Bodies, Bodies, Bodies

 7/10

In this dark comedy/thriller, Sophie (played by The Hate You Give's Amandla Stenberg) takes her new girlfriend Bee (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm's Maria Bakalova) to hang her with her friends at her best friend David's parents' huge, lavish house. Soon, things go horribly wrong, emotions start running, and everyone starts becoming suspicious of each other. 

The first act does start out a bit slow and partially weak. Don't get me wrong, there are some good lines and the movie does a good job with Bee of encompassing the awkwardness of being somewhere where you don't know anyone, but it runs a little too long with the whole millenials being kinda toxic/ridiculous. schtick. I think too many lines are given to some characters than needed.

But when things get dark, that's when it starts getting good. The movie does a great job of making you guess what happens next, including one particularly tense scene in particular. (I particularly like how this ends.) This is also when the making-fun-of-millennials humor really pays off. The movie takes a lot of shots at the shallowness of the social media generation.

At first, I didn't like the cinematography in this. It had a sort of art-house quality. I was like, "I get it this is an A24 film. Not all their films have to look like this!" However, I think I understand why they went that way. The style definitely allows color to work. After the second act, a lot of this is shot in the dark, and the cinematographer/lighting person really managed to make light and color work in contrast to the blackness. Seriously, my congratulations to the lighting department; they did an excellent job. Also, I love the house or sets for this film. It is an impressive place.  

Acting's good across the board. (Cast includes Lee Pace and SNL's Peter David.)

Recommended. It's not a perfect film, parts could've been tightened and the spoiled kid dialogue can get a bit basic, but it is an interesting film that does hold your attention in the end.

Nope

 

8.5

In Jordan Peele's Nope, brother and sister OJ (played by Get Out's Daniel Kaaluya) and Emerald Haywood (Keke Palmer) try to get clear footage of a UFO hanging around their family ranch.

This was a really unique, well made film. There is a lot you don't see in the trailer. It gets pretty interesting. It has Peele trying to send a message, but adds enough humor and action that the movie doesn't alienate the casual viewer. (Though don't get me wrong, the movie is kinda pretentious.)

Peele does an excellent job with visuals. This movie has three of the most unsettling/scary images I've ever seen. And let me make this clear that due to having been desensitized by seeing a ton of horror films and neurological stuff going on I rarely ever scare. Haven't been frightened by a film for a decade. The fact that there are three moments that generally got to me is saying something. On the non-scary side of the visuals, I really liked the look of Jupiter's Claim, the small western-themed amusement park located near the ranch. Looks like a place you'd like to visit.

Great cast in this. Kaaluya does a great job bringing to life OJ, a guy who knows the business of training horses like few others but is socially awkward (may be on the spectrum). However, Keke as Emerald, the opposite of her brother, great with people but irresponsible, steals the movie. She brings such energy to the role. Having seen her in a few other things, I'm happy she's finally landed such a high profile role. Honestly, I'm surprised it hadn't happened sooner. She's generally good in whatever she does. Also, props should be given to The OA's Angel Torres, who's fun as a guy without much going who joins the UFO hunting crew and is a source of humor and kinda the voice of common sense, and Michael Wincott (the villain from The Crow) as an eccentric cinematographer/director? (couldn't figure exactly what his job was.) Also if you're a fan of Keith David and heard he was in this one, his appearances are very brief. Such a waste of such a distinctive voice.

As much as I thought this was an impressive film, I couldn't go with a full 9 or 10/10. Usually I have very specific cons for a film. But, here it's hard to pinpoint why I couldn't give this a 90/100%. (Unlike a lot of people talking about this movie, I have no major complaints about the subplot.) Maybe it's the fact that there are a couple moments where Peele insists a little too hard on trying to be clever or the audience having to put things together themselves. Maybe it's the general vibe of the storytelling (Peele's films can feel like a very distinct and different world like those of Tarantino and Shyamalan.) Or maybe, it's that Peele was a little crueler in points than necessary. Yeah, it's a horror film and they're usually about horrible things happening to people, but sometimes, like in Nightmare on Elm Street 5 and Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, a horror movie's writers may be more interested in twisting the knife on a character than actually being scary. There are a couple small parts where I felt Peele did that a little.

