rookie-critic - Tumblr blog

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 6 - #26-32 [FINALE]

Alright, here's the bottom of the pile, the weakest bunch of the month. Overall, a nice little bunch of movies. I genuinely loved most of them, and at the very least had a good time with most of the others. None of them made me actually regret watching it. Well... except for one...

#26: Cry Baby Lane (2000, dir. Peter Lauer)

This one is a case of the story/history of the thing being vastly more interesting than the thing itself. This was a film produced for Nickelodeon in 2000 to be aired as a part of their Halloween programming for the year. It aired on October 28, 2000, and Nickelodeon received so many complaint letters from parents saying their children were mortified by it that it was promptly pulled from any future programming and never aired again (until 2011 when Teen Nick ran the film one last time as a reaction to an online rallying campaign to dredge the film back up). If that doesn't peak your attention then I don't know what will. The movie itself, unfortunately, is fairly lackluster. I mean, it's decent enough, but it is most definitely not scary (I don't even think by child standards this would really make waves nowadays), and the acting is, well, early 2000's Nickelodeon TV movie acting. Oscar-nominated Frank Langella is in it and even his performance feels very phoned in. I'm glad I watched this for the experience and the history of it alone, but I can't recommend it based on its own merits, it's incredibly forgettable without its historical context. Score: 5/10 You can find this on YouTube in it's original broadcast format, October 2000 commercial breaks included, so if you're interested in that it's a fun little time capsule.

———————————————–

#27: Five Nights at Freddy's (2023, dir. Emma Tammi)

This year's big horror release was the film adaptation of the smash hit video game franchise Five Nights at Freddy's. Now, I am very aware of the FNAF series of games and am aware of its lore from a tertiary perspective. I've always found them to be slightly cringe-inducing and not super fun to play, but I appreciate its tenacity and willpower to keep expanding. That being said, I have always liked the character designs and the general premise of "possessed malicious animatronics." It's rife with possibilites. This particular film, however, doesn't seem to fully capitalize on any of the things that could have made it worthwhile. The animatronics are still creepy and very well constructed (they were made at the Jim Henson creature shop, so that should come as no surprise), but they don't feel fully realized. The moments they get in the movie are good, some might even say they're the best part of the whole thing, but there's just not enough of them. The acting from Josh Hutcherson and Matthew Lillard is good, but they get caught in the crossfire of the tonal game of tug-of-war the film plays. Ultimately the film's biggest issue is that it can't seem to decide if it wants to be scary or campy, and the mix that it compromises with itself on feels like its not enough of either to make any kind of impact. The plot contrivances (of which there are a lot) are ludicrous and eye-roll inducing, but in the film's defense I think the games are exactly the same, so I'm sure if you're into the games this might actually work quite well for you. Although, I have heard that fans are disappointed with the changes made to some of the lore, to which my reaction so far has been "who really cares?" All this to say that I did actually have fun with my time watching FNAF, but I'm sure the further away I get from it, the more forgettable it will become. Score: 5/10 Currently in theaters and streaming on Peacock.

———————————————–

#28: Idle Hands (1999, dir. Rodman Flender)

Good lord, what were they thinking when they made this? A stoner comedy/horror that catches just as many groans as it does laughs, Idle Hands is just stupid enough to tip its scale back towards funny, planting it in the "so bad it's good" camp. Devon Sawa's commitment to the bit is admirable, and the stoner buds played by Seth Green and Elden Henson provide all the witty slapstick comic relief you could want from a film of this caliber. It's a film that understands that its premise is dumb, and I applaud it for that, but it's filled with so many late-90s bad movie trademarks that some of them are pretty hard to overlook. Score: 5/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#29: Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005, dir. Paul Schrader)

The film that Morgan Creek hated so much that they scrapped it and re-filmed it with a mostly new cast, a new director, and a slightly altered story before ultimately releasing both films anyway. A Paul Schrader-directed Exorcist prequel sounds like it would be interesting, at the very least, and to its credit it manages to be the least bad of the four bad films in the franchise. Schrader is a great director and that can be tangentially felt here. It's a weak pulse, but it is there. The other plus I'll throw in Dominion's corner is Stellan Skarsgård, who plays Father Merrin (played by Max von Sydow in the original 1973 film) the best he can given the material. It's a rough go only because it is very middling and forgettable and the narrative is mildly ridiculous every now and then. My score might seem high, but that's most likely because I know what a bad Exorcist film looks like, and it ain't this. Score: 5/10 Currently streaming on Starz and for free on Vudu with ads.

———————————————–

#30: Exorcist: The Beginning (2004, dir. Renny Harlin)

The aforementioned re-filmed version of Paul Schrader's Exorcist prequel is objectively a worse film. It is messy, even more ludicrous than its originator, and the third act is essentially an action movie. While there are a couple of worse films in the franchise (more on those in a second), this one feels like the most of a complete opposite from the original. Taking all of the things that made the original film a masterwork and just going "but what if we did it this other way instead?" Stellan Skarsgård is still here, but he's having to work even harder to maintain any kind of credibility with a script this sub-par. It's hollow and baseless and doesn't really seem to be interested in being anything but a tepid cash grab. Score: 3/10 Currently streaming on Hulu and Peacock.

———————————————–

#31: Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977, dir. John Boorman)

While Exorcist: The Beginning felt like a tepid cash grab, The Heretic feels like a deliberate and reckless one. Coming only four years after the original, the memory of The Exorcist was still fairly fresh in the cultural zeitgeist, which must have made this sting all the more. The sound design is atrocious, with the whole film sounding like it was ADR'd by a toddler, the acting is horrible, especially when you consider the talent this was able to round up (Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, and James Earl Jones are in this!), and I think the worst thing is that it's just really silly. There are multiple sequences where the camera hitches a piggyback ride on the back of the most fake locust you've ever seen. It's laughably bad, and the ending that so badly wants to feel epic, but just comes off as cheap and bewildering, is just the cherry on top. When the industry talks about bad horror sequels, I have to imagine this is the prime example. If you're interested in diving into the Exorcist beyond the first film, just skip straight over this one and go to The Exorcist III. You're not missing anything, trust me. Score: 2/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#32: The Exorcist: Believer (2023, dir. David Gordon Green)

While both The Beginning and The Heretic made me disappointed, Believer just made me unbelievably mad. There's just something about David Gordon Green's recent horror efforts that bring out a rage in me that most things don't. The other Exorcist sequels don't seem interested in what worked about the original, they were just cash grabbing on the notoriety and acclaim of that first film, but Believer seems to have learned all of the wrong lessons from William Friedkin's masterpiece and accented them, all the while genuinely thinking they were doing a good job. The Exorcist isn't the pea soup vomit, it isn't the 360-degree head turn, it's not the heavily makeup-altered little girl. That was its reputation among the masses, sure, but that is such a simplification and a misunderstanding of the film's themes. The Exorcist is Father Karras' crisis of faith. It's him having to come to terms with the crisis in the face of the most powerful evil he could possibly come up against. It's the desperation of Chris MacNeil, a mother at the end of her rope, trying to save her daughter from something the she has no frame of reference for and no power of her own to stop. It's the sacrifice (and not the kind that's made in this trash heap of a movie), it's the compassion. There is no compassion in Believer, there is no crisis, it's all just suffering and cheap attempts at nostalgia and scares that aren't there. There are so many ways to have done this where it worked, but it ended up being so unbearably horrible that even the return of Ellen Burstyn couldn't save this (a lot of my absolute biggest grievances actually came around the time she shows up). There is no regard for the 1973 original in this, there is no attempt at anything other than a repeat of all the gross-out and disturbing things that take place in the original film as well, but as I said in my write-up for that movie, those things work in the original because you actually care about the characters, you actually resonant with what's happening on screen. You're disturbed because the movie has built a relationship between you and Reagan, and it's powerful. I will give The Exorcist: Believer one, and only one, compliment. Leslie Odom Jr., for what it's worth, gives a performance that feels genuine, but it's not enough. It's not nearly enough to forgive this sorry excuse of a movie. Score: 1/10 Currently in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 5 - #21-25

#21: It Lives Inside (2023, dir. Bishal Dutta)

The first film I watched as a part of the Horror-thon. I was really excited for this when the trailer dropped a couple months ago, but I have to say I was slightly underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it's still an incredibly solid creature film with an interesting new cultural angle to it, but that's about it. The story is compelling enough, the acting is good, and everything makes sense, but it never felt like it came together the way I think it wanted to. There's a decent amount of over-promising and under-delivering here, and I wish a lot of the themes introduced and played around with towards the film's beginning carried through in a meaningful way to the film's end, but it was still an entertaining watch with enough redeeming qualities to where I didn't walk out disappointed. It's a very competently put together and serviceable horror film. Score: 7/10 Not currently available on streaming (although it just left theaters recently, so I expect it will pop up somewhere in the streaming sphere soon enough).

