Sonic the Hedgehog 3

Grade: A

(Note: This review will briefly discuss an element in the movie that has already been shown through a lot of promotional material. However, said element is kept a mystery for a little bit of the film and if you're coming in completely cold turkey to this, you may want to avoid this review if you want to be completely surprised).

In the third Sonic the Hedgehog movie, Sonic (voiced by Ben Schwartz) and friends must confront the mysterious and dangerous Shadow the Hedgehog (Keanu Reeves) who is angry at the world.

3 differentiates itself from the last two movies by being the franchise's Empire Strikes Back. This is noticeably darker and contains more mature, tragic elements. (Since the movie features Shadow, they drew a lot of the story from his premiere game which had his origin story Sonic Adventure 2, one of the most serious games in the franchise. Yes, there are more serious Sonic games).  This culminates in a touching and well told story about loss and about how we deal with our past. 

Using the Sonic games anti-hero Shadow was always going to be a bit of a risk as they had just already used an equally fast rival to Sonic in the form of Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba) in Sonic the Hedgehog 2. Of course there was the risk of Shadow being just more of the same, but he manages to feel fresh. Whereas Knuckles was goodhearted but misguided and had a silly side to him, Shadow is bitter and angry and is played completely straight. He works as a great opposite to Sonic. He's also a boss when he fights, being faster than Sonic and friends and has a wider skill set than them, featuring some style of fights that haven't been done before.

As much as I've talked about the darker elements, that's not to say this movie doesn't have jokes. Honestly the more serious parts and the humor manage to coexist really well. That all having been said, I did think they could've cut down on a few of Sonic's snarky lines.

The whole story culminates in the most impressive final battle in the series. It knocks the other two out of the park as it goes full EPIC.

Admittedly due to the movie being plot heavy and having a lot of characters, some scenes and elements felt like they were sped through too quickly. Also, some of the human characters from the previous films don't have much screen time. (I know some people complain about them, but I like 'em).

Shapiro remains a great casting choice as Sonic. He's an expert of displaying bravado in a fun manner, but when it comes the time for Sonic's more emotional side, he's able to pivot so easily. 

Yes, Jim Carrey as Sonic's enemy Dr. Ivo Robotnik, and this time also playing his grandfather Prof. Gerald Robotnik, continues to be one of the highlights with his comic performance. I was worried that Gerald would be played too similarly to his grandson, and while there are similarities between the two, the guy really feels like a separate person. While in the previous, Robotnik has basically been played as a cartoon villain, this movie dives into his past and what makes him tick, and for the first time Carry gets some more dramatic material, and he really manages to knock it out of the park. (Given that in the past Carry hadn't been a fan of making sequels and that he'd said recently that he was planning to retire, the script here makes it completely obvious why he decided to come back as it gave him more to do).

Highly recommended. Director Jeff Fowler and his writers have reached that extremely rare achievement where all three films in a trilogy are good and there is no quality degradation. 3 manages to be as good as its predecessors but in a different way. 

Y2K

Grade: B

SNL alumni Kyle Mooney's directorial takes place on New Year's Eve 1999. In this alternate reality, Y2K wasn't fixed in time and electronical devices start attacking and killing people. The movie follows unpopular teen Eli (played by It's Jaeden Martell) as he tries to survive the night. 

The movie is fairly funny, has some surprisingly well-written character progression with a couple supporting characters, and a couple of moments that really take you by surprise. This was clearly made on the cheap, but the mostly practical electronics effects look good.

The first half is really well-paced and moves quickly. However, the plot slows down for the second half, and a few of the dialogue exchanges really feel like they could've been cut down and cause you to lose your enthusiasm a little.

Eli's goal of landing the popular girl is a pretty basic high school comedy storyline that we've all seen before. I honestly wished they'd gone with another scenario for this premise. 

The best performances in this are the supporting players. Mooney plays a druggie DVD rental clerk, and he's good with making fun of laid back 2000's-personalities. Hunt for the Wilderpeople's Julian Dennison as Eli's best friend brings the same loud personality he's known for being good at. Yeah, it's nothing new, but he still has one of the best scenes in the movie. The actors who took me most by surprise are Chilling Adventures of Sabrina's Lachlan Watson and Tales from the Loop's Daniel Zolghadri as a couple of rap enthusiasts with differing philosophies (mainstream vs. non-commercial). 

Not particularly recommended one way or another. Some will have genuine fun while others may be bored with the second half or Mooney's over-reliance on references to the 2000's rap/rock scene.

Hot Frosty

Grade: B-

In this new Netflix Hallmark-esque romcom, a snow sculpture named Jack (played by Schitt’s Creek’s Dustin Milligan) is brought to life by a magic scarf and falls in love with the widowed Kathy (Mean Girls’ Lacey Chabert).

This movie has garnered itself a bit of attention with its basic premise of what if Frosty the Snowman was hot (and heterosexual and bi ladies and gay and bi men, the advertising is not false; you briefly see Milligan shirtless, and he does not skip gym day). Writer Russell Hainline (who has 3 different Xmas romcoms made from his scripts this year; good for him) runs with this silly idea with a decent script by the standards of these of these films.

The romance is standard, but the script is having more fun than you would expect. Honestly, Jack’s interactions with the local townsfolk are more entertaining than his courtship of Katie. 

There is more comedy than expected with one joke that made me chuckle a little. They hired a couple of comedy veterans to play the comic relief: The Office’s Craig Robinson and Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s Joe Lo Truglio as the town’s ego-driven sheriff and simple-minded deputy, respectively. They really are the most entertaining part as they do the most with their characters and have the best delivery.

Milligan was prime casting: a handsome guy who knows how to do comic delivery. Chabert, however, is just okay, doing a basic performance.