Naturally, I can't recommend this to people who scare easily as this is nightmare fuel. I CAN recommend this to everyone else. This really is something that'll leave an impression.

Where the Crawdads Sing

 

6.5/10

In this adaptation of the book of the same name by Delia Owens, young woman Kya Clark (played by Daisy Edgar-Jones), who's spent her whole life living in the marsh, stands on trial accused of the murder of her ex-lover Chase Andrews (The King's Man's Harris Dickinson). I try to get the most out of my subscription to AMC's A-List. There wasn't anything that I was really anticipating this weekend. This movie and Mrs. Harris goes to Paris were my two options. Ultimately, I went with this on account of the murder trial interesting me. (No offense to Mrs. Harris. Older woman decides to live and be bold for once in her life; sounds like a good time for many.) I kinda liked Where the Crawdads Sing (more on the kinda later).

The story is solid. Manages to be a romantic melodrama that feels mostly grounded and never like it gets too soapy or tropey. There is one part involving leaves that feels corny, but since it happened only once I'll allow it. I bet many a romance fan would have no problem with that bit.

Though this movie is more about Kya's story than it is about the mystery of what happened to Chase, I thought the it did a surprisingly good job of keeping you guessing about what happened and/or who did it.

The movie's competently directed. The wilderness scenery is truly majestic and the best part of this; my hat off to the location scout. Editing in this can be a little choppy at points.

Pretty good cast all-around in this. Edgar-Jones does a solid job as the lead. David Straitharn plays Kya's lawyer, and yeah it's your basic "Atticus Finch-esque lawyer who supports the protagonist when no one else will" trope, but he's definitely the sort of actor you want for that role. (Kind of wished he had more scenes.) The MVP here though is definitely Taylor John Smith as one of Kya's love interests. He completely sells the tender-hearted, protective paramour role here.

Now you're probably wondering why I only kinda like this despite the mostly positive stuff I said above. The movie's too gosh darn long. It didn't need to be two hours and five minutes. The middle in particular felt stretched. I found myself losing attention at several points. I left the theater to go to the bathroom. Usually I try to hold it, or feel annoyed I missed a scene when I can't, but I really didn't mind at all here. The thing is that no scenes needed to be cut, they just needed to slim them down. Pacing does pick up by the third act for what it's worth.  

I have no intent to watch this again, but I had a good time. Yeah, I was bored at points but this film can get interesting as well. In all fairness, I'm a guy and I think this written more for the female demographic. I can see a lot of romance fans getting a lot more out of this than me.

The Wonderful Summer of Mickey Mouse

6/10

This third season-oriented Mickey Mouse special on Disney+, differs from the first two, which contained three separate stories. Here, Mickey and friends recollect their day and what led to a terrible mishap at the fireworcks.

I admit, I'm a little let down by this one. These Mickey Mouse stories can be so creative, nuts, and fun. However, this one felt pretty basic. The story lines were all traditional comedy-of-errors slapstick that were kinda predictable. Don't get me wrong, there were still moments of some really fun old-school style visual humor that The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse is known for. The animation and character design is on point, and Chris Diamantoupolous' MM voice remains hilarious. I also liked the 40's/50's-esque song at the beginning. (Plus, there is more screen time for the walrus mayor, which is an amusing-looking fellow with a fun voice.) It's just that ultimately there are stronger Mickey Mouse entries.

Your kids may like this, but there are plenty of better World of Mickey Mouse cartoons you can check out first.

Thor: Love and Thunder

 

8.5/10

In the fourth Thor movie, thunder god Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) ends up pursuing Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale) and runs into his ex Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who now to his surprise has both his powers and hammer.