———————————————–

#22: Hiruko the Goblin (1991, dir. Shinya Tuskamoto)

Tsukamoto's follow-up to Tetsuo: The Iron Man was him relaxing a bit into fairly safe B-movie horror. There wasn't a ton to this one, it's a fairly straightforward horror story involving demons/goblins and a cast of characters getting picked off one by one. That being said, there are still a lot of Tsukamoto hallmarks that keep this one going, and despite its genre trappings, it's one of the more accessibly enjoyable watches of his horror filmography. It leans into the camp of its premise (hard at times) and that works in its favor. Not to mention the practical effects work done is top notch. The creature design and implementation is so well done that there were multiple times during this goofy camp-fest that I actually found myself squirming in my seat from what was happening. It is nothing spectacular, but it gets a ton of points for being wildly entertaining. Score: 7/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#23: Tetsuo II: Body Hammer (1992, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto)

Only one year after Hiruko the Goblin, Tsukamoto released a "sequel" to his cult-classic debut Tetsuo: The Iron Man. Sequel is in quotes because this isn't really a sequel so much as it is a reimagining of the original story. Tsukamoto had become a relatively known and respected director by this point, and wanted to use his newfound notoriety to create a version of the Tetsuo story that overcame the budget constraints of the original, and he certainly did. This film has a much more streamlined plot that is much easier to follow, and it sets itself apart from its predecessor by focusing on a message about unchecked male rage and generational trauma as opposed to the industrialization focus of the original film. It's a solidly made film and its spins on the themes of the original are well-executed, but in gaining focus in the narrative space I think it loses a lot of the magic and style that made the original film garner the audience that it did. There's just a piece of the puzzle that's missing from Body Hammer, and while that doesn't make it bad by any means, it does make it a slightly less fulfilling experience, but only slightly. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

———————————————–

#24: Nightmare Detective (2006, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto) [REWATCH]

The lowest ranking Tsukamoto film on the list is the original Nightmare Detective (see #8 for the much better sequel). As I said in the sequel's write up, if you watch both films, this one feels more like a litmus test to see if the idea works. There is a story here, and it's not bad, but the ideas presented don't ever feel fully explored, and this very interesting premise is left in a film that doesn't quite live up to the potential of its creativity or its incredibly talented star, Ryuhei Matsuda. I think I enjoy this film because I just enjoy Tsukamoto's style, and I'm willing to admit my bias here, but I can't bring myself to say this is bad. Even with its faults, there's still too much about it that I do enjoy. The acting, the effects, and some of the horror sequences are so well done. This is still being made by someone who has proven that he knows what he's doing, after all. Score: 7/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#25: Carnival of Souls (1962, dir. Herk Harvey)

I was so looking forward to this one and it kind of let me down. The story, while interesting, doesn't fill itself out enough to be engaging, the acting is less than desirable, and it feels overlong even though it comes in at a short hour and 20 minutes. I've always heard talk of this being a classic of the genre, and I can certainly see it's influence on much better films like Night of the Living Dead, but it didn't do a lot for me. Here's what Carnival of Souls does right, and it's enough to tip its scales to the better side of ok. Firstly, the main ghostly presence (played by the film's director, Herk Harvey), is genuinely unsettling, and the times in which he pops up (which is fairly frequently) genuinely gave me the heebie jeebies. Literally every time it happened I would unconsciously shrink back a little. The other thing is the overall fever dream-esque atmosphere this brings. It made it to where I could stay engaged in spite of the bad acting and saved the film, for me. Ultimately, this one felt like a decent Twilight Zone episode that got stretched past its limit of interest, but I respect what it is and am glad it exists so that the things it inspired that I love can exist the way they do. Score: 6/10 Currently streaming on Prime Video, Max, and AMC+.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 4 - #16-20

#16: Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto) [REWATCH]

A cult classic of Japanese cyberpunk horror and the debut film of one of my favorite Japanese directors, Shinya Tsukamoto (if you couldn't tell). The inspirational reach of this film is palpable if you know what to look for, having been cited by directors like Darren Aronofsky for his film Pi, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, and the Wachowskis for The Matrix. It's hard to argue with results like that. I personally love this movie, I have its scant 67-minute runtime nearly memorized and have seen it more times than I can remember. However, I can certainly acknowledge its shortcomings as something that's not accessible to most audiences. Plot is definitely more of a suggestion than a rule here, and a lot of the film is spent in a state of frantic bewilderment as you try to piece together what exactly is going on through the nearly incomprehensible madness onscreen, but ultimately the "why" of it isn't important. It's rare that I say this, but I almost prefer that the film doesn't really give the audience anything concrete to go off of. It gives enough, and for the purposes of its dissection (apropos word choice there, good job, Rookie) of the relationship between man and metal and the growing industrialization of the 80s, Tsukamoto does exactly what he needs to do, and doesn't overstay his welcome in the slightest. It's one of the bigger reasons why this film works better than either of its sequels/reimaginings, and why it's so well-regarded amongst international film buffs. A short, manic, bizarro-thrill ride, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

———————————————–

#17: Onibaba (1964, dir. Kaneto Shindo)

This, for a majority of its runtime, doesn't really feel like a horror movie. That being said, there are plenty of pieces of horror in it to where, by the end, I see why it's labeled as such. The suffocation of the grass field that surrounds our main setting from all sides aides the claustrophobic nature of the film, and casts an air of foreboding over every shot. It's an interesting watch that dives into the desperation we feel when we are starved of our base desires and how that can cloud our judgement, especially in times of great hardship (in this instance, war). It's a film that leaves itself wide-open for interpretation, and one I'm still pondering over days later. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Max.

———————————————–

#18: Eyes Without a Face (1960, dir. Georges Franju)

This French horror from the early '60s is another that I've owned for quite some time, and just never taken the time to actually sit down and watch. It's a slow burn (much like a lot of these older, black-and-white films are), and there are moments that feel like they drag on for too long, but the parts of this film that do work, really work. What Franju and his team were able to accomplish with practical effects and makeup in this is exceptional by today's standards, let alone when the film was released in 1960. The acting from Édith Scob as Christiane is similarly excellent considering she acts through the entirety of her screen time with a mask on. To be able to convey emotion without the benefit of facial expressions and have it come through despite that handicap and the language barrier (the film is in French) rightfully earns this film the praise it has received over the decades. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Max.

———————————————–

#19: Ginger Snaps (2000, dir. John Fawcett)

OK, so I've seen Jennifer's Body twice, right? Once back around the time it came out (I hated it then) and then once within the past 5 years because I heard it was underappreciated in its time and is worth re-evalutating (I still don't like it very much). So with the memory of Jennifer's Body still fairly fresh, I'm just gonna say this is so close to being the exact same movie (there's obviously some differences in their story: werewolf not succubus, sisters not best friends), to the point where I out loud in the group I was watching it with said "Jennifer's Body just straight ripped this off, right?" and got a fair amount of agreement. However, this, to me, is a much better film. It has a lot of the Diablo Cody-esque kitschy dialogue without tipping into hard cringe and the practical effects work, while B-movie-ish in nature (we're never, as a society, going to top the transformation sequence from An American Werewolf in London), is really well done. It strikes a good balance between camp and smartly written horror which Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle juggle competently. Isabelle especially steals the show here as the titular Ginger, and provides a good, if not slightly caricatured, depiction of female puberty. Narratively messy, but tonally sound, Ginger Snaps deserves its status as a cult classic. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Peacock.

———————————————–

#20: Opera (1987, dir. Dario Argento)

Opera is largely considered director Dario Argento's last great film before the quality of his output started to drop, and I can see why. It has all of the things that make his movies so good: a compelling main character driven by an even more compelling lead performance, an engaging mystery that unravels itself naturally over the course of the film, and that impeccable giallo style that he is the king of. Cristina Marsillach gives an impassioned performance and easily garners the audience's sympathy. The biggest curiosity of the film is that the murder sequences, which are expertly shot and unique in that the killer always ties up our protagonist and tapes needles underneath her eyes so that she has to watch the horror that ensues, are always cut with this insane, Judas Priest-like heavy metal music playing over them. Let me tell you that the consistency with which that heavy metal music played throughout the film had me confused, and then put off, and then finally fully indoctrinated by the final time it happened at the film's end. So much so that when that final time was about to happen, I was quite literally on the edge of my seat with anticipation, because I could feel it coming, and then when it finally came on I jumped up and cheered. I'm not sure if the desired reaction was achieved, but man was it massively entertaining. It's a little goofy, but I feel like this was about as far as Argento's signature style can be pushed without being a parody of itself, and Opera still largely works in spite of that glaring oddity. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 3 - #11-15

#11: Don't Look Now (1974, dir. Nicolas Roeg) [REWATCH]

This has to be one of the earliest examples of what is now called "elevated horror." Nicolas Roeg's meditation on grief and mourning is barely a horror film at all, but an overall atmosphere of looming tragedy and one big final horrifying moment have made the label stick, and rightfully so. This film has two major things going for it; the first being the dual lead performances from Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, whom without the film's central theme wouldn't hold. The second, and arguably more important of the two, is the film's setting for a majority of its runtime: Venice, Italy. The way Roeg shoots the largely overcast, canal-laden city to reflect our central duo's grief ties this whole package together. Rarely do I stand by the tell-tale film student contrivance of "the setting is a character in the film," but here is one of the few examples of that actually being true. This story doesn't work anywhere else, and Roeg was well aware of that, and makes the absolute most of every second the film spends there. I'm not normally a "style over substance" kind of guy, but the way it all meshes together in Don't Look Now is breathtaking and heartbreaking. Score: 8/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#12: No One Will Save You (2023, dir. Brian Duffield)

Dialogue-less (or mostly dialogue-less) movies are hard to pull off. It's hard to keep the audience's attention and it's even harder to make a cohesive narrative when all of the storytelling is purely environmental. Scares are more effective when you care about the characters, and have more impact when you can relate to them. This is at the heart of what makes No One Can Save You work so well. Even if you don't know her whole story, you empathize with our ostracized protagonist, and when the alien shit starts to hit the small town fan, you're already there, in it with her. Big kudos to Katelyn Dever for bringing an empathy to this character that other young actresses might have struggled with. It makes this 90-minute game of cat and mouse unbearably tense, and I loved just about every second of it. The ending is a little odd, but over time I've grown to like it more. An absolute pleasure all around and a successful experiment from director Brian Duffield. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on Hulu.

———————————————–

#13: Kwaidan (1964, dir. Masaki Kobayashi)

I have had Criterion's Blu-ray edition of this for awhile and have just never taken the time to actually watch it. An anthology film of classic Japanese folktales/ghost stories, Kwaidan is a mostly good, but slightly mixed bag of tales, with the middle two stories (which take up a bulk of the film's 3-hour runtime) being exceptional compared to the more throwaway bookends. What this movie absolutely has going for it is an atmosphere that dares to be reckoned with and some of the most gorgeously painted set backdrops I've ever seen. The production value for a film like this from this time period is insane, and worth the watch for those alone. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on Max.