Kinda recommended, if you don’t like Hallmark-style films at all, this will not do much to change that, but I do feel it is stronger faire for what it is, and effort was put into the setting and humor.

Red One

Grade: B+

In this new Christmas movie, Santa Claus (played by J.K. Simmons) is kidnapped. His bodyguard Callum Drift (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) is forced to team up with underworld tracker Jack O'Malley (Captain America's Chris Evans), who was used to locate Santa’s location, to find him.

This is sort of like the movie Constantine. It sounds like a concept that will be done in a very basic manner, but you are surprised to find out that the directors/writers put more effort into it than expected.

Director Jake Kasdan, who directed the recent Jumanji movies, brings the kind of energy he brought in those. The action scenes are well choreographed, and the movie is well placed. Also, the build up to final bad guy is built up to surprisingly well.

More importantly, it feels like Kasdan and the writers had fun with the idea of juxtaposing an action/spy movie with a Christmas movie, with ideas that could've been too obvious in theory that work in practice. What I liked best about this is that instead of going with a more colorful children's type of film, that could've had candy cane fighting staffs, a Santa's village with bright colors and traditional-looking elves in security outfits, this feels a lot more inspired by classical/mythological Christmas that's been getting more popular with the spread of Krampus. I appreciate that this includes a Christmas-related folkloric being that hasn't really been given emphasis in film before, and not just go with only Krampus again (there are actually a lot of other anti-Clauses and other Christmas-related figures throughout world history than you think; Alsac Lorraine has Hans Trapp, a scarecrow that eats children, for instance. No, he isn't in this. Yes, I'd like to see that one day, too).

The "guy-on-the-naughty-list-finds-his-Christmas-spirit-and-his-humanity-again" has been done plenty of times, and I cannot lie that Jack's character progression isn't the most obvious and least entertaining part of this, but I do give the writers credit for realizing that. Red One is kind of the movie Chef in that the redemption story is lean and mean and doesn't bog itself down with obvious "the-character-has-briefly-turned-away-from-what-he-has-learned" tropes. Also, Callum as Jack's conscious honestly gets through to him using some discussions that haven't been done in these films before.

Evans is a highlight of this, as he’s always good at playing the cocky guy. It is also appreciated that while he’s a criminal, they do make him three-dimensional enough and his apathy understandable instead of an over-the-top Ebenezer Scrooge-type.

Johnson on the other hand doesn’t fair as well. He’s being “serious Rock” here and not “charismatic Rock”. He feels wasted, and also it feels a little odd that his character, for a morally good person, is so unpractically aggressive and threatening to Jack, before he even has the chance to refuse to spill information.

The best part of this is the look. The movie’s takes on Santa’s sled and the reindeer are solid reinventions. (Not loving the elves, but it is a choice, and I give the filmmakers props for trying something new). Going back to this being more mythological Christmas-inspired. This has one of the most traditionally cozy-looking Santa villages (remember when they used to make Christmas-themed buildings for model trains? It is like that), and honestly I feel it is one of the best renditions.

The editing can be a little choppy at times, but it isn’t a deal breaker.

Recommended. Admittedly, having to go through the “message-of-the-film” moments again may kill the rewatch value, but this is a fun time. If you liked the recent Jumanji movies, you will probably like this.

Gladiator II

Grade: B-

In this sequel to the 2000 hit, Lucius (played by Paul Mescal), now grown up, is captured and sold into slavery as a gladiator after his wife is killed and his city conquered by the Roman Empire. Like Maximus before him, Lucius vows revenge.

The movie starts slow for the first two-thirds. It also feels like it's copying plot points too much from the first, such as the enslaving, the political intrigue against the current ruler, and especially the wife death, which just feels a little like a cheap trope the second time around and a little misogynistic that you need to kill a woman to spur a man's storyline. (When Casino Royale came out we were like "Oh, a Bond girl death. It's been a while". When Quantum of Solace came out we were like "Oh, the Bond girl death again, well it's still kinda effective". When Skyfall came out we were like, "Seriously? This one went real nihilistic, man".)

This felt rather like Gladiator-light, as the events don't feel quite as grounded as the original. Characterization is not as strong. Lucius' fellow gladiators do not get a lot of screen time and there is not a natural time line of them warning up to him, they just start working with him. (Also, the movie makes a mistake of having Lucius interacting with few people he likes and too many people he has got a beef with. I like Lucius, but he could have been given more time to really shine as a leader and a person people will follow.)  

Some of the deaths feel like overkill as well. Plus, this goes for the "ending of the last film meant nothing and things went bad" trend that a lot of sequels made decades after their predecessors have been doing. You know that you can have characters doing alright and then set up a new threat/conflict, right?

But there are also some good ideas, lines, and moments in this sprinkled througout. This is a Ridley Scott movie, and though I would not say this is the best of his in terms of visuals, they have been his strong point and he he will catch your eye at times, including some creative kills. A great idea is to have this Rome be more of a fancy-looking, corrupt decadent type of Rome.

It is when the third act comes and everything comes to a head, and we do not have to wait anymore, that things get interesting. Some of the best parts are here including some legitimate surprise moments (including one truly earned scene of melodrama) and the type of epic final battle that the audience wants to see. Though the movie starts out like the original, it definitely tries something different here.

The best part hands down is Denzel Washington's character of Macrinus, the gladiator owner who purchased Lucius and a master schemer who climbed up the ladder from the bottom. He gets the best lines and Washington gives one of the liveliest performances he's ever given in a style I dub "restrained flamboyance". His body language is killing it here.

Mescal is no Crowe (though, the script is not giving him any favors), but he ain't half bad. The character of Lucius is a little dull at first, but Mescal gets a chance to show his ability as the angrier and fed up he gets. You're rooting for Lucius as he wants to burn all the awfulness he encounters to the ground.

