Free Guy

RATING: B

This is one of those movies that when the marketing/trailers first dropped, it looked like a likely disaster waiting to happen--possibly amusing and with some promise, which would probably be wasted. Pixels came to mind for some, and Ready Player One detractors winced as well. Shawn Levy being the director didn't help matters, as he does not exactly have many outright successes to his name (discounting box office success). And yet, against all odds... it turned out to actually be decently good? 

Free Guy centers around an open-world video game much in the vein of Grand Theft Auto, with some Fortnite thrown in for good measure. Our main character is, quite literally, a video game character--specifically, an NPC (non-player character) with a generic name of Guy that is also played by Ryan Reynolds. The human players whose avatars show up in the game are distinguished by their sunglasses, and are literally called "sunglasses people" by the NPC's. One day, Guy acquires one of these pairs of sunglasses, and his eyes are basically opened as he sees the world around him as a human game player would. He falls in love with/comes into partnership with a player-character named Molotov Girl (Millie in the real world) as he comes to learn there is a threat to his world, as well as the truth of his existence. 

Free Guy is certainly a heavy dose of self-indulgent fun which relies on a fair amount of modern-day video game humor that some of the older viewers in the audience may not understand--particularly some of the Fortnite nods. That's really one of this movie's biggest problems--how it can rely sometimes on current-day references where it's a crapshoot as to whether they'll have aged well 5-10 years from now. 

But surprisingly, this film really does work a lot better than one might expect. There is more depth to the story than you'd expect, as the film explores at times to what extent Guy is really "alive." The characters and acting are genuinely likable and avoid more annoying tropes. Ryan Reynolds is basically playing himself again, as he has been for the last five years in basically everything he's been in--a hit-or-miss strategy, but it works well enough here. The real standout is Jodie Comer in her breakout role, as she switches seamlessly between her more dorky real-life character and the more confident action-girl avatar in the game, being quite enjoyable in both roles. Joe Keery (Steve from Stranger Things) is also a welcome presence, and Taika Waititi manages to be appropriately over-the-top in the villainous role.

And despite some of the humor relying on current understanding of hot video game fads, this movie really is quite funny; some of it is similar to the Lego Movie, particularly in the opening scenes. And there is some fun action to be sure as well; some of it does rely on fanservice/nostalgia, but it hits the mark more often than not. 

The problems with the movie do revolve partially around how the plot unfolds. Despite having unexpected depth, it is still a bit convoluted. More importantly, the ending doesn't entirely feel like it properly wraps up all of the character arcs. Considering that part of it revolves around literal code--that has become self-aware--falling in love with an avatar of a human being, it's possible they wrote themselves into a corner, but it still feels mildly unsatisfying with the oddly quick manner things are wrapped up. 

That said, Free Guy is an unexpected success overall. It may still be rather hit-or-miss at best for those who are less likely to find enjoyment in this kind of movie to begin with, but the movie takes a concept that could have easily fallen victim to painful silliness or mediocrity and actually makes it work for the most part--and remains genuinely fun as well. Free Guy might not be for everybody, but the target audience might be surprised to find a little something more than just disposable popcorn entertainment. 

Spider-Man: No Way Home

RATING: B+

If there's one hero that Marvel gets as much mileage out of on the big screen as much as DC does with Batman, it's Spider-Man. This is the third live-action iteration of the web-crawler on its third installment--and that's not including this version's appearance in other MCU movies, *or* the cartoon Spider-Verse movie. The latter introduced the multiverse--a concept that was slightly easier to handle from an animation perspective, and it helped that they were working with almost purely new characters with no previous appearances. No Way Home had a tougher task ahead. 

If Infinity War/Endgame was the most ambitious superhero crossover event to date by bringing characters from approximately a dozen (ballpark guess) stand-alones in the MCU, No Way Home makes a case in its own right by bringing characters from different properties/movies--*with no prior connection to the MCU.* 

When we last left Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the rest of the world had just found out about his secret identity--an interesting issue to deal with, given that virtually none of the other Avengers in the MCU have secret identities. A wrinkle: it was revealed by the last movie's big bad Mysterio, who framed Spidey for his own death. While the hatred of Spidey/believing of Mysterio's lies isn't quite as near-unanimous as the trailers implied, it's still more than enough to make Peter's life miserable--as well as those closely associated with him, including MJ and Ned. So Peter turns to Doctor Strange for help, who has a spell that will make everyone forget about Peter. In the moment, Peter realizes that would mean his friends also forgetting--one thing leads to another, the spell gets messed up, holes get ripped in the fabric of the universe--bringing over some visitors from other ones too. Peter quickly finds himself in over his head as he has to deal with various villains (among other visitors that I can't name due to not being in any of the marketing/trailers) that he doesn't know... but fans of previous Spider-Man incarnations will.

What Marvel tries to pull off here with this crossover event is frankly absurd; and yet, against the odds, it works. Interestingly enough, it's not just a movie for MCU fans--if anything, it's more for Spider-Man cinematic fans in general. The latter group should be overjoyed to see the return of Dr. Octopus and the Green Goblin--both from Raimi's trilogy, and those are just the biggest headliners. 