———————————————–

#14: His House (2020, dir. Remi Weekes)

A strong offering from Netflix with a couple of terrific central performances from Wunmi Mosaku and Sope Dirisu. His House is a refugee tale by way of a haunted house horror, and it's a patient film. The scares take their time to ramp up, and it makes the first half of the film feel a little slow, but once things really star to roll, I was happy to have gotten the time with our co-leads so that I had a basis for their struggles. It's central mystery and third act twist are smartly executed and a couple of the set-pieces and more dream-like sequences are wholly impressive. Glad I took a chance on this one. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

———————————————–

#15: The Exorcist III (1990, dir. William Peter Blatty)

While I'm a little peeved that Amazon tricked me into paying for the Theatrical Cut of the film by telling me it was Blatty's "Legion" Director's Cut, I still think this is the only Exorcist sequel that has any business existing at all. Blatty, who wrote the original Exorcist novel as well as the screenplay for the film, is able to nail the tone of the original and deliver a story that understands what made it work so well. With a lot of the film playing out like more of a detective thriller than an outright supernatural horror and giving us enough context around the characters that we actually care when bad things start happening directly to them. Now, it definitely isn't perfect, the plot is a bit of a narrative mess and there are some continuity errors between the two films (my theory is that they were things changed from the book's plot and the film's that Blatty didn't care to adjust for in his script), and it is by no means the masterwork that the original is, but a competently made film and three incredible performances from George C. Scott, Jason Miller, and Brad Dourif are way more than we got from any of the other four (my god, FOUR) other Exorcist sequels. I'm very interested in actually watching the Legion cut, because I've heard it's better. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder and on Peacock & YouTube with ads.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 2 - #6-10

#6: Doctor Sleep: The Director's Cut (2019, dir. Mike Flanagan)

I have, of course, seen Doctor Sleep before, but I am not labeling this as a re-watch because the Director's Cut of this film, while not really that different from a plotting/through line perspective, is a wholly unique experience to the theatrical version of the film from a character perspective. This version of the movie gives you much more context around the its antagonists, The True Knot, and it's secondary protagonist, Abra Stone, that those major story beats existing in both versions hit with much more impact in the director's cut. It bumped this particular work of Flanagan's up in my ranking of his stuff all the way to third behind Hill House and, now, Usher.

Score: 9/10

Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#7: Gemini (1999, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto)

This one surprised me by not being the kind of film I was anticipating it to be (this happened a handful of times this month). Gemini is the story of three characters plagued by their circumstances/upbringings, and a look at classism and people's desire to give and receive love, shot and told in a frenetic, gonzo style that only Japanese cult-director Shinya Tsukamoto can make work. Tear down the walls of your expectations for this one, it's a great watch.

Score: 8/10

Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#8: Nightmare Detective 2 (2008, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto)

The sequel to Tsukamoto's lukewarmly received 2006 film Nightmare Detective (which you will see further down on this list), this one makes the original look like a litmus test for the concept. A much more restrained and patient film compared to just about all of Tsukamoto's prior efforts, Nightmare Detective 2 sits in the corner, quietly analyzing its core cast in a story about misfits and generational trauma. Really, a lot of the themes and ideas presented here would be honed in on and presented again, albeit from a different viewpoint, in Kotoko. This one really feels like a turning point for Tsukamoto in terms of tone and approach. Not to say that his earlier, more frantic films aren't sometimes just as good, it's just the mark of a talent that's willing to evolve.

Score: 8/10

Not currently available on streaming (this film has actually never seen any kind of official release in the States at all, so unless you're willing to do a little swashbuckling, this one's out of your reach).

———————————————–

#9: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970, dir. Dario Argento)

Horror icon Dario Argento's (Suspiria, Deep Red) debut feature is an unrivaled "whodunit" mystery thriller with that hallmark giallo flair that Argento would become known for. There isn't a whole lot to say about this one other than this was one of the most singularly entertaining of my October viewings, and that I highly recommend it for just about anyone.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

———————————————–

#10: Noroi: The Curse (2005, dir. Koji Shiraishi)

This is the best Japanese found footage horror has to offer. Noroi is told in a documentary style, acting as the discovered footage of the final film made by a supernatural investigator that has disappeared without a trace. This was my final watch of the Horror-thon and I couldn't think of a better way to send off the spooky month, because this was one of, if not the scariest watch of the entire month. It had me wanting to turn the lights on and sleep with one eye open, and certain images from the film's final moments will be burned into my retinas until I die. If I had any complaints, it's that I honestly could have used even more, although I guess an argument could be made that that's actually one of the film's good qualities.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 1 - #1-#5

Last month I watch 31 horror movies (and 1 horror series) in 31 days, so let's rank those bad boys. We're starting from the best and working our way down to the absolute scum of what I watched, so let's get to it with the Top 5!

#1: The Exorcist (1973, dir. William Friedkin) [REWATCH]

This isn't just one of the best horror movies of all time, it's one of the best movies of all time. This film is remembered largely for the deeply unsettling demonic possession moments, which makes it easy to forget just how restrained most of the film is outside of those. This movie works so well because of how well it picks and chooses when to loosen the reigns, and when to keep it reigned in, giving a lot of the film the tone and feeling of a well-written family drama as opposed to an all-out horror. It makes other (still incredibly well-done) possession movies look self-indulgent in comparison. It's just a very, very special film that's reputation almost undermines how much of a masterwork it truly is. Score: 10/10 Not currently available on streaming.

-----------------------------------------------

#2: The Wailing (2016, dir. Na Hong-jin)

What a revelation this movie is. An intensely layered analysis of the power of faith (or lack thereof) that had me absolutely reeling by the time the credits rolled. I'm not one to immediately jump online and look up analytical articles deconstructing the film I just watched, but I was rabid after this one. It's such a well thought-out, well executed, well considered film that it's almost impossible to catch all the ins and outs of it after the first viewing. This is Korean horror at its finest. Hell, this is Korean cinema at its finest, in general (other than Parasite, of course). I didn't even feel the 2 hour and 36 minute runtime. It FLEW by. One of the biggest surprises of the month, without a doubt. Score: 10/10 Currently available to stream on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, AND Peacock (so you really have no good reason not to watch it).

-----------------------------------------------

#3: The Fall of the House of Usher (2023, dir. Mike Flanagan) [8-EPISODE SERIES]

I am, and always will be, a Mike Flanagan ride-or-die fan. Ever since I saw Gerald's Game I have been on the Flana-train and enjoying the ride every time a new project drops. Other than the near-perfect Haunting of Hill House, this might just be Flanagan's finest. The character work, the plot twists, the attention to detail, the HORROR, it's all there and it's all S tier stuff. I could spend days talking about the acting alone. Bruce Greenwood gives a career-highlight level performance in the first episode alone, and it just builds and builds to a climax that is oh so satisfying. I can't wait for Flanagan's next project. Score: 10/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-----------------------------------------------

#4: Possession (1981, dir. Andrzej Żuławski)

One of the more alienating films I watched this month, but also one of the best, Possession is a breakup film that really punches you where it hurts, and does it in a way that is almost Lynchian, but without the hallmark goofiness of Lynch's more bizarre offerings. Director Andrzej Żuławski paints a troubling portrait of a failing marriage, but unlike the shouty, Adam Driver-led divorce films of the world, it portrays more of how it feels inside, at times manifesting the destructive emotions felt when going through something that emotionally traumatic physically, and oh buddy, is it grotesque, but then again it's a grotesque thing that will eat you up if left unchecked, and the movie portrays that perfectly. This is the highest ranking thing on the list that I am going to just come out and say is definitely NOT for the faint of heart and NOT for everyone, but I found it to be fascinating. Score: 9/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

-----------------------------------------------

#5 Kotoko (2011, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto) [cw: mental illness/schizophrenia]

Ok, I'll be up front, this one is a brutal watch. This movie made me feel like I had been chewed up and spat out, emotionally ragged and physically drained. A character study about a woman suffering a severe mental illness that causes her to see threatening doubles of people randomly, Kotoko is a horror movie that is devoid of any real antagonistic threat to its central character. The only threat to Kotoko is herself, and the illness that plagues her every waking moment. It's hard to portray severe mental illness/schizophrenia this raw and unfettered without flying over the cliffside into an abyss labelled "exploitation," but Tsukamoto and his star, J-pop singer Cocco, manage to tiptoe across that highwire effortlessly, and it makes for one of the most respectful and gentle takes on that subject I have ever seen in a film. Kotoko is never vilified or demonized due to her condition and is instead an incredibly sympathetic character. Your heart bleeds for this woman, and by the end of the film I was shaking 'cause I just wanted her to have a break, any kind of respite from her warped reality. It's a very sad film, but a very beautiful one if you're willing to stick with the 91-minute gauntlet of a journey this takes you on. Score: 9/10 Currently streaming on MUBI & Arrow Video.

[rookie-critic]

New mega-post on the way!!

Hello, my modest following (or those of you that are still here after my inactivity the past half year). I am currently putting together a write-up of my thoughts on every horror film (+1 horror series) that I watched in October. Looking for it to be up tomorrow, but it might be into the weekend before I'm done writing my little blurbs for all 32 pieces (after catching myself being delusional enough to think I could start and finish that task in one sitting). Stay tuned.

[rookie-critic]

Oppenheimer (2023, dir. Christopher Nolan) - review by Rookie-Critic

A new Christopher Nolan movie is always a big deal. A new Christopher Nolan movie about the man responsible for one of the most terrifying inventions in human history? That's a showstopper. With trailers mostly showing clips from the Los Alamos/Trinity test portion of the film, Oppenheimer played its pre-release cards close to its chest. I went into the theater expecting that to be a bulk of the movie, when it's really only half. The other half, which in a different way is just as engaging as the first, is a courtroom drama concerning Oppenheimer's 1954 security clearance hearings and the Senate hearings regarding Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss' Secretary of Commerce nomination. It's a surprising move from a director that normally leans into the spectacle of things, but it's a move that makes Oppenheimer better, more human, more meaningful.

This is a biopic that throws out the guidelines of stereotypical biopic filmmaking and provides audiences with more of a character study, and a deeply tragic one at that. Even moreso, its a film the deals in the magnitude of its subject matter, in the weight of the man and the invention it depicts. The first half being about a country in crisis; a man who's been put in charge of an impossible race towards an uncertain end goal. Of impossible moral decision making and what, at least at the time, was viewed as a necessary drastic measure. The second the bomb goes off you see the change in Oppenheimer's eyes, you see him realize the sheer scope and potential doom of the thing he had just personally overseen the creation of, and what makes this film so fantastic is that it doesn't stop there, it spends over another hour on the years in which Oppenheimer attempted to warn the world of those potential horrors he saw in that moment. That, and his country, the one he worked with to win the war in the first place, punishing him for daring to do so.