Though I felt the emperor in the last film was a little overwrought, he had better characterization than the twin emperors here. They given could have been given more backstory, personality, and stuff to do, but, as spoiled/foppish sort of rulers, they definitely have some fun scenes. All credit should be given to Fred Hechinger as Emperor Caracalla, the more juvenile of the duo. He IS the character, providing some great facial work.

Pedro Pascal is the head general of Rome, and I am sad to say that this is one of his less impressive performances. He feels so low-energy throughout most of this film.

A light recommendation. It is not as strong as the original, but when it works it works, and I truly enjoyed the finale. Honestly, some will find this too long and a little dull, while others will enjoy the action and grandeur of this all, and I feel a lot of Gladiator fans may be more forgiving of this than me (I honestly did not love the original as much as some).

Time Cut

Grade: B

In this new Netflix movie, smart high school student Lucy (played by Outer Banks' Madison Bailey) happens across a time machine and is sent back twenty years ago to a before Summer (Ginny & Georgia's Antonia Gentry), the sister she never knew, and her friends were murdered by a serial killer.

There are going to be the natural comparisons to last year's Totally Killer, given that they have similar concepts (also it's super weird that the killers' masks look alike), but it appears that production on this film actually started first. Just one of those X-Men/Doom Patrol parallel ideas at the same time situation.

I admit that Totally Killer was more entertaining and had a better cast, but I felt this had the more interesting story. TC does some stuff I haven't seen done before with a "someone-travels-back-in-time-and-meets-their-younger-family" story. We've seen people interact with their parents as teens and learn more about them stories, but meeting a sibling you never knew is one I haven't really encountered. The relationship between the two sisters with contrasting personalities and personal problems, but they also work well off of each other, is really the backbone of this.

I'm pleased with the killers' identity. This isn't one of those movies where the killer is too obvious or the movie is forcing on one suspect so hard that it's obvious a red herring.

This is probably more for time travel fans than horror ones. This honestly feels at times more like suspense than slasher. Totally Killer, which was also a comedy, actually had more slasher action in it.

Recommended. I know this has been critically panned, but I felt it had a solid story and characters with some interesting ideas.

Here

Grade: A

Here based on the magazine strip turned graphic novel by Richard McGuire is shot from the exact same angle and follows a spot of land and the house that is eventually built on it throughout history with emphasis on said house and the marriage of occupants Richard (played by Tom Hanks) and Margaret (Robin Wright). 

In recent years, Zemeckis' films have been more hit or miss and the last few in particular haven't been well accepted, but I felt this was a real return to form. It honestly feels like an old-school feel-good drama. Admittedly, some may feel the movie to be a bit maudlin, especially by today's more cynical standards, and the main sources of conflicts in Richard and Margaret's stories respectively may not feel quite like how these circumstances would play out in real life, but honestly this was still an entertaining slice-of-life film.

The slipping between timelines and the various vignettes is what really makes it work. You ever seen an educational video or animatronic performance at Disney World (World of Tomorrow is the best example)? It has that kinda feel, with sort of a lets have fun with the presentation kind of way. The stories work, heck most of the shorter ones are actually more interesting than the main story.

Zemeckis' does a solid job of transitioning between time periods, often in a way where things don't all change at once, and incorporates panels, being reminiscent of the format of the original comics. Hearing the basic description of this, you wouldn't think this would be fancy-looking giving the limited locations, but a lot of effort was put into making the background look like the appropriate time periods. The set design and props are also pretty effective at selling the era.

The deaging technology works really well and usually only seems odd if you're  specifically focusing on it. Zemeckis makes the wise choice of avoiding having the characters close up to the camera too often. I wished the movie had used makeup for old age instead of digital effects. There is a couple usages of that where it feels the most fake.

Hanks and Wright, not surprisingly, are solid. Yeah, Hanks does sound a little old if you listen to him long enough, but I did feel he intentionally put more energy into his younger performance. Wright manages to not sound old when playing her younger self. Honestly, some of the supporting actors here are even more entertaining. Paul Bettany as Richard's father gives a particularly lively and multifaceted performance.

The music didn't work for me. It was too 90's light-hearted and didn't feel like it appropriately fitted certain scenes.

Recommended. I know a lot of critics don't like this, and not to say there are no valid criticisms about the main story, but I thought this was a sincerely emotional, impressive, entertaining, and unique work.

Mr. Crocket

6/10 

In this Hulu full-length adaptation of the short Bite Size Halloween episode of the same name, the newly widowed Summer (played by Grey's Anatomy/Hunters' Jerrika Hinton), finds an old VHS copy of a kids' show starring Mr. Crocket (Godfather of Harlem's Elvis Nolasco). However, there's something not quite right about the show and its host and the grasp they have on Summer's son Major (Ayden Gavin). 

The best part of this is the titular Mr. Crocket. Nolasco delivers quite a performance and brings us an unsettling character. It's hard to put into words what makes Crocket scary. I guess it is sort of the fact that he feels like someone who has a figurative mask on over what he really is, but the mask has partially slipped off, and he's not putting it back on; often never playing the character as full psychotic or full his show persona. Crocket feels like that person you met in real life that had some red flag issues if they had the power to do whatever they wanted.

Crockett's playhouse and his "pals" are distinct-looking and pretty freaky. The pals in particular are straight up nightmare-fuel.

However, the script never feels like it reaches its full potential, making decisions that don't quite work. (Also, doesn't help that due to the, I assume, low budget, that there are not a lot of extras around making the world feel desolate.) 

The biggest issue here being the relationship between Summer and her son. Yeah, the mother and her child having difficulty dealing with the loss of a loved one storyline is well known and tried, but this oddly fails the formula. One could give the movie props for not being cookie cutter, but the storyline does not work. Major is portrayed as just too unlikable. Yeah, he just lost his dad, but the movie never shows like he was what before hand or any positive qualities whatsoever. Major feels more like a damaged child in real life that requires a fair amount of therapy. One could credit the movie for treating the topic more seriously, but this feels more like a topic that should've been in an A24 atmospheric horror movie, not one with an over-the-top murderous kids' show host.