Like the last film, this is directed by Taika Waititi, and again he makes this one of the funniest Marvel movies. Waititi and all the actors involved definitely seem like they're having goofy fun. However, the movie does a serious backbone to several characters' motivations (especially Jane and Gorr, who has a pretty strong "how-I-became-a-villain" story.) The ending is particularly good and may surprise you.

Love and Thunder does repeat the sin of the last one Ragnarok, but doubles down on it: there is a little too much reliance on jokes. Waititi seems unable to take many reprieves from the humor, and it can feel like he's trying too hard and that the more serious parts feel undermined. Also, the movie does throw a lot of emotional weight upon Thor, who's already been through the ringer. They really need to give him a breather.

Love and Thunder is definitely creative, more so than Ragnarok where as good as it was, admittedly a large portion was just spent on the Gamemaster's planet. We're thrown from one fantastical setting to the next. Everything looks great (really one of the most impressive looking Marvel films and that's saying something), continuing Ragnarok's combination of fantasy and colorful 70's-style science fiction. Although, like with the humor, Waititi focuses too much on jumping from one thing to the next and some may find it exhausting. Again, the director could've focused a little more on the drama. 

Bale is excellent as Gorr. He's completely threatening, yet the character doesn't feel like he's taking himself too seriously, which has been the flaw of some Marvel movie villains. Now that Jane has powers, Natalie Portman is definitely given more to do than in Thor: The Dark World, and she seems to work well with the superhero stuff and the more comic tone the Thor films has taken. But, I think she could've have had a few more scenes to build her character up; some Thor scenes could've been cut.

Recommended, this is a visually exciting, fun time. How does this compare to the other Thor films? I haven't rightly decided. (Definitely better than Thor: The Dark World). This may be the most creative movie, but admittedly has a looser story structure than some of the other films.

The Cuphead Show- Season 1

7/10

In this new show based on the video game Cuphead, brothers Cuphead (voiced by Tru Valentino) and Mugman (Frank Todaro) live in a world reminiscent of 1930's cartoons. They constantly end up in a series of misadventures, while the Devil (Luke Millington-Drake) keeps trying to get Cuphead's soul.

My hats off to the animation. Yeah, it can't quite match the feel of the old-school type, but does a really strong job. Backgrounds are watercolor. There are film scratches and slight shadows are applied to characters to give the impression of them being cells placed on a background. (I can't take credit for noticing that last bit. The guys on the Youtube Channel Double Toasted brought that to my attention.) You even get some stop-motion backgrounds reminiscent of the stop motion-cave that Popeye walked through back in the day. (Again, Double Toasted.) Like the video game, there is a concentrated effort to maintain the feel of the 1930's, like the character designs, costumes, buildings, etc.

However, the stories are not as strong as the animation. To be clear, the stories are alright. They're traditional comic stories. But, in an era where children's cartoons have become more ambitious and tried new things, this feels surprisingly regressive. The plots are often traditional shenanigans and worn-out situations that have been done before, like a character overhearing something and misinterpreting what was said. Nothing special.  

It doesn't help that the cup brothers aren't the most engaging. They're miscreants who constantly disobey and make bad, selfish decisions. To be clear, they're immature boys, so I wouldn't say they ever make me straight up dislike them the way it would if they were adults, but still they can get annoying with their constant need to not listen stick their hands in it. 

Doesn't help that that Cupman and Mugman's voices and personalities aren't what I (and I'm guessing others) would have in their head based on the video games where there were no dialogue. (They have old timey Bronx-style voices.) Fans of the game may be disappointed with the adaptation here. There were so many colorful villains in the Cuphead game, but not a lot of them are used. Sadly, the show doesn't have much interest in the use of some of the more fantastical/high concept ones. Of the villains they do use, at least two of these groups of villains are the types who say 'Youse' and aren't that interesting. I think that kinda defines the most disappointing part of this, the creators seemed mostly interested in writing about 30's city scenarios. Remember how those old cartoons could feature things like books coming to life or really weird, out-there stuff happening? There isn't much of that here. (Though, there's a ghost episode that's pretty fun.) Also, if you liked the villain King Dice (voiced here by Wayne Brady), who was the second most prominent villain throughout the game and appeared throughout, he's surprisingly only in one episode here. 