It's no surprise that this film is fantastic from a technical perspective. Nolan's films are known for having gorgeous cinematography and scene work, but the creative choices made in Oppenheimer are almost worth noting even more. Take the above-mentioned Trinity test scene. Yes, the explosion is spectacular, truly a sight to behold, but that's not really the focus, Nolan chooses to turn the camera the other way. To look at the array of reactions on the faces of the people responsible for this thing. Some are looking in wonder, some are stunned silent, some look disquieted, but then there's Oppenheimer. The man predominantly responsible looks like he's having an existential crisis. Not in full blown panic, but you can almost see his chest tighten, the light in his eyes goes out, and the perspective shifts. You see him mentally calculating; understanding the necessity of the moment, but starting to churn the age-old question over in his mind: "Is this worth it?" Which leads into my final positive point about the film: it's star, Cillian Murphy. Murphy is an actor I've always had an immense respect for. From 28 Days Later to Batman Begins to now, Murphy is a presence that has never truly gotten to stretch to the full limit of his ability in a role before now, and now that he has, it seems like the world is catching up to speed on just how wonderful he is. It's really a once-in-a-lifetime performance, and it will be a crime if he isn't at the very least nominated for Best Lead Actor at the Oscars next year. Personally, I think he is currently a shoe-in to win the award, but we'll see what the typical awards-season later this year has to offer.

Oppenheimer is a masterwork of a movie made by one the film industry's modern masters, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is among the very best films of his career. Hell, it might even be his best yet, but I'll hold off on saying that definitively for now. In a premiere weekend that saw one of the most wonderfully bizarre double-features in film history, I'm glad I took the time to see both. Oppenheimer and Barbie, while at complete opposite ends of the visual and tonal spectrum, paired quite well together. If you can see both, I highly recommend you do so.

Score: 10/10

Currently only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Barbie (2023, dir. Greta Gerwig) - review by Rookie-Critic

[NOTE: This ended up being a bit more spoiler-y than I had originally intended, so if you haven't seen the film and plan to, maybe skip this review for now.]

What a revolution this movie has caused. Waves of pink, hoards of men/women/people adopting "I am Kenough" as a mantra, the Indigo Girls are back in fashion, and I have no doubt that, come the beginning of the university school year, we'll see frat after frat moving into their new Mojo Dojo Casa Houses. This film had already won the country over well before it even came out, and now that it is we're now in the third consecutive weekend of Barbie sitting comfortably atop the box office throne. Those ninja turtles never stood a chance (though I did adore that film, as well, but that's for another review). I must admit, I am apart of the wave of people singing this film's praises. It's visually striking, it's hilarious, the messaging is overt and in-your-face without being preachy, and we're seeing Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling at the top of their game.

When we start the film, we're greeted with a nod to the opening sequence of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and to the voice of Helen Mirren explaining to us that, once Barbie came along and squashed out the era of baby dolls, her existence solved sexism and female quality issues for good, because Barbie proved that women can be anything. Of course, this is not the case, and the film uses it's next hour and 45 minutes diving into the reality of the modern world through the eyes of one of those dolls. The perfect, pink-streaked world of Barbieland lies in stark contrast to the harsh realities of the real world, and our two main characters react to this knowledge in very different ways. First, we have Barbie, who reacts with bewilderment and disbelief at the idea that everything she thought she knew about the world and women's place in it was a lie, but then, there's Ken. Ken, having lived his whole in the perceived service of Barbie, is stoked, because of course he would be. Men (and horses) rule the world, of course.

Now, going down this path, it would have been very easy for the film to be very blanketly "anti-men," but it even manages to avoid doing that, instead choosing to go down the path that Ken is misguided, merely a person who's never really tried to live life for himself and more for the idea of what he should be. In that the film draws a surprising amount of parallels between the two main characters, because even Barbie goes on a self-discovery journey of sorts. She has to come to terms with the black-and-whiteness of her worldview, and has to reconcile with the idea of there being things like cellulite and aging, and has to come to terms with the fact that the world has a good fair way to go before it's as utopian as a place like Barbieland. This is all accented in a scene that's relatively early in the film when Barbie meets an older woman for the first time upon coming to the real world. Barbie has just cried for the first time and looks over to find an elderly woman sitting on the bench next to here. The woman gives Barbie a smile and Barbie tells her she's beautiful, to which she replies "I know!" It's kind of the pin on which the whole film balances. Then there's also the character of Allan (played with as much endearing awkwardness as you'd expect from Michael Cera) who, even when all of the Ken's go off the deep-end into a Matchbox Twenty, leather-clad nightmare, keeps his head, and understands the bad things about what the Kens are doing.

It's a very deep film that is presenting itself as a colorful comedy, it's thoughtful without being obtuse and critical of its source without being dismissive, and it manages to do all of this without sacrificing being a very lighthearted and entertaining film on the surface. It's all very impressive, and is only hindered by the small nitpick that, for a film focusing on how our preconceived notions of things need to be knocked down and we should all live for ourselves and be whoever we really are, it is strangely reinforcing of the gender binary. I would have liked to have seen the film explore that side of things a bit, but it didn't detract too much from the overall experience. Crybabies like Ben Shapiro be damned, Barbie is delightful, and just as good as you've been led to believe.

Score: 9/10

Currently only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Fast X (2023, dir. Louis Leterrier) - review by Rookie-Critic

Here we are... at the beginning of the end of the road. This, for better and for worse, might be the fastest and most furious of the films to date in the sense that you are being constantly bombarded with cameos, callbacks, crazy action, and cars for the entire 2-1/2 hour runtime. This means that anyone who isn't already familiar with the intricacies of the character relations of the franchise at this point will most assuredly be lost during a good portion of the film. Which isn't necessarily a knock against it, what do you expect from the tenth (eleventh if you count Hobbs & Shaw, which you should) installment in a franchise. We're neck deep and sinking at this point. Chances are if you're still with it this deep into the story, you know what you're getting yourself into and you're in it for the long haul, and I most certainly am. As a new convert into the Fast & Furious cult, I love these things. They're dumb, largely nonsensical, and overly sentimental to a fault, but those are all pieces of this messy web of a puzzle that endear the fans to it, myself included. Fast X is no different, it gives you everything you've come to love about and expect from the franchise, but as far as where it ranks amongst everything, I'd put it more towards the middle of the pack. Yes, it is very fun and I will talk about the things that I liked in a bit, but it also has a lot of issues that are impossible to ignore.

The first, and biggest, detriment to the film is the Justin Lin-shaped hole in the director's chair. Longtime Fast & Furious director Justin Lin (who directed Tokyo Drift, 4, 5, 6, and 9) takes a backseat in this one, opting to just be a co-writer on the film, and the style of the film suffers greatly as a result. This film just looks strange. Obvious and poorly constructed green screen backgrounds are used in places they have no business being in, lines of dialogue have been noticeably dubbed in during post-production, and the entire vibe of the visual style feels very non-Fast & Furious. It just doesn't mesh visually with any of the previous films. Also, and this is a problem I had with the eighth film, too, they never really give a good reason as to why Brian (Paul Walker's character) isn't there. Yes, I understand that Paul Walker is dead in real life, but Brian is 100% still very much alive in-universe, and everything the fans know about who he is as a character knows that he wouldn't be sitting by and allowing this to happen to the people that he loves. In F9, the story of the film allowed a pathway for a very reasonable and believable excuse for his absence, and this film just didn't have it. Fast X also continues the time-honored tradition of this franchise having next to no clue about how to use Mia (Jordana Brewster's character) effectively. She's almost always a part of the top-billed cast, and she's almost always relegated to a glorified cameo appearance. Outside of the first film, 4, 5, and 9 are the only ones that have been able to use Mia effectively (I would like to point out that those are all Lin-directed entries). She's an interesting character, and I'm tired of seeing her get sidelined. All of this on top of the fact the the story of this movie feels a lot like setup for the actual endgame that will happen in the next two films and not like an actual film story in its own right.

However, even with all of that, the movie is still insanely fun, and a lot of this is due to Jason Momoa. The villains in this franchise haven't ever been the strong points of each installment. Most of the time, they're are a template of a stereotypical, hyperbolic bad guy archetype with little personality and next to no motive. Momoa's character, on the other hand, has a motive and more personality than this movie even knows what to do with. He's Marvel's Kingpin mixed with Heath Ledger's Joker à la Fast & Furious and it's a pretty marvelous sight to behold. He injects so much fun and humor into the film that we might have lost otherwise as a result of the central family being split up for the entire film. We get Tyrese's Roman Pierce bringing the comedic relief to his sequences, and in the scenes that focus more on what Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto is up to, Momoa steps in to pick up the slack (not to mention the pieces of the film following John Cena's Jakob Toretto, who fits like a glove into this franchise). On that note, the segmented nature of this film is handled way better than any time this kind of thing has happened in previous installments. We're following three or four storylines at any given moment in the film, and, for me, it never once felt disjointed. We also get some classic Fast & Furious car-action setpieces (including one truly inspired sequence involving a gigantic bomb rolling its way towards the Vatican) that fully deliver on the promise these movies have set up for the fans. It's not without some heavy issues, but I gotta say, there's something about these movies that is just infectious, and even the worst installments have redeeming qualities that keep me coming back for more.

Score: 7/10

Only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Weeks of 5/8-5/14/2023 & 5/15-5/21/2023

My apologies for the review interruption over the past couple of weeks. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom came out and that has taken up all of my free time. HOWEVER, I have still be watching movies like normal, so here's a slightly condensed Weekend Wrap-Up for ya.

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (2023, dir. Kelly Fremon Craig) This was wonderful. I already wrote a full review on it, so I won't gush any more about it here, but I have literally 0 complaints. Just a beautiful, fun, and heartfelt look at pre-adolescence and motherhood. A good time for all ages.

Score: 10/10

Only in theaters. You can read my full review of Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. here.