Partially recommended. Lots of people will be into Crocket and his world, but others will just be bummed by the story.

Haunted Wedding

6/10

In this recent Hallmark Halloween entry, ghost hunters Jane (played by Pretty Little Liars' Janel Parrish), the more science-focused one, and Brian (Shadowhunters' Dominic Sherwood), the more spiritual-focused one, are getting married at a hotel. At said hotel, they encounter Angelique (Cassandra Potenza), a ghost pining over her one true love tragically separated by fate. Jane and Brian decide to help reunite them.

This is a Hallmark movie and fine for what it is. They're simple comfort food and not trying to be high art, and this is exactly what these movies' audience want them to be. The plot isn't complex, but it doesn't quite feel like it's coasting. There are some decent jokes and lines in this, and the writers felt like they took their job seriously. (I mean by Hallmark standards. I kinda love the fact that once the ghost hunters find true evidence of the paranormal for the first time, they don't try studying it at all. Absolutely, no use of scientific equipment or recording anything. They just immediately decide to help Angelique 'cuz the power of love.) Overall, the dialogue, acting, and script all have a good-natured feel to it.

Best performance is definitely Parrish whose Jane is fairly driven and empathetic. Sherwood brings a sort of likeable quasi-dorkiness to the role. Though, a lot of this movie is Angelique being ticked off or feeling sorry for herself (I also kinda like the fact that Angelique is just kinda peeved at the couple most of the time, even though they're trying to help her), Potenza makes it work. No one's trying to win an Oscar in these movies, but I felt that Lauren Cochrane as Jane's best friend was sorta stale.

Recommended if you like Hallmark movies. It's an alright way to spend time where you know you're watching something safe that won't mess with your expectations or require a lot of involvement. Most of the people behind this felt like they were game. I checked and, surprisingly, Hallmark hasn't done that many ghost movies, and a human-human, ghost-ghost romance is something new for them.

Wolfs

7.5/10

In this new movie on Apple TV+, two separate fixers/cleaners (played by George Clooney and Brad Pitt) are forced to work together when separate parties hire each of them to take care of a body in a hotel room. Soon, the situation becomes a lot more complicated and the duo are going to have a long night.

What makes this work is the dynamic between Clooney and Pit. The two actors, who I hear are friends, have the same chemistry they did in the Ocean's Eleven movies. Clooney is the proud, grumpy one and Pitt is the cocky one. Most of the movie is watching the two characters argue and begrudgingly work together. The fixer occupation and seeing the two professionals react to whatever is thrown their way is engaging.

One down side is that when it's all said and done the crime plot doesn't exactly tract and is kinda confusing. Also, the film is kinda inconsistent. At points, it feels like the crime world is being treated seriously but other parts feel more like the writers are playing fast and loose.

Recommended. I have my criticisms, but the two leads make this work.

Monster Summer

7/10

In Monster Summer, kids on a small island town are being attacked and turned into shells of themselves by a mysterious being. Young Noah (played by The Black Phone's Mason Thames) teams up with grizzled, retired cop Gene (played by Mel Gibson) to track the monster down.

This is one of those movies like Monster Squad (or the 1999 TV movie the Darklings; highly underrated), it's kind of a kids film, but the content is edgier than expected. The movie earns its PG-13 rating.  A lot of this feels like traditional children's fare and there's no explicit violence, but the threat is dark and dangerous and the finale is surprisingly tense.  (It's kinda like that Nancy Drew movie with Millie Bobby Brown where people were surprised with how close the villains were to messing Nancy up.) The biggest "Wha...?" about this that there are straight up references to child predators/abductors and the characters compares the antagonist to them. They never specify what child abductors do, but it's still shocking coming from a movie with more basic children's leads and shenanigans.

Admittedly, the mix of light and dark and this sort of retro old-school darker 80's kids movie feel works in Monster Summer's favor. It is a unique blend that made me nostalgic for the yesteryear of children's movies. Can't say the movie is perfect. You're just thrown into the plot and the characters. I wished Noah and friends were introduced more naturally (the movie doesn't mention that Noah has a little sister until like a half hour after you meet him and his mom; she's just there all of a suddenn), seeing them hanging out and living their lives more before the poop hits the fan. 

The look of the movie also goes for that old school 80's and 90's feel. This is the second film from Wizards of Waverly Place lead David Henrie, and for a newbie director working with a small budget, he does fairly well for himself. He uses too many closeups, but he's got some solid stuff going on too like some nice panning shots of the island and he manages to make the villain's car intimidating as of itself. Speaking of the island, they picked a pretty photogenic place to film.

A lot of the casting is just alright, but the few known actors they got for do this do lighten up the proceedings. Gibson gives the best performances and is probably the most interesting character in this. Also, the characters of Gene and Noah just work really well off of each other. Credit should also be given to King of Queens' Kevin James, who seems to be in this just to show everyone that he does a really good southern accent. (It's weird. Between this and Becky, it seems that lower budget, lower profile films are the ones that really managed to let James shine as an actor).

Recommended. Admittedly, Monster Summer feels a bit confused as to who its demographic is, but it makes for a decent watch and its divergence from the norm keeps things fresh. (Also, watch The Darklings if you can find it. It's a kids' version of Rear Window.)

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

8.5/10

In this sequel to Beetlejuice, and now grown up Lydia Deetz (played by Winona Ryder) must make a deal with the chaotic demon Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) when her daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) get stuck in the afterlife.

