chalked up to passionate fans being protective of their favorite intellectual property, but there is no denying that the fandom also attracts a lot trolls that hate for the sake of it and muddy the waters when it comes to legitimate criticism. The Acolyte is the latest victim of this: currently the latest Star Wars show has a 3.5 out of 10 on IMDb in part thanks to relentless review bombing by those who have written off the show without having watched it for various dumb reasons—it’s too “woke” (whatever that means), the costumes aren’t gritty enough, the hairstyles are too modern, etc.

These bad-faith reviews make it harder for fans to criticize things for fear of being labeled as intolerant or reactionary like that (thankfully) small but (unfortunately) vocal percentage that actually is. And that finally brings me to my personal views of The Acolyte: It is fine, but it could be better.

Set around a century before anything else we have seen in the Star Wars universe (on the screen, anyway), The Acolyte has so far mostly been a straightforward murder mystery with some silly soap opera-ish family stuff thrown in (this is Star Wars… silly soap opera-ish family stuff is kind of baked into the DNA), but the majority of it is done well if not great. The acting is adequate but isn’t award-worthy (the acting in Star Wars very rarely is) and the writing is fine despite the occasional questionable dialogue. When people get in fights the action is pretty cool, mixing martial arts with force powers in a way that really hasn’t been seen before in the franchise. It didn’t blow my mind and I wish they would have committed and gone full-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with the physics-defying craziness, but maybe I’ve just been spoiled by exceptional action beats recently.

The show benefits greatly from its simple premise that doesn’t require homework to understand it, and the story itself feels less like a Star Wars event and more like a story that just happens to take place in the Star Wars universe. There are some plot holes that I take umbrage with, and it remains to be seen if the show will be faithful to the canon established before it, but the basic bones of The Acolyte look promising so far, especially the bits about family and sisterhood.

Is it a perfect show? Definitely not, but it is no 1/10 either. It feels fresh, it’s entertaining, and unless things take a drastic turn next week I for one will be tuning in to see things through to the end. If you like Star Wars give it a shot; it’s more than a lot of fans are doing these days.

As of this writing, the first three episodes of The Acolyte are now streaming on Disney+, with new episodes dropping each Tuesday.

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on June 21^st, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com/

Unfrosted (06.14.24)

There was a time in my life when I rarely had anything for breakfast that wasn’t Pop-Tarts, back when carbs were nothing more than a mysterious science word and diabetes was something that only other people had to be concerned with. But I’m not writing this today to wax nostalgic about my college experience; I am writing to tell you that Unfrosted, the extremely embellished and exaggerated story of how Pop-Tarts came to be, is similar to its namesake in that it is chocked full of artificial ingredients that are bad for you, but unlike the delicious breakfast pastry I took absolutely no joy in consuming it. 

Unfrosted is, I suppose, technically a comedy. It is written, directed by, and stars Jerry Seinfeld, a lot of lines have the cadences of jokes, and the whole thing is certainly wacky and zany. But comedies traditionally include laughs as well, and I don’t think I came close to cracking a smile once. The jokes mostly arrive in three forms—the ones that are “You know how this thing came to be? Well here’s a silly explanation,” those that are “Man, weren’t the sixties crazy because of this reason?” and the ones that are “Isn’t it funny how seriously these people are taking this non-serious thing?” None of these jokes work, but the lameness of the gags isn’t what bothered me the most... it was how each and every one is delivered with an energy that is akin to having a standup comedian jump off the stage, grab a member of the audience by the lapels, and shake them while screaming “This is the punchline, isn’t it hilarious!?” 

The cast of Unfrosted is stacked with people that are normally very funny, and all of them must have signed on just so they could have a chance to work with the legendary Seinfeld, because I’m sure it wasn’t the script that won them over. The story itself feels just as artificially sweet as the jokes that hold it up, presenting a clash between two groups of cereal magnates that I couldn’t care less about as they battle to create an innovative new breakfast pastry. There is also a mutated pasta beast, and Thomas Lennon’s German character might actually be a secret Nazi, haha isn’t that a funny and original idea? This is the punchline, isn’t it hilarious!?  

Unfrosted does have a nice little musical score, and it does look pretty with its 60s pastels and general esthetic. And I like to think that the bizarre choice of making a film about the origins of the Pop-Tart had to have come from a place of genuine affection for the sugary breakfast square. But labor of love or not, Unfrosted just comes off as a gross, unfunny celebration of the rich becoming richer by exploiting the sweet tooth (sweet teeth?) of children. It’s hard to express just how much Unfrosted bummed me out; guess I should have just chowed down on an actual Pop-Tart while binging old Seinfeld episodes instead.  

Unfrosted is now available on Netflix.  

 

This review was first published in the Keizertimes on June 14th, 2024. Visit at www.keizertimes.com.  

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.