Sorta recommended. It's not a stellar show, but generally entertaining. Kids will probably get more mileage out of this.

The Batman (2022)

8.5

In this, Batman (played by Robert Pattinson) pursues the elaborate serial killer The Riddler (Paul Dano) and must figure out why he's targeting his victims.

Director Matt Reeves definitely leaves an impression with this. The opening, introducing Gotham and Batman is just an excellently realized work of cinema. Visually, The Batman really captures the feel of being in a city with some excellent scenery ranging from dirty streets to the fancy but antiquated areas. Bruce Wayne's place in particular, is a fantastically busy neo-gothic looking affair. Also, Reeves really went out of his way to make the city look populated. Has some of the most crowded extras scenes I've seen in a while. Must've been quite an endeavor to put together.

This also has one of the most ambitious car chases put to screen. I've never seen a movie have a car chase in such congested, traditional city traffic. In fact, it feels a little too real like actual traffic accident situations and took me out of it a little. Also, this is the one scene where you question Batman's methods.

This has excellent lightning with a lot of good use of city lights. I can often be be annoyed by films that are too darkly shot, but this one always feels like the shadows are always in the right place, accentuating the scenes. 

Michael Giacchino's soundtrack really helps the film's mood; very sweeping and moving.

This film skips an origin story for or introduction to Batman. I think this might be the closest a live-action film has come to matching the feel of the comics (at least the more recent ones.) You just jump in with Batman, who's already been operating for two years and has already established a relationship with Lt. Gordon (Westworld's Jeffrey Wright). No live-action Batman film has ever focused on the detective side of the character as this. This is a straight-up mystery film mixed with a serial killer film and a crime film. 

The story, aided by the atmosphere of the piece, will keep your eyes glued. However, when you get down to it the film's basic concepts, the corruption and themed serial killer parts, aren't that original. Heck, the movie even reuses a couple plot points from the comics. This also repeats the idea from the first two Nolan films of Batman fighting against the established criminal underworld who have Gotham in their grip. Between this, the Nolan films, Gotham (the show if you're not familiar), and some of the animated films, including the recent The Long Halloween, I'm so tired of Batman stories reusing the same mob figures like Carmine Falcone (here played by John Turturro) and Sal Maroni. Do you realize that there have been two live-action movies with Carmine Falcone and none with the likes of such villains as Clayface, Mad Hatter, or Dr. Hugo Strange? If you ask someone for their top ten or five Batman villains, they're not going to say Carmine Falcone. Enough with the flipping Carmine Falcone and other mobsters stories, already!!! You're not paving any new ground!!!  

The movie didn't need to be three hours long. They could've easily cut down on the number of characters. Though I do like Zoe Kravitz's Catwoman and she has great chemistry with Batman, her subplot could've easily been cut.   

Understand that this is probably the darkest mainstream superhero movie put to screen. Things can get pretty unsettling, like even more unsettling than some of the Joker moments from The Dark Knight. (From a technical standpoint, I'm weirdly impressed with how they pulled this off with a PG-13 rating.)

Cast is great in this. Though you may argue that they make Batman a little too brooding and his Bruce Wayne appearance a little too emo, Pattinson does one of the best jobs of portraying a human Batman who is determined to do his all against terrible odds and is an empathetic man beneath his stolid persona. Wright is definitely one of the Best Gordons with THE best relationship with a Batman. He's kinda Batman's sidekick in this. Andy Serkis, who I don't think anyone suspected would be playing the role, is one of the best Alfred Pennyworths, though he doesn't get much screent ime. He's become so known for motion capture performances, it's nice to see how good a performer he is just by himself. 

Recommend. I wouldn't rank this as high as the Nolan trilogy or even Batman Returns. I felt those movies did a better job with plotting and characters. Also, the length, heavy tone, and the fact that the plot points aren't that original, hurts replay value. Still, this is a very strong, visually impressive, well-acted entry that does catch your attention.