Hypnotic (2023, dir. Robert Rodriguez) Robert Rodriguez sure knows how to write twists and turns in a plot. The directions that Hypnotic's story goes in were pleasantly unpredictable and exciting. Sadly, the film overall is very tonally uneven. It's got traces of Rodriguez's signature camp, but they're just that, traces. The movie as a whole tries to play itself a little more seriously than a plot this crazy requires, and it ends up overshooting the entertainment value into territory that feels a little disingenuous. Ben Affleck and William Fichtner, who really needs to be in more stuff, were both high points of the film, and the color correction on certain aspects of the movie felt really inspired. Rodriguez got the the look down to a T, I just don't think he quite stuck the landing.

Score: 6/10

Only in theaters.

BlackBerry (2023, dir. Matt Johnson) What an unexpected masterpiece of comedic historical dramatization, this was. The comedy was excellent, the acting was excellent, the stylizes cinematography was excellent. Everything about this film was engaging, fun, and satisfying. It's also, as a side-effect, incredibly informative. I haven't done the research into fact vs. fiction on this one, but if even half of the stuff that happened in this was true, what an absolute farce history of Research in Motion and the BlackBerry was, and I mean that in the most grateful, loving way possible. We wouldn't be where we are today without this little device, and as much of a clusterfuck as the history of it's existence seems to be, I'm glad we're here. This is easily one of the best things I've seen so far this year, and so far it seems to be flying severely under the radar. If you have a theater near you that's showing this, do yourself a favor and catch a screening of it and BUCKLE UP for a wild fun ride.

Score: 10/10

Only theaters. Plus, @prozdvoices was in it, which really makes it an 11/10.

Fool's Paradise (2023, dir. Charlie Day) I wanted this to be so great. I absolutely adore Charlie Day and when I heard he would be directing his first feature film with the cast that this movie has I got so excited. To its credit, the first half of the film is genuinely hilarious, an homage to Keaton/Chaplin-era physical comedy while exhibiting the beginnings of a biting satire on Hollywood, but somewhere in the middle of it all Day's script looses its footing and never really gets it back. The slapstick goes out the window, the comedy stops being funny and trades that in for bewildering, and the conclusion to it all ends up being wholly unsatisfying and, honestly, made the whole thing feel like a waste of time. If the second half had been anywhere near as good as the first, this would be a very different review, but it wasn't, so here we are. Better luck on the sophomore feature, Day.

Score: 4/10

Only in theaters.

Fast X (2023, dir. Louis Leterrier) I really don't understand the poor reviews this one is getting if other entries in this franchise have been well received. It's not without it's issues, as most of the FF films aren't, but it is still one helluva ride. I will say probably my biggest complaint with this one is that some of it just looks.... odd. Like the CG is whatever, I'm down with the shitty CG in these movies at this point, that's just part of the Fast & Furious charm, but there are shots that just look strange. I'm not really sure how to put it, like the foreground is at one FPS and the background is at another. Just very uncanny valley. It gives the film a look and feel to it that's unlike any of the other films, and in that way I wasn't a huge fan. That being said, the crazy car action is second-to-none and nearly non-stop, and the script handles the Family being split up for most of the film way better than past installments have with that same setup. This will most likely be my full-length come Wednesday, so I'll leave it there for now, but just know that, if you like this franchise, Fast X is going to give you everything you've come to love about it and expect from it.

Score: 7/10

Only in theaters.

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie - (2022, dir. Andy Suriano & Ant Ward) This was watched as part of my college friend group's movie nights at the request of a friend whose birthday was coming up. I've never seen the show and don't really know anything about it past what I've been told by said friend and just my general TMNT knowledge (although this iteration of the heroes in a half-shell is very different than what most people would be used to). It was genuinely wonderful. The animation was spectacularly breathtaking (seriously, I can't hype up how gorgeously animated this film is), and the story, as Days of Future Past-y as it was, felt very fresh. The personalities of the Turtles are different from the original, but it's all a very welcome change. Raphael and Leonardo are practically flipped, with Raph taking on the "big brother" role that's normally occupied by Leo and Leo taking on the "aloof and antagonistic" role that's normally occupied by Raph. Donatello is more or less the same, a genius idiosyncratic inventor, but in this version he canonically has autism, which is represented well and the laughs that come from his character are never at the expense of his disorder. Similarly, Michelangelo is basically the same as his original counterpart (even moreso than Donnie), but in this story he canonically has ADHD. All of their clashing personality types meld together so well, and the chemistry between them is even more infectious, I would say, than the original versions of the characters. They could not have nailed what makes the central four brothers work, while also giving audiences a entirely new central four at the same time, than they did. As far as the villain of the film goes, the way the Kraang (who are depicted here as an entire race of creatures) are represented here is truly unsettling and almost in a Cronenberg/Lynch vein that I absolutely loved. RotTMNT: The Movie drops in you into its world, doesn't mince words, and gets you out of there in a cool 86 minutes, and it was a stellar time. I will, without question, be checking out the show as a result. If you're the kind of TMNT fan that's receptive and open to different takes on this world and these characters, then you'll love this.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on Netflix.

STILL: A Michael J. Fox Movie (2023, dir. Davis Guggenheim) This has got to be one of the most unique and intriguing documentaries I've ever seen. The way Fox's story is told here is stunning, using a mix of modern narration, dramatic re-enactment, and archival footage (acting as both legitimate archival footage and as a narrative device at separate times) to accent and highlight the actor's life in the most poignant, striking way possible. Fox himself has such an electric personality it's hard not to fall in love with him over the course of the film's 95 minutes (that is, of course, if you weren't already in love him before). I read somewhere that there's nothing particularly revelatory about STILL, but I beg to differ. I'll admit, showing the portrait of a man's life who had it all, had taken the world by storm and was running away with it, only to be knocked down in his prime by something wholly out of control isn't anything too new. However, what makes STILL work, and what sets it apart, is that the story doesn't stop there. Fox refuses to give up. He's not fooling himself at the reality of his situation with Parkinson's, but he remains hopeful, he remains vivid, and he remains electric. Fox refuses to quit, to back down from his life, and is actively maintaining any control he can still have over it. It's inspiring and heartbreaking all at the same time, one never replacing the other, both coexisting in every moment, and that's not a particularly easy thing to pull off. I was quite taken by this, and urge all with access to check it out.

Score: 10/10

Currently streaming on Apple TV+.

[rookie-critic]

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (2023, dir. Kelly Fremon Craig) - review by Rookie-Critic

This movie really charmed me. I was, of course, aware of the book's existence and of Judy Blume in general (I had read the Fudge series of books in elementary school), but I'd never read it. So I had no idea what I was going into when I went and saw this a couple days ago. It turned out to be a lovely story that tackles female puberty, female identity, and complicated family dynamics in terms of religion in a very candid and unashamed way. It's a coming-of-age film that actually feels like our central character does just that; a year in the life film where we feel like our protagonist has gone on a journey and come out the other side of it changed. Not in some grand, high-stakes, movie way, but in a very human way. In a way that only a year of life experiences at that age could change you.

In the film, Margaret is a girl on the verge of entering the sixth grade, and is being forced to move from the bustling streets of New York City to the suburbs of New Jersey. From there the general things happen: she makes new friends, learns things about life and womanhood she was previously unaware of, has big talks with her mom (played by the always wonderful Rachel McAdams) about grandparents she's never met, and just exists as a pre-teen girl in 1970s America. Nothing particularly mind-blowing happens in the film's runtime, but the beauty of this story comes from all of the subtle changes and things that happen. The conversations with her new friends, her first crush, her curiosity about Judaism and Christianity as a result of being raised in non-religious household, and the culmination of all of these things as they shape the person you know Margaret will turn into as an adult as a result of these experiences.

I think what impressed me just as much as the main storyline with Margaret is how well embodied her mom is as a character. McAdams' Barbara Simon feels almost as important as Margaret and the story tries hard to show how the trauma of her parents affected her, and how much her and her husband Herb (a big, sweet doofus played by Benny Safdie) are trying to keep the stressors and potential trauma of extreme religion off of their daughter. It's wild to think of parents that are that supportive and progressive existing in that era of American history, but it's also a very refreshing to see an example of positive and affirmative parenting on screen. The deft hand with which directory Kelly Fremon Craig (whose previous film, The Edge of Seventeen, I also loved) handles religion in this is impressive. The condemnation of extreme devout-ism while not shunning the concept of personal faith away entirely is a bit of thin tightrope walk, but Craig and the entire cast walk it beautifully. Allowing Margaret to talk her perception of God on her own terms and the exploration of how that word means something different to everyone (if it means anything to them at all), and how all of those different meanings are ok, is a wonderful message to send. This is just one of those movies that, try as I might, I can't find a single thing to complain about. It's lovely, it's life-affirming, and it's a wonderful film for everyone, man, woman, young, old, and everything on the spectrum in-between, to enjoy. The most effortlessly great film so far this year.

10/10

Only in theaters. Also, the soundtrack is front-to-back bangers, and the costume design department on this film deserves a ton of praise, because all of the outfits in this were cute as hell.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Week of 5/1-5/7/2023

Somewhere in Queens (2023, dir. Ray Romano) This was way better than it had any right to be. I'm not sure what I was expecting from a Ray Romano-directed picture, but for some reason it wasn't this. Just an unendingly sweet little slice-of-life film that analyzes the dynamics of a very messy, but loving family. Romano, who also stars in the film as the lead, plays Leonard, a man who's always late, generally says the wrong thing most of the time, and is just kind of awkward, but he loves his son Sticks (yes, that's a nickname), and he supports him with everything he's got, to a degree of fault, really. Romano isn't afraid to push his characters' faults into the spotlight, and he never tries to excuse them, but he also never loses sight of the fact their hearts are always in the right place. Laurie Metcalf also stuns as Leonard's wife Angela, a cancer survivor and a mother who's jealous of her son's secret girlfriend. The movie is basically a 1 hour and 46 minute, R-rated episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, but honestly I'm not complaining. The format difference allows Romano to explore his characters with a little more depth than a 22-24 minute TV episode would have allowed, and it breaths life into everyone on screen. I was super impressed with Somewhere in Queens, and I actually find myself looking forward to whatever Ray Romano decides to direct next, which is not a sentence I ever thought I'd hear myself say.