The result is an installment that is easily better than the previous Tom Holland movies, particularly Far From Home--due in part to its sheer ambition, as well as having much improved action scenes. That's part of the benefit of having better villains; the Vulture was only interesting due to his backstory and Michael Keaton's performance, and Mysterio has never been a favorite of mine. Peter's fight with Doc Ock on the freeway is a particular standout and a reminder of why Doc Ock is arguably the best villain in the Spider-Man mythos. 

On the villainous front, both Alfred Molina and Willem Dafoe are welcome returners, even if they had to use CGI to de-age them a bit for this (though it's pretty well-done de-aging). A pleasant surprise, however, is Electro from Amazing Spider-Man 2 getting an upgrade; his appearance and powers are closer to the comic-book source material. And thanks to better writing, Jamie Foxx is able to be more charismatic as a villain as well, and thus be a standout. 

Another plus is on the characterization side; there has been some frankly odd character writing choices under Jon Watts' run, such as MJ being needlessly snarky to the point of unlikability early on. However, she showed signs of improvement in FFH (one of its few big pluses), and now she and Peter are a genuinely enjoyable couple to watch. The fact that Tom Holland and Zendaya have gotten closer in real life has probably not hurt their chemistry either. Aunt May also feels closer to the usual Aunt May, albeit a much younger version, as opposed to just being borderline comic relief/somebody for Tony and Happy to flirt with. In other words, there is more honoring of roots here, and the movie is better for it. 

Among the issues this film *does* have, a couple of the villains do not fare as well as the others--the Sandman and the Lizard. I'm not convinced their actors were ever actually on set in person, because we never see them in human form for more than 10 seconds each--and they appear to just have taken old footage from their prior appearances for those parts. Clearly the two actors (Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans) lent their voices, but that may have been *all* they did--which makes it slightly odd that they even bothered bringing these two villains back, especially considering that they basically just boil down to being CGI monsters for Spider-Man to fight. (Not to mention that the CGI doesn't even look the same; you can re-use old footage, but you can't re-use old CGI footage that was perfectly fine?) 

This is probably the biggest critical flaw with the film. There are a few other minor gripes as well; one side character suddenly develops new abilities out of the blue with scarcely any explanation. Though the continuity is generally strong, there is one slip with a reference to a character from a previous iteration. I also personally have never been the biggest fan of the "hero has been framed for something he obviously didn't do" trope, so the film's opening can be a little tiring until we get to the good stuff. 

The ending is also a bit of a point of contention for me, given that it's one of those ones that *should* have lasting consequences--but unless this ends up being the last Tom Holland Spider-Man movie, it almost certainly won't last. The MCU has a habit of doing this occasionally (think Iron Man 3), but I'm not sure I'd entirely be happy even if it *did* stick. 

Ultimately though, a good number of viewers are likely here for the crossover event--and in that case, aside from wasting a couple of the minor villains, the film succeeds in impressive fashion. Spider-Man fans of *any* of the previous live-action film iterations will want to watch this, even if they aren't necessarily into the Tom Holland movies. Because, in an unusual case, this movie does less to serve the MCU at large and more to serve the Spider-Man fandom. And while I am often the first to gripe about MCU movies that do not appear to matter in the grand scheme of the franchise, an exception can certainly be made here. 

Luca

RATING: B+

Luca is another recent Pixar movie that, much like Soul, suffered the fate of "skip theaters and go straight to Disney Plus," which seemingly caused it to get forgotten pretty quickly. After a series of sequels with mixed results with the excellent Coco smashed somewhere in there, Pixar started a pretty good streak of originals again with Onward and Soul last year--particularly the latter, which was arguably the best thing they have made since their 2000's prime age. Both of those films were more ambitious, albeit for different reasons; Luca is much more simplistic, possibly their most so. 

Luca centers around the protagonist who is named just that, and his friend Alberto, who are both... sea monsters. Luca normally lives life underwater in what looks like a Finding Nemo spin-off, until his friend Alberto takes him to the surface--where he's not supposed to go because humans are bad. And it is shown that when their "kind"--whatever sort of sea monster they are--take to the land, they take on a human appearance. Which means that with a little observance, they can totally blend in among the humans that fear them in the nearby Italian coastal town. Just so long as nobody splashes water on them, that is. 

Normally, a Pixar movie has a certain unique theme or gimmick about it that they build the story around. What if toys came to life? What if the monsters in the closet were just doing their job? What if the emotions in your head were sentient? There has been an exception or two along the way, but this is possibly the first time that a Pixar *idea*--sea monsters that shapeshift to humans on land--almost plays second fiddle. The concept/mythology of these creatures is not given much thought at all; in fact, it's never explained *how* exactly these sea monsters can turn into humans when on land.