The Beetlejuice sequel has been gestating for a long, long time, since the 90's in fact. Winona Ryder even had a clause in her Stranger Things contract that gave her time off to do a Beetlejuice sequel if it ever came to fruition. Well, they finally did it. They made another Beetlejuice with director Tim Burton returning, and honestly this is the most inspired he's been in a long, long time. He's been cautious about doing sequels, the only reason he did Batman Returns is because they wouldn't take "no" and offered him complete creative control, but he never gave up on Beetlejuice. The reason he never faltered and regained his mojo is the same reason Big Eyes is one of his stronger latter entries, he has a genuine passion for the subject material.

This movie is nuts in a good way. So much creativity went into this with so many fun ideas and macabre humor thrown at us. It manages to do something different, which is what made the first film so popular. The third act is definitely something and the funniest part.

We get to see a lot more of the afterlife here, and it's a wild impressive-looking ride. For this, Burton tried to use as much practical effects as he could, and it really helped. If you missed the eighties/nineties era of practical effects, then you'll like this. It just feels more real than CGI, and helps lend to the movie's kitschy feel. Actor turned ghost cop Wolf Jackson, played by Willem Dafoe, has part of his skull missing, and their is just something so distinct about the colors and makeup they did for it. It may bug some that the sandworms in this looker cleaner and have less life in them than the original.

But of course, you can't have a Beetlejuice movie without Beetlejuice, and Michael Keaton's still got it. He's like Jim Carrey in the Sonic movies, he can't due to the rapid physical humor like he could back in the day, but he's got the comic delivery down pat. Beetlejuice remains a hilariously awful being. Unsurprisingly, Catherine O'Hara, returning as Lydia's avant-garde artist stepmother Delia Deetz, is one of the major draws. The writers took some inspiration from her career reviving turn in Schitt's Creek and allowed her to be more over-the-top, which feels natural as she has just become more of her major traits as she's gotten older. Her delivery is on par with Keaton and she steals any scene she's in. 

Best newcomer is Dafoe's Wolf. Though he's a real cop now, he can't help playing it like a TV actor and hamming it up. He's an unexpected character when compared to everyone else and the tone of the afterlife, but he somehow works. Torchwood/Pacific Rim's Burn Gorman is also fun as a priest who speaks in a verbose, old-school pastoral manner.

Though this is one of those surprisingly strong follow-ups made decades after original, it isn't quite at the same level as the original. (Let's be honest; a lot of Tim Burton scripts are imperfect.) First off, Beetlejuice is pining for Lydia, who he met as a FIFTEEN-YEAR OLD! And no one in the production process shot this down?! You would especially think they'd avoid something like this due to Jeffrey Jones not coming back due to his child pornography charges.  

This doesn't have quite the heart of the original and seems to revel more in being meaner. I do miss the Maitlands, the ghost couple from the first film. They were the actual main characters, and in my opinion as important to the movie as Beetlejuice was, and their normalcy and being generally nice people is what served as the backbone of the plot. The ending in particular feels less solid and more cynical. There are attempts to add an emotional element to the film, but they feel half-baked. Astrid's discord with her mother doesn't feel natural enough.

Going back to the "being meaner" part: The writers follow the recent trend for a lot of franchises saying "we need to kill more people and go for a harsher turn". (Be prepared that this is noticeably more violent than the original). If I want to watch a new blockbuster franchise film, I want to have fun, not have it be a bit of a bummer.

I felt Ortega’s talents were wasted here. She had a couple good reaction moments, but Ortega was given a basic character without much to do. The character of Rory (Justin Theroux), Lydia's manipulative boyfriend and producer is completely unnecessary. Theroux plays the role well, and he has a couple nice bits, but he doesn't add much to the plot, and you don't quite understand why Lydia puts up with him, because it feels inconsistent with the rest of her behavior.

Recommended. It's not 100% the original, but it doesn't miss by much. There are valid criticisms with the film, but I feel the spectacle, humor, and whole of it all is massively entertaining.

Alien: Romulus

8.5/10

In a time between Alien and Aliens, a group of teens or young adults (they weren't specific), want to run away from the mining space colony they lived in. In order to achieve intergalactic flight, they steal some equipment from an abandoned space station. Unfortunately, said station was the host to research on a certain horrifying species.

This kind of feels like a greatest hits album. I'm not saying this does anything to break the mold or put itself on the exact same pedestal of the first two films, but this movie does the Aliens formula particularly well. The plot and characters are solid. The movie pays homage to a lot of the films in the franchise without feeling like it's derailed by nostalgia baiting (with the exception of one very obvious scene). 

But of course, being an Alien film, it's all about the look and the scares. And yeah, this does it pretty well. Alvarez works well with how disturbing the Xenomorphs are. Though I called this a "greatest hits, the movie does have a few scenes, one involving the Xenomorphs blood in particular, that are creative.

Alvarez feels most inspired by the desolate technology aspect of the first film. The space station is a Ridley Scott-esque work of genius. It is detailed and elaborate with a cold and overwhelming feel to it. The station itself is just as scary as the Xenomorphs. The music also really adds to the ambience.

Acting is decent but the real standout is Industry's David Jonsson as Andy, a member of the group of runaways. I won't give any spoilers about the character, but he steals all the scenes.

 Highly recommended. I feel this is the third best Alien movie, and a nice return to form if some of the last few weren't working for ya'.

AfrAId

5.5/10

In AfrAId, a family becomes hosts for a prototype of the new digital assistant AIA, an AI that is far more advanced than the likes of Siri and Alexa. Soon, the patriarch Curtis (played by John Cho) becomes suspicious of her attentions.

This is one of those movies that has good ideas but isn't consistent. In it's defense, all the movie's commentary on the negatives of AI and an increased attachment to technology work. And yeah, M3gan also addressed technology recently, but not as strongly as the very aspect of AI itself (this is the first film to take advantage of how creepy poor AI art can be.) Also, for a movie about the dangers of technology, it doesn't feel as cookie cutter as you'd think it would.