Score: 9/10

Currently only in theaters.

Police Story 3: Supercop (1992, dir. Stanley Tong) I have always been a fan of Jackie Chan, having grown up in his heyday in the States, but my fondness for the actor has never extended past his popular American films like the Rush Hour or Shanghai Noon/Knights series of films. I've always known about to slew of Hong Kong action comedies he starred in prior to breaking out over here, but I've just never made the time to watch them. So, I was more than happy to oblige when my older brother wanted to come over to my place and do a double-feature night with this and Drunken Master II (or Legend of the Drunken Master, depending on who you ask). This also doubles as one of Michelle Yeoh's earliest starring roles in a film, so I was doubly interested in watching this. Needless to say it is amazing. The story is decent enough, a police detective (Chan's Ka Kui Chan) is tasked with traveling to mainland China and pairing up with an Interpol agent (Yeoh's Chien Hua Yang) to take down a drug kingpin. Sounds pretty basic, and the nature of the story allows for a lot of Jackie Chan-style hijinks to ensue, but the real meat of what makes Supercop so incredible are the stunts. The things that Jackie Chan does in this movie make Tom Cruise look like a toddler playing in a sandbox. One stunt in particular was so unreal we thought there was no way he was doing it without a harness (turns out he absolutely was doing it without a harness). I won't spoil any of it for you (even though I'm the one who's late to the party here) because, if you haven't seen this, you must. It is one of the most incredible stunt spectacles I've ever seen put to film, and hands down the most impressed I've ever been with a Jackie Chan film, and that was already a pretty high bar.

Score: 9/10

Currently streaming on The Criterion Channel.

Drunken Master II (1994, dir. Lau Kar-leung) I've always heard that this is one of the, if not the, best Jackie Chan movies there is, and it's easy to see why that's the consensus. The hand-to-hand fighting choreography is, without question, the best I've ever seen. The final fight sequence (or series of fight sequences) alone, which takes up the last 20 minutes of the film's runtime, is an absolute wonder to behold. There were things I was seeing in this film that I didn't think was possible to do with the human body that put my jaw firmly on the ground. However, the film as a whole definitely has its weak moments and parts that drag, and a surprising amount of melodrama that I was probably being played for laughs, but it just wasn't landing with me. Which isn't to say that the film isn't funny, most of the physical comedy bits land, which isn't uncommon for a Jackie Chan vehicle, there were just a handful of moments that felt like they were trying too hard. Overall it's just a more uneven viewing experience than Supercop was, but its strengths more than make up for any of the film's detriments.

Score: 7/10

Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and on Blu-ray & DVD through Warner Bros.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023, dir. James Gunn) I won't belabor the point on this one too much as my full review was posted literally yesterday, but I was left deeply emotionally affected by this by the time the credits ran. I thought that almost everything about it just worked, barring an under-use of the Adam Warlock character, and the decision to make Rocket the focal point of this film's story was a stroke of genius on the part of writer/director James Gunn. Maybe I'm the lone wolf on how much I loved this because of my bias towards these characters, but I think Gunn knocked it straight out of the park and into the next galaxy with this. It's a wonderful film about finding the strength in your flaws and imperfections and the power of moving forward.

Score: 9/10

Only in theaters. You can read my full review of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 here.

Carmen (2023, dir. Benjamin Millepied) By all accounts, this is not my kind of movie in the slightest. I've heard of the opera, but other than that I couldn't tell you one thing about the story before a few hours ago (I got home from the theater about 4 hours prior to writing this). The story is pretty basic and it definitely takes a "style over substance" approach to its visual storytelling, both things I tend to not be a fan of, but against all odds I have to say I did enjoy my time with Carmen. For one, I love both Melissa Barrera and Paul Mescal and they both kill it in their respective roles, even if I thought their romance moved way too fast to be truly believable. The dance numbers, while sometimes hard to follow the symbolism of, were wonderful. I was impressed with both Barrera's dance ability and voice, and Mescal, for what little dancing he does in the film, is better than you would think he would be. Where I think the film fails is in its message. It does seem like it touches on a lot of things that could have been really interesting (the central romance is between a white "all-American" veteran who clearly, regardless of his own beliefs, comes from a background of racism towards Hispanic people, and an undocumented immigrant), but it never really goes beneath the surface of any of its themes. There are also a handful of loose ploit threads that just kind of irked me. In a movie filled to the brim with extended interpretive dance numbers, they could have devoted at least a few seconds to throwaway line explaining some things and providing a little more context to Carmen's situation. It just seemed like there was a large section of the story that we just didn't get to see and, frankly, it felt like the filmmakers forgot about it, as well. Taking all of that into account, though, I still was drawn into the world of Carmen. I can't fully explain why I think that is, but something about it just grabbed me. I'm not sure I could tell you the greater purpose of everything Carmen throws at you in its 2 hour stay onscreen, but I can tell you that I was mesmerized by most of it, and that's gotta count for something.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023, dir. James Gunn) - review by Rookie-Critic

The Guardians, to me, have always been the MCU's dark horse. James Gunn was odd choice for a Marvel movie back when he was announced for the original film in 2014. His style didn't really fit the mold and these characters were ones that absolutely nobody outside of hardcore comics fans really cared anything about. It was one of the MCU's first uncertainties; nobody was really sure how it would play or if it would be successful, but lo and behold, it took the world by storm. Not only the lovable characters, but also the film's soundtrack, which revitalized the popularity of almost every single song on it. The characters became so synonymous with Gunn that, even in team-up films not directed by him like Infinity War and Endgame, he was on set to direct specifically them. They're a phenomenon that no one saw coming and now, 9 years after their debut on the big screen, Gunn has brought their story to a close, and man was it glorious.

I haven't fully given up on the MCU, they've shown they're still capable of producing quality superhero films a few times post-Endgame (Wakanda Forever, Shang-Chi, and No Way Home spring to mind), but Guardians Vol. 3 is the first time I've felt, for lack of a better term, the magic of what the Infinity Saga films brought since Endgame. You can tell that Gunn was fully aware of the weight of what this movie meant to not only the fans, but to himself and the cast and crew of the previous Guardians films. He pulls from his entire bag of tricks, even bringing things stylistically from his catalogue that we haven't necessarily seen in his comic-book movie work. There were moments were I had completely forgotten I was watching a Marvel movie and just felt like I was watching a really good James Gunn film. Which I think worked in the film's favor, but also gave everything a much more serious tone than the previous two films. Even with that, though, it doesn't ever feel like you're not watching a Guardians film. The characters are still the ones you love, they've just been through a lot and are naturally changed by the things they've seen and survived. That and the story of this installment requires a bit more seriousness in tone than the first two did. I don't consider this a bad thing, again I believe it's actually one of the film's greatest qualities, and it shows to the masses that Gunn is capable of writing more than just quippy, humorous characters.

I've heard complaints that it is overlong and messy, but I really didn't get that from it. I never once felt like it was overstaying its welcome, especially compared to a couple of the other post-Endgame Marvel films, and the plot seemed like it moved a very even pace and everything made sense. The one complaint I can understand, and this is mainly coming from fans of the source material, is how Adam Warlock is handled. Adam Warlock is one of the most important figures in large scale Marvel Comics conflict. He was possibly the second most important figure in the Thanos conflict other than Thanos himself, and the decision to leave him out of the storyline in the films has always baffled me, and now that he is here I am definitely confused as to why this was his introduction. He's not a super important character and he is a far cry from anything the comics have ever portrayed him as. Now, there is an avenue for him to become the character the fans were expecting, and a reason is given as to why he is the way he is in the film, but it definitely felt like an odd choice to include him the way they did. However, ultimately, this isn't his story, it's the Guardians', and more specifically, it's Rocket's.

Bradley Cooper (and Sean Gunn, who has done the mo-cap and on-set acting for the character in all three films) act their asses off as Rocket in this, and the movie gives the spotlight to a character that was long overdue for it. The villain, the High Evolutionary, played by Chukwudi Iwuji (who I think is a massively underrated actor after seeing him in both this and Gunn's Peacemaker show on HBO Max), isn't going to win any awards for "Greatest MCU antagonist" or anything, but he's a far cry from the cookie-cutter, boring villains the MCU has begun to just copy and paste throughout their chronology. His motivations are vague and never really explored, but that almost brings a weight of severity and stakes to his character and his plans that make him feel like more of a threat. As always, I'm specifically talking around anything actually related to the plot, but I don't think it's any secret that we see Rocket's origin story in this, and the entire A-plot of the film puts him as the central focus.

As always, with my glowing reviews, I feel like I haven't really reviewed the film so much as just gushed about it for a few paragraphs, but for me it just succeeded. James Gunn succeeded in putting a beautiful endstamp on his trilogy, the cast succeeded in giving these characters wonderful life (even two of the cast members I've never been that impressed with, Karen Gillan as Nebula and Pom Klementieff as Mantis, gave terrific performances), and the film succeeded in making me believe that their is still some gas left in the 'ole MCU tank. It wasn't perfect, but it was really damn close. It's an amazing final act for the Guardians, an amazing entry into both the MCU and James Gunn filmographies, and it's an amazing story about moving forward and finding the beauty in all of our imperfections. I might be biased, but I absolutely loved it.

Score: 9/10 (but a 10/10 in my heart)

Only in theaters. "We'll all fly away together into the forever and beautiful sky." "I love you guys."

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Week of 4/24-4/30/2023

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019, dir. David Leitch) This was a good off-shoot for the F&F series. The Rock & Jason Statham feel comfortable as the titular duo and have excellent on-screen chemistry, and the action feels clean and exciting, which is no surprise considering the film was directed by John Wick-veteran David Leitch, who fits the franchise like a glove. I really enjoyed all of the climactic fight scenes with Hobbs' family in Samoa. Honestly, the more Cliff Curtis can be in major feature films, the better. Idris Elba and Vanessa Kirby also make for great additions to the growing franchise. It never really blew my mind like some of the mainline Fast films have, but I don't think it was really trying to. Sometimes a movie is just good, dumb, clean fun, and that's perfectly alright with me. I just hate that this film (along with a multitude of other behind-the-scenes reasons) means that we probably won't be seeing Luke Hobbs in any of the remaining Fast movies.

Score: 7/10

Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and on 4K, Blu-ray & DVD through Universal Studios.

F9: The Fast Saga (2021, dir. Justin Lin) After the wholly disappointing and, frankly, upsetting misstep that was The Fate of the Furious, I was curious to see if F9 would continue the downward trend, or if it would step its game up to bring some of the franchise's former glory back. When in doubt, trust in Justin Lin, who comes swooping back into the franchise for the first time since Fast & Furious 6 to save the day, with fan favorite character Han Lue in tow. This is biggest, wildest fast film yet, and I mean that as a compliment. That's not to say that it's the best (that honor is still held by Fast Five), but it does return a lot of the wonder and sincerity that Five, Six, and (to a lesser extent) Seven had. Not to mention that it is the first film in the franchise to incorporate Sean, Twinkie, and Earl from Tokyo Drift into the family in a major way since Tokyo Drift (if you don't count a tiny cameo from Lucas Black's Sean in Furious 7). Nothing about F9 feels as baseline or low-effort as the stuff in Fate did. Even the introduction of a mysterious third Toretto sibling that, for some reason, we hadn't heard about for the past eight films feels out of place or shoehorned in. Needless to say, where Fate of the Furious had me wondering if the franchise was receding in quality, F9 has me just as pumped to go see Fast X in May as I was after watching Fast Five.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on HBO Max.

Guy Ritchie's The Covenant (2023, dir. Guy Ritchie) I went into this with a lot of apprehension. I was not a huge fan of the last Guy Ritchie film that tried to take a more serious approach to its tone (2021's Wrath of Man). It had a lot of grandstanding machismo bullshit that I hate to see in modern filmmaking. However, Ritchie really surprised me with The Covenant. He has Jake Gyllenhaal acting at the top of his game here with an equally impressive turn from Dar Salim as Ahmed the interpreter. While the story is fiction, it highlights a huge problem in the aftermath of the War on Terror: thousands of Afghani interpreters were hired by the U.S. military and promised special immigration visas for their service; a promise that turned out to be hollow. It sends its message without grandstanding and is critical of the U.S. military without putting itself on a soapbox. The film does tend to get overly self-indulgent during big sweeping climactic scenes and in certain emotional ones, as well. It's the one thing about the film that feels out of place, but even in spite of that, The Covenant is an excellent film and proof that Ritchie is capable of making a more serious-minded, message-oriented film than the humorous heist or caper films he's known for.

Score: 8/10

Currently only in theaters.

Chevalier (2023, dir. Stephen Williams) I'll just say up front that my bias might show a little in my scoring of this one. I have never been the biggest fan of 16-1800's period pieces. I'm not sure what it is, but something about them has just never gelled with me. That being said, there's nothing really wrong with Chevalier. In fact, it is, in my opinion, much better than the average film of this sensibility. The acting is fantastic and it sheds light on an oft-overlook but quintessentially influential figure in both classical music and the French revolution. The music is a huge plus in the film's favor, of course, and the costumes are, as is the case with most film's set in this era, masterfully crafted. I think my biggest qualm with the film is that it stops right as the French revolution is getting started and then tells the audience that Chevalier went on to be a great leader during the Revolution. Maybe it's just me, but I think that sounds interesting enough to make it's own film about. This almost makes me wonder (and I don't ever really feel this way about films) if this would have been better suited as an 6-8 episode miniseries as opposed to a film. We still could have focused a 2-3 episodes on Chevalier's childhood and young adulthood in France's pre-Revolution music scene, but then dedicated an entire half of the show to his accomplishments during the Revolution. Regardless, I don't want that to take away from the fact the Chevalier was quite good, and definitely worth the ticket price. I just think more could have been done with the wealth of untold history that exists within the lifetime of this figure.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters.

Polite Society (2023, dir. Nida Manzoor) This movie absolutely ruled. It gave me all of the frenetic energy of the best Edgar Wright films while also giving me the genre-bending and jaw-dropping off-the-wall attitude of something like Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. This was a film that wasn't afraid to go for it in every way, shape, and form. From campy-but-well-choreographed fight sequences, to plot twist that twist so hard they'll make your head spin, to an unabashed approach to a female-empowerment narrative. Not to mention a story that is very uniquely Indian that touches on the nature of arranged marriages and classicism. Polite Society had everything that I look for in a film, and is a very early contender for the best of 2023 list. I'll save some of my more in-depth thoughts on stuff like the acting, writing, and cinematography for this week's full-length, but just know that if anything I've mentioned above sounds even remotely interesting, make this a priority watch (I don't want to say definitively that this is the best of the weekend's new movies because I haven't seen Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret yet, and I hear that is pretty amazing, as well).

Score: 10/10

Currently only in theaters.

A Good Man (2014, dir. Keoni Waxman) Yikes. Just... yikes. Friday movie nights with my college friends can get pretty wild sometimes. I've never seen a Steven Seagal film before, and maybe this wasn't the best one to start with (or, inversely, maybe it's the best one to start with). Seagal is clearly past his prime here (or, again, maybe in his prime, depending on your perspective), and looks like he's constantly on the verge of passing out. His words come out slurred and mumbled like he's on his deathbed, and his "action" in the film is cut around so heavily you really never see him actually do anything. The story is non-existent and the writing contains some of the most unintentionally hilarious one-liners I have ever heard in my entire life (I'm partial to the one where Seagal utters the baffling sentence "Well, I'm sorry to hear that, because now I'll snatch every motherfucker birthday." No, there's no typo there, that is verbatim what he says. My meme review is that this is great. Real "The Room" caliber stuff, here. My actual review is that obviously Seagal is a lunatic that is just self-funding whatever production he can fart out in an afternoon at this point. Honestly, if you want some quality takes on this, visit the Letterbox'd page.

Score: 1/10

Currently streaming for free with ads on Redbox. Tzi Ma should be above stuff like this.

Sisu (2023, dir. Jalmari Helander) I really wanted to love Sisu. I'm as much a fan of mindless action movies as the next guy, but the truth is I thought it was just ok. It delivers on exactly what it promised everyone in the trailers, one-man army kills the crap out of some Nazis for 91 minutes, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are a handful of really fun set pieces and lots of entertaining gore for fans of that kind of thing, but it just felt incredibly hollow. There are no characters in Sisu, only templates of archetypes that things happen to. No one learns anything, there's no journey to be had, merely an avatar quickly making his way through bodies to get to a destination. I'm not implying that every single movie needs to have some grand, elaborate story with deep and complex characters and rich subtext or anything like that, but I would have liked at least some substance to this. There are still things to enjoy in Sisu, and from what I've read I'm a slight outlier in not thinking this is incredible, but it just didn't connect with me. However, don't let that stop you from seeing this in the theater. The cinematography and style alone are worth the big screen experience.

Score: 6/10

Currently only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Showing Up (2023, dir. Kelly Reichardt) - review by Rookie-Critic

I am a huge Kelly Reichardt fan. Ever since Tucker Meyers let me borrow his copy of her second film, Old Joy, earlier last year I've been greatly anticipating whatever she decided to make next. When I saw the trailer for Showing Up the first time I was instantly hooked. Not only was frequent Reichardt collaborator Michelle Williams starring, but 2022-breakout star Hong Chau would also be playing a role. Set in an artist community in Portland, the film follows William's Lizzy as she navigates the week leading up to a potentially career-making art show. Between the hot water in her apartment being busted, worrying about her mentally unwell brother, and an incident with a bird, the week Lizzy needs to really focus on her work is thrown into chaos.

Lizzy seems to have a generally negative disposition, even when factoring in all of the curveballs life throws at here over the course of the film. It's understandable, and there are many scenarios in the film where I was firmly on her side, but at the same time you wonder if she's too much emphasis on the negative instead of just focusing and what needs to be done. At the heart of the film and the center of Lizzy's character is why I adore Reichardt's filmmaking so much. Her characters have a tendency to feel almost too real. They're the kind of people you could pass by on the street. That you see sitting in the car next to you at a stoplight, or are even just another face in the crowd. She creates these characters that very likely actually exist and just plops them down in the world, and this allows her to analyze life from the perspective of somebody that is purely relatable. Their flaws feel organic, which makes their mistakes understandable, and their personalities tactile (Reichardt's insistence on shooting with 35mm film cameras also adds an aspect of warmth and intimacy to the world and characters). We don't see the characters go through grand, life-altering change or growth, because that would be too grandiose. Instead, we see them change very slowly, sometimes the character growth is so subtle that they're not even done changing by the time the story is over, but merely set on the right path. It all just feels so organic. Maybe that seems boring to some of you, but something about the way she weaves her stories just clicks with me.

This film also continues the tradition in Kelly Reichardt's films of analyzing characters the are stuck in some way. Stuck in life, physically stuck or lost, stuck in a dead-end town, stuck in an unfair system, Reichardt loves viewing how different personalities react to their individual claustrophobia. Lizzy has herself trapped in a negative headspace of her own design. Again, some her grievances are well-placed, but it is so all-encompassing. Everything is against her in some way shape or form. I won't spoil the ending for anyone interested, but the way the title of the film works into the overall message of taking life in stride and being there for others is truly inspired and something I didn't fully get until the conversation with Tucker on the drive home. To cut myself off from rambling any more nonsense at you, I'll just say the Showing Up is a wonderful film and another feather in Reichardt's cap. It's hard to nail down exactly what about her films gels with me on a deeply fundamental level, but I haven't watched a film of hers yet that I haven't absolutely adored. If you have the patience for a slow-paced character study, I highly recommend this. It's been the second-most fulfilling film-watching experience I've had with a new film in 2023 next to Colin West's Linoleum.

Score: 9/10

Only in theaters.