But, it's when you get to the rest of the movie that quality fluctuates. There are good lines in this, but a lot just don't work. The movie tries to provide personality for the family members, but they aren't interesting enough. Also, the backstory and personality of Meredith (Fantastic Beasts' Katherine Waterston), the mother, is disseminated in an oddly unnatural and slipshod way. The first act in particular feels boring, because we haven't gotten to those AI shenanigans yet.

Can't fault the cast for this film, who are all doing the best with what they're given. This actually has a few solid actors in this, including several that made me say, "Oh, I like them." I have high hopes for the future career of Isaac Bae, who plays the youngest child of the family; kid has a presence. Bottoms/No Exit's Havana Rose Liu does an especially good job of voicing and expressing AIA. Yeah, she's another rogue computer program, but she definitely has personality. (She's no M3gan, but there's no shame in that.)

The film is very conservative with showing us the avatar representing her true form. Usually they do that because its scarier if the monster isn't over utilized, but here it felt more like they realized AIA's appearance wasn't working. I don't think I've been as disappointed with a monster design as I am with this in a long time. If you saw the part of the trailer where AIA says she's going to show her true face, they don't include that here. It feels like someone on the film said, "We can't have a prolonged shot on her. She looks awful!"

A soft not recommended. Like I said, there are interesting parts to AfrAId and it isn't as cookie-cutter as you'd think, but I can't in good faith say this is a must-see. 

Crow (2024)

5/10

In this remake of the 1994 film based on the graphic novel by James O'Barr, Eric (played by It's Bill Skarsgaard) comes back to life to become the Crow in order to take down the villains who killed him and his girlfriend Shelly (actress/composer FKA Twigs). 

To the credit of director Rupert Sanders (Snow White and the Huntsman/the live-action Ghost in the Shell) this doesn't feel like one of those films where the director was coasting. He clearly had a vision, and it didn't feel like producers sabotaged his ultimate tone. (In the grand scheme at least. It does feel like parts were cut.) Sanders tried to approach the story in a new way. The reboot focuses more on the relationship of the doomed lovers and how they got together instead of just jumping into things like in the original. Unfortunately, the execution of this angle doesn't play out. The build up takes way too long, and you're mentally begging the movie to jump to the action.

It doesn't help that the rules to the afterlife and the paranormal are confusing and don't track. The main villain Vincent Roeg (Danny Huston) has a very basic, disappointing 2000's evil paranormal agenda. Plus, there is one part about a character sticking around the city that doesn't make any sense. You know people are after you! Why are you still around?! Heck, you still shouldn't even be in the country!

However, when we finally get to the action, it doesn't disappoint. I believe Sanders started out in music videos, and the guy definitely has style. The violence has a distinct rawness to it that works. (Sadly, it comes too late.) Also, Sanders has an excellent eye for sets and locations mirroring the original's intent to have its own distinct larger-than-life city, though this is more desolate modernism than modern gothic. 

Also, I'll give Sanders and the writers a hand for at least making all the baddies feel different enough from each other.

One can't blame the actors for this as most of them are doing the best with what they are given. Skarsgaard feels born to play the character, and really sells Devin's love and rage. It looks like this won't excel at the box office, but I honestly would like to see a sequel under new hands just to see the guy get a chance at better material. 

Not recommended. I mean I suppose it's something to watch if you like interesting-looking misfires, but it's too slow and the script isn't strong enough.

Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie

5.5/10

In this new Netflix film based on the SpongeBob SquarePants show, all of the ocean town of Bikini Bottom is stolen by mysterious forces from above. It is up to Sandy Cheeks (voiced by Carolyn Lawrence), the squirrel scientist who lives underwater in diving equipment, and SpongeBob (Tom Kenny), the constantly optimistic fry cook, to save the town and their friends.

I give this movie points for having a more original plot than the last film, which had too many similarities to the first one, and I give the creators credit for creative randomness and just trying to have fun. But the jokes are really hit and miss. The plot ideas in here are all just okay; nothing that is particularly strong. 

I do admire for them giving the focus to Sandy, who to be honest doesn't get as much spotlight as some of the other characters (at least back when I saw the show, it's been a while). Heck, she's had so little to do in the last three films. I fear that the show's writers didn't have as much fun writing for her as the other main characters, but here they do manage to pull off the character being the center of your attention. There are many weak points, but Sandy is not one. She's always been the most adventurous of the characters and works well as someone facing a lot of physical obstacles. Also, her camaraderie with SpongeBob is so natural. The sponge himself also remains on point in his writing and his lovable personality. 

The animation like the jokes and story is hit-and-miss. Main characters and main props look good, but ancillary characters and parts of background don't feel as smooth. I do give the animators credit for doing such a good job translating the colorful 2D world of SpongeBob to 3D. Also, the slapstick and general motion animation are really smooth; the animators and storyboard artists really put their all into this..

Not strongly recommended or not. This is one of the weaker SB films, which is too bad, because it is clear that the directors and writers cared and were trying. If you're an adult SP fan, this like a lot of the later material just isn't the franchise at its finest, however kids probably won't have a problem with this, and it's an easy film to sit through.

Deadpool & Wolverine

9.5/10

In the new Deadpool movie, Deadpool (played by Ryan Reynolds) is called in by the Time Variance Authority (TVA) and learns of a threat to his universe/timeline. In order to save it, he enlists the aid of a Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) from another timeline/universe for his adventure.