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Week of 4/17-4/23/2023

Furious 7 (2015, dir. James Wan) Furious 7 is the highest critically rated of the Fast films, and I can see why. The action is bigger and dumber (in a fantastic way, of course) than any of the previous movies, which is an achievement all unto itself, Jason Statham's villain Deckard Shaw is one of the more memorable and threatening antagonists of the franchise, and, of course, the loss of Paul Walker looms heavily over the entire thing (both intentionally and unintentionally). However, I don't believe it is the best Fast film. I don't even think it's the second or third best. The story just isn't there and, as great as Shaw is as a villain, we spend half the film focusing on problems and things that aren't him. I also was getting a informational overload in the film's first half hour. All of the stuff with Kurt Russel's Mr. Nobody and the God's Eye tech was almost too much even by this franchise's standards. So there's a give and take here between the film's NOS-fueled action and the lackluster narrative, and that keeps it from being truly great. That being said, and even though this shouldn't have any bearing on how good the film itself is, I spent a good chunk of the end of the film with tears welling up in my eyes over Paul Walker, and that final scene (as cringey as that song playing over it is) is such an expertly crafted sendoff to Brian O'Conner and Paul Walker that you can't help but feel an endearment towards Furious 7. Overall, I think James Wan should stick to horror and nobody but Justin Lin should be in the driver's seat for these movies, but Furious 7 has a lot of things to keep you on the edge of your seat, and plenty of sentimentality to go around.

Score: 7/10

Currently streaming on Peacock. "It's never goodbye."

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2023, dir. Daniel Goldhaber) I have a lot of conflicting feelings about Pipeline. On one hand, it is an expertly crafted eco-thriller with a killer score and a real powerhouse of an ensemble cast. The thrills are sufficiently thrilling and the film is so intense I was feeling the anxiety of well after the credits had finished rolling. On the other hand, however, I feel like the film's soap-box preachiness and bluntly black-and-white view of what the wrong and right ways to be a climate change acitivist are is a giant detriment to the film's overall effectiveness. I love the characters and their plight, and the actors do such a great job getting you to care about what happens to them, but I never felt like I connected with any of them in any real way. Their backstories are delved into in a very surface level way, but never enough to give you anything real. It all feels very impersonal in regards to its characters and very impassioned when it comes to their anarchic stance on climate activism. I wanted this to be a win oh so badly, and ultimately I think what works about the film outweighs what doesn't. It's just such a shame that writer/director Daniel Goldhaber chose to be so flippant about analyzing the complex nature of the situation. I said this in my full-length review (link below), but it really is a film that took a soap-box approach to a story that would have been way better served with a humanistic one.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters. You can read my full review of How to Blow Up a Pipeline here.

Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: Once & Always (2023. dir. Charlie Haskell) I can't really count this as full-on feature film, it's more of a TV special, but I had to at least briefly mention it here. MMPR: Once & Always is a pure, good-hearted, and loving tribute to children's TV series that holds a special place in the hearts and minds of an entire generation, and it captures the spirit of the show perfectly. Walter Emanuel Jones and David Yost are effortless as the original Black and Blue Rangers, Zack & Billy, and there are so many nods and references to things across the entirety of the Power Rangers saga that any and all fans, old and new, will find something to hold onto. The way it handles the deaths of Thuy Trang and Jason David Frank (although Frank was still alive during the production of this) is incredibly respectful the the legacy of the actors and their characters. Sure the effects are bad, sure the acting could be better, but that's just Power Rangers, baby. It all adds to the charm. This one is unabashedly for the fans and for the fans only, and I think it does a fantastic job. Once a Ranger, always a Ranger.

Score: 7/10

Currently streaming on Netflix.

The Fate of the Furious (2017, dir. F. Gary Gray) I'm disappointed in Vin Diesel. I'm disappointed in F. Gary Gray. I went into this worried at the prospect of a Fast & Furious film without both Paul Walker's Brian O'Conner or Sung Kang's Han Lue, but ultimately open-minded to the idea that this could still be good. It wasn't, and actually might be tied for my personal least favorite of the franchise alongside the fourth installment, 2009's Fast & Furious. The action is there, but it feels hollow. The family is there (mostly), but they're split up and nothing feels right. The speed at which the man who was trying to kill the family in the last film, Jason Statham's Deckard Shaw, is accepted into the family is unreal. They kill off a franchise character in the worst possible way, the timeline doesn't match up with a certain plot points in the film in relation to the rest of the franchise, and ultimately everything just feels like a shell. To me, Fate is a husk of what the franchise used to be, and it's the first time I really felt like Diesel & Co. were just ticking the boxes they felt they needed to tick to make something relatively entertaining. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of genuinely entertaining moments (the Shaw baby fight scene immediately comes to mind), but that's all they are; set pieces in a larger narrative that lacks both the punch and the sentiment held by almost every other film in this franchise.

Score: 5/10

Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and on 4K, Blu-ray & DVD through Universal Studios.

Showing Up (2023, dir. Kelly Reichardt) There is just a magic to the films of Kelly Reichardt that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's that her characters all feel very lived in and natural, like they're all people you could bump into as you walk down the street, or the people you pass by in the supermarket while you're grocery shopping and silently wonder what else they must have going on that day. Maybe it's her ability to create so much meaning out of something so unglamorously ordinary, or to use the mundanity of these situations to weave a simple tale with a simple, but profound message. Maybe it's a mixture of all of these things. Whatever it is, it works on every level for me. If you couldn't tell, I loved Showing Up. It's a small movie about Lizzie, a very talented small-town indie artist played wonderfully by Michelle Williams, who seems to be born with endless bad luck, and with a massively worrying personality, to boot. Lizzie is in a bad mood most of the time, and has a negative reaction to most things and just a very negative disposition, in general. Some of these things are justifiably frustrating, but some of them aren't. It's a testament to Williams' portrayal of Lizzie and Reichardt's writing and direction that this character, that I would normally find unendingly insufferable, is actually quite relatable, in a way. Reichardt manages to make Lizzie an empathetic character in spite of her sullenness, because we've all been there. We've all had our off weeks where we in crunch mode, we have a deadline, and everything seems to be going wrong. We say and do things we don't mean and wouldn't normally say. We're irritable, we're negative, and we become a person that's not in line with our normal selves. Reichardt never has to spell this out for us. She merely opens the window on the lives of these people and lets our own life experiences make the connections for her. It's astonishing how well-written Showing Up is for how small-scale its ambitions are and how simple the message of not letting things get to you is. I left the theater feeling very fulfilled, and Showing Up is most definitely sitting up at the top of this year's ranking so far with Colin West's Linoleum.

Score: 9/10

Currently only in theaters.

A Wounded Fawn (2022, dir. Travis Stevens) This is the first Shudder original I've ever watched, and it did not disappoint. Recommended as something to watch for the movie night I participate in with my college friends by Tobasia Griffiths, I wasn't really expecting much from this. It looked, on the surface anyway, to be a B-movie-esque, abstract slasher film, but it ended up being so much more. I'll be honest, the first act is very clunky, poorly acted, and semi-generic, but there is a second act twist that completely turns the film around, and makes it an effective subversion of the genre and a potent analysis on the personalities of serial killers (male serial killers, specifically) that feel the compulsive need to murder women, and uses Greek mythology (specifically the mythology surrounding the Wrath of Erinyes and the Furies) to tell its tale. It's an inspired and original choice that definitely went over my head at first, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, all the same. I just wish the first act had been better, then this would have easily been an 8, possibly even a 9, out of 10. Any horror-head or fan of Greek/Roman mythology should check this one out. A deceptively good time.

7/10

Currently streaming on AMC+ & Shudder.

Evil Dead Rise (2023, dir. Lee Cronin) When I think of horror franchises that don't have a weak entry, Scream is my obvious first thought. Those that read my reviews regularly shouldn't be surprised by that because I talk about it constantly. However, what might surprise you (because it sure did surprise me) is that I feel the same way about Evil Dead. All four of the previous Evil Dead films have been stellar. Even the 2013 remake, which swapped out the gonzo camp of the first three installments for a more brutal, buckets-of-gore approach, was shockingly fantastic for a horror remake. Now we can add Evil Dead Rise to the ranks, because this rocked. It has all of the stomach-churning, curl-into-a-ball-and-die body horror we've all come to expect from this franchise, and the story and characters are tightly written with clear motivations and personalities that stand out and make sense. It's not necessarily groundbreaking and isn't doing anything to reinvent the genre or even the franchise, but it takes it's predecessors formulas and uses them to its own great effect, and provides a whole hell of a lot of bloody, brutal, amazing entertainment along the way. You'll cheer, you'll cringe, you'll laugh, you'll look away in terror, it's all there, and it's all great (if you like this kind of thing, naturally).

Score: 8/10

Currently only in theaters.

Beau Is Afraid (2023, dir. Ari Aster) Ugh, how exhausting. I really want to keep giving Ari Aster chances, because I think Hereditary is one of the better modern horror films out there, but if his next film is anything like the simultaneously heavy-handed and incoherent mess that is Beau Is Afraid, I'm writing him off as a one-hit wonder (I wasn't a huge fan of Midsommar, either). A combination of all the worst qualities of a Cronenberg film and a Lynch film, Aster has made a three-hour Odyssey tale that manages to only become more confounding and jarringly incomprehensible as it goes on. If he's not already, I really think Ari Aster should seek therapy, because if making a film like Midsommar is how he deals with a breakup, and making a film like this is how he deals with unresolved childhood trauma, then he has problems that go way beyond the healing power of artistic expression. There were moments that I felt like I was actually starting to enjoy myself. Actually, there was a good hour of the film's unbearable three-hour runtime where I really felt like Aster was approaching something faintly resembling a point, but then he tanks it with something bizarre and, pardon my bluntless, just fucking stupid. There are decent short films embedded within this film, but none of them connect in any way that would make sense to anyone but Aster. Most of the film just feels like you're watching only half a conversation that Aster is having with himself, and it's so long-winded and emotionally hollowing that, by the end, I just didn't care anymore. As much I didn't like this film, though, I do have to give it up to Joaquin Phoenix and Patti LuPone for making the best of a bad situation in their performances. I can't lay any of the blame for this film's shortcomings at their feet. That all falls on Aster. This has been the first time in awhile I have felt like a movie has wasted my time, and it makes me kind of angry to think about it.

Score: 3/10

Currently only in theaters.