The previous Deadpool movies were definitely funny and and the most loose of the 20th Century Fox films, but the preexisting X-Men rules of the world still kept the elements Deadpool could interact with kinda grounded. Now that MCU owns his film rights, the character has access to the more wild and funny elements he couldn't have before. This is hands down the funniest, most creative, and just plain fun of the trilogy. The whole multiverse aspect gives Deadpool carte blanche to work with whatever Marvel characters or crazy content the writers want to. I know some people may be tired of the multiverse, but I'm still having fun with it, and they've managed to keep it fresh in my opinion; this movie is meta in way the other multiverse works weren't. (The only Marvel multiverse film I thought was unnecessary was the Doctor Strange movie. Felt manufactured and it completely threw out the build up in the last movie of Mordo's path to villainy.) The D&W does an exceptionally good job at surprising you with what happens next, and who'll pop up.

This is the MCU's first R-rated movie and that Deadpool humor stays completely intact in it's shift over to Disney. Given that Wolverine and DP have healing abilities and are almost immortal, the writers can really unload the violence upon them. 

This movie is also surprisingly a love letter to the end of the 20th Century Fox movies in a way that feels genuine and not mean-spirited.

Unfortunately, Deadpool's supporting cast from the previous movies get very little screentime. Deadpool's girlfriend Vanessa (Gotham/Serenity/V's Morena Baccarin) is again treated kinda like an inconvenience despite the fact that Deadpool's love for her is the main focus of his life. Domino from DP2, who I genuinely liked and I thought had a great rapport with the lead, isn't even in this at all. (Neither is DP2's Cable, but I can take or leave him. Honestly with Wolverine in the picture, we don't need an additional grumpy straight man.) 

Especially in the first half of the movie, Deadpool's constant quips and train-of-thought lines feel too frequent and like overkill when compared to the previous films. At a little over two hours, this could've been shorter just by cutting some of the guy's material.

It feels like every film they have to give DP an emotional conflict/journey, and this one feels pretty forced. I think it can be okay for DP to go on an adventure just for the sake of an adventure.

Jackman was good enough to go back on his decision to never play Wolverine again, was game for whatever insanity was thrown at him, and still brings on the pathos when the film calls for more serious moments. However, this movie is definitely Deadpool with Wolverine instead of Deadpool & Wolverine. It isn't really until the third act that the focus is on him as equally as on DP.

A couple of the best performances are from newcomers. Succession's Matthew Macfayden is pretty funny as TVA official Mr. Paradox, who manages to give a delivery that is distinct from DP's but manages to work alongside it. The Crown/Murder at the End of the World's Emma Corrin's Cassandra Nova is one of THE best MCU villains. I'm a little surprised they went with her as a Deadpool enemy as she's a fairly big enemy of the main X-Men team (she's more recent if you're unfamiliar with her), but they really managed to fit her in this story. She can both be creepy and threatening, but also has a sassy side to her. Too bad she isn't in this movie more. (She's kind of like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare before Christmas or the Joker in Mask of the Phantasm in that she is a threat encountered along the way instead of being the instigator of the main crisis.)

The movie looks great and has its moments of visual creativity. I don't think the MCU gets enough credit for how fun the designs look when compared to a lot of other blockbuster pictures. Also, there's a great selection of songs in this. Plus, we finally get to see Wolverine's classic comics costume, and it translates to real life pretty well.

Highly recommended. Even if DP talks a little too much by even his standards, this is still a highly creative and entertaining film that I recommend everyone to see. Unless you don't like R-rated humor or violence. That is fair, and this is DEFINITELY not for you.

Descendants: The Rise of Red

6.5/10

In the fourth Descendants film (on Disney+ and Disney Channel in August), former villain and pirate Uma (played by Black Lightning/A.N.T. Farm's China Anne McClain) becomes the new headmistress of Auradon Prep. She decides to give a second chance to the kingdom of Wonderland, which has been sealed off from the rest of Auradon, and invites Princess Red (Gabby Duran and the Unsittables' Kylie Cantrall) to attend. Her mother The Queen of Hearts (actress/singer Rita Ora) uses the opportunity to sneak in her troops and stage a coup. Red, who doesn't want to be evil like her mother, and Cinderella's daughter Chloe (Malia Baker) use a time travel device to go back in time in order to stop the event that turned The Queen of Hearts evil.

This is a movie that starts out promisingly, I even initially thought it would be better than Descendants 3. The first act does an effective job of setting up the characters and plot. The second act has fun introducing the past younger versions of various famous Disney characters. However, things start falling apart by the end. Characters seem to be forgotten and tossed to the side, but it's especially the ending that feels lackluster. It doesn't have the traditional big emotional moment and spectacle you'd expect for the finale; it just kind of ends. The weirdest thing is that this doesn't go where you think it'd go based on comments and set up earlier as well as the usual tropes for person-goes-back-in-time-and-meets-their-younger-parents stories. People online were speculating that scenes were cut, but the executive producer gave an interview and apparently that wasn't the case. They intentionally made these weird decisions. Also, it's a time travel movie, so it's always a headache figuring out the rules.

The strongest part is the growing friendship between Red and Chloe, the core of the story and only part that is done without complaint. Red has the better characterization and personality, but Chloe has the better progression as the privileged princess learns everything isn't always black-and-white. However, I feel it's because of the filmmakers' dedication to this storyline above all else that other aspects fell to the wayside and supporting characters were treated like chopped liver.

This has a completely new director and writers from the original trilogy. There is a bit of change in tone here as this entry feels a little darker and more serious (by Disney Channel movie standards I mean). It works when it comes to the stakes; The Queen of Hearts is much more dangerous than any previous villain in these films. However, I felt things got a little unpleasant for a movie where people in bright colors sing and dance. Whereas the villainous not-great parents in previous movies where portrayed as comical, the ones here are straight-up verbally abusive. I honestly think this might hurt replay value, because some may just not want to go through the hard moments over again. Also, I feel there are less "fun" scenes as in the past. I feel the writers were too obsessed with "the hero's journey and struggle" than remembering this is a kids' movie and just trying to have fun. (This movie is weirdly like Disney Channel's Teen Beach 2, a sequel that went darker, made things weird with time stuff, and feels slightly disconnected from its source.)

On the visual side, you can't fault this. Again, this movie has a budget that's not theatrical level but not exactly shabby. In fact, I think this one might have had a slightly higher budget than the previous films. A lot of the sets look great (Wonderland is pretty impressive) and has this childish sort of fantasy fun to them. Admittedly, the places that feels like they were filmed on location fail a little in comparison and Merlin Academy (Auradon Prep before it became Auradon Prep) feels a little too simple and austere. 

Again, this movie continues a one of the trademark parts of the franchise: the costumes. Again we get delightfully over-the-top and colorful outfits with the villain ones going with this leather sorta child's version of cool and edgy. While the lead characters' outfits are good, they are not quite as distinctive as those of the original stars. However, there is one standout: the Queen of Hearts' outfits. They're flashy and delightfully over-the-top with a dress front designed to resemble a rose. (Though, I don't think her hair style when worn long really with the rest of her look.)

Again, the Descendants continue to have surprisingly entertaining song and dance numbers, provided they're kids' pop. The choreography really goes all out. The dancing for the villain songs in particular hits a lot harder than you'd expect for a children's film. Some of the songs are just okay, but there are some pretty catchy ones, especially the villains songs. The song for Uliana (High School Musical: The Musical: The Series' Dara Renee), Ursula's younger sister, is particularly catchy and The Queen of Hearts' song is one of the best instances in quite a while of a song providing the exposition.

As has been the case again, we've got a pretty good cast here. Cantrall is likable as the rebellious but well-meaning Red and has a great singing voice. However, it's Ora who's the star player. She really hams up the Queen's coldness and has the best singing voice in all of the franchise. She slays her number.

This is one of those movies that is hard to rate and recommend or not. Some will enjoy the look and musical numbers of the whole. I think kids in particular will be less picky and happy with what they get. However, I think a lot of people will also be frustrated with the experience. I know Disney Channel movies aren't known for their well-thought out plots, but I am genuinely confused with the writers' reasoning and their potential disdain for a traditional  story structure.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

9/10

In this prequel/spin-off to Mad Max: Fury Road, we look at the origins of the apocalyptic warrior/transporter Furiosa (played by Anya Taylor-Joy), who became more popular in the last film than it's lead, as she is taken from her village and struggles to survive the dangerous factions ruling the wasteland that used to be Australia.

This movie differs from the last one in that it focuses more on the fighting than prolonged vehicle pursuits, though don't worry, you do get a couple good chase scenes. What this film does definitely retain is both the over-the-top action and larger-than-life characters with their weird post-apocalyptic Australian lingo.

Like the last film, this looks great with solid effects and design work. Whereas Fury Road is famous for being mostly practical effects in the day of digital, here they have upped the digital effects, but if you're not a fan of that, I wouldn't worry too much. It seems to be more background work than vehicle and set work. 

I was worried about this being a prequel, since we're being exposed to info. and characters we've already known, but this does a surprisingly good job of keeping things interesting across two-and-a-half hours. Whereas Fury Road was a road movie, this is more like a crime war movie as we see fighting and intrigue between the factions of the waste lands. The best part of this is the various larger-than-life villainous personalities. Even though we've seen the villainous warlord Immortan Joe (Offspring's Lachy Hulme, replacing the late Hugh Keays-Byrne) before, we get to see more of his strategic leader side, which makes for an interesting time. 

When I saw this movie's main villain Dementus (Chris Hemsworth) in the trailer, I wasn't immediately sold on the character as he came off as being a more stereotypical looking post-apocalyptic villain than a lot of the other colorful baddies of MM. I'm really pleased to say that Dementus is THE best performance of Hemsworth's career. Whereas Immortan Joe is an authoritative type, he presents himself as a religious-type figure, Dementus is the opposite. He's sort of a free livin' sort of bike gang leader. He's got a childish energy to him and is someone who is clever but not as clever as they think they are.   

If you saw Fury Road, you might be confused to see a new member of Immortan Joe's inner most circle that wasn't there. If you're confused by that, this character appears in the MM video game that takes place between this film and FR. (I give director co-writer George Miller credit for corporate multimedia synergy, but I can see how this can be frustrating to people who don't keep up with everything.)

Viewers beware that there is one scene in this that features an uncomfortable, adult topic that you wouldn't necessarily walk in expecting.

Yeah, Fury Road might give you a little more bang for your buck, but this is still an enthralling and great looking action piece. 

The Exorcism

4.5/10

In The Exorcism, actor Anthony Miller (played by Russell Crowe) is cast as a priest in a new demonic possession movie, only to find himself possessed by an actual demon. (Yeah, it's weird that Crowe decided to do two exorcism movies so close together, but he does play a very different character here.)

This is one of those movies that is frustrating because there are hints of what could've been a good film. Miller's tragic backstory, and the reason he's vulnerable to possession, is well-crafted. There are some good pieces of dialogue and performances are good throughout.

However, the movie is inconsistent in quality. There are also several lines that don't work. Pacing is very slow. The lighting is just too dark. Also, there appears to be a logic to the demon's plan that isn't made as clear as it should be.

Now if it was just the flaws above, I would've been more charitable with the rating on behalf of the stuff that does work, but then comes the ending. The finale is truly disappointing. 

Going back to the performances, you really can't blame the cast. Crowe may not have the best material, but you definitely believe him as the character. It's too bad Frasier's David Hyde Pierce isn't in that many movies (I recommend you see him in the underexposed thriller The Perfect Host; he's quite good.) He's very congenial as a priest consultant on the film. The Equalizer TV show's Adam Goldberg is probably the best at making all the lines work as the movie's director.

Not recommended. The slow pace and bad ending do not make the ending worth watching.