Instead, the focus here is the coming-of-age story centering around the three main characters, with the Italian setting and the sea monster trope mostly playing as the backdrop. The latter is set up solely so that two of the main characters can be outsiders with secrets. We have Luca, the curious but nervous protagonist; Alberto, the overly confident friend who thinks he's got it all under control; and Guilia, the actually-human girl who befriends them because she also is an underdog with her own goals (though she doesn't know their actual secret). 

The movie thus ultimately does revolve around the friendship dynamics of these characters. In that sense--and in its aspirations as a "coming of age" story--it's quite successful. The characters are likable and interesting enough, and the film also handles the unhealthier side of Luca and Alberto's friendship quite well. The character development is also strong, particularly with how things culminate in a final act that would be otherwise unremarkable. 

Also working in the movie's favor is the humor; from literally invoking the "2 hours later" card meme, to some of the inevitable "blending in" mistakes that occur. It does a good job at seldom feeling forced, which has been a bit of an issue with some Disney-owned productions lately. 

If there is anything inherently wrong with Luca, per se, it's a lack of ambition or anything inherently special about it. Luca succeeds at what it is setting out to do and does this well; but if anything, it feels rather simplistic. Even though Pixar is no longer as consistently elite as they once were, there are still general expectations with them, particularly with an original feature. And it's not even like the film is particularly original, even if (aside from parts of the first 10-15 minutes) it doesn't feel at all like a tired derivative of what came before. 

But as has been said before, Luca still does well at what it *does* set out to do. And it's a pretty enjoyable, undemanding adventure. While some might find themselves wishing for a little more, there still is not much to complain about with what we do get. 

Dune

RATING: B+

A minor disclaimer: I have never read the book which this is based on. Nevertheless, I was interested in a new sci-fi/fantasy epic based off some beloved source material. Heaven knows Hollywood has very little actual original material these days, so it is always pleasant to see some decent/interesting books being adapted to cinematic form. And frankly, we were due for a new successful franchise based off a book series. 

Dune has been adapted before to the big screen back in 1984 by David Lynch, but that film was apparently a failure and not so well-liked by the book fans. This new one seems to be faring much better in the latter regard. Fortunately, despite this being adapted from some pretty dense source material which made adapting it properly difficult, one can still understand this film without having read the book. At the same time, it doesn't hurt to not go in completely blind. 

So basically, in this sci-fi universe--which takes place in the year 10,191--interstellar travel is achieved by way of the substance called "spice"--which is also an hallucinogen drug. It also helps extend human life and heighten abilities and stuff... but the important thing is it makes interstellar travel possible, thus making everyone pretty reliant on it. And it's only available on one planet--Arrakis, a desert world. 

Arrakis, which is home to the Fremen natives (as well as gigantic sandworms--more on that later), has been occupied by House Harkonnen for some time who have been harvesting the spice. Now the Emperor (what exactly he's emperor of, I never did get straight) has re-assigned it to House Atreides--whose Duke Leto, his partner Lady Jessica and son Paul, are our primary characters--with the latter being the protagonist. 

The Harkonnen aren't very keen on giving up their monopoly on space's most precious resource, and Duke Leto is aware of the threat from them--among other possibilities in which this situation could go badly sideways for them. But hey, the Emperor has spoken, and that's that apparently. There's another thread or two going on here, namely the Fremen's belief that some kind of messiah is on the way to help liberate them--who could very well be Paul for reasons that would take too long to explain here.

Anyway, as you can probably tell by the fact that it took me three paragraphs to explain some basic background on what this story's about, that the lore of Dune is pretty loaded. To the point, in fact, that director Denis Villeneuve felt he simply couldn't tell the story in one movie--so technically, this movie's title is actually Dune Part One. And even Part One is loaded, because this movie is 155 minutes. 

Dune does a good job of explaining its setting and backdrop, as well as its gimmicks--such as the forcefield armor that everyone fights with that prevents anything fast from killing you--and is not that difficult to follow. There may be some trouble keeping up with some of the weirdly named places and people, but so long as you've got the primary ones down, you can manage. 

On a visual/technical level, this is a masterpiece. This has always been Villeneuve's primary specialty, and it is on full display here. The landscapes are gorgeous and the designs are well-done, as are the special effects. Of particular note is the first actual look at the scope of a sandworm, which is a jaw-dropper moment. The sound effects also give this a unique feel, which is helped out by Hans Zimmer's score which uses a cacophony of sounds that distinguish it from his usual work while still sounding enough like him. 

Story-wise, it's nothing necessarily special--it does rely on a familiar trope or two (chosen-one-esque stuff), but it's got unique enough concepts and is intriguing enough to keep one interested. But it is ultimately a movie that takes pride in its aesthetics most of all--and in that sense, it is a complete success, and you have enough substance that you don't feel like you are watching anything remotely brainless. The all-star cast certainly does not hurt either, of which Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa (mostly by virtue of his character being the coolest), and Josh Brolin stand out the most. Timothee Chalamet is fine as the main lead, though sometimes he's a little too straight-faced at seemingly the wrong times. 

This film does perhaps suffer a little bit from being a "Part One," but that's less the fault of the director or movie and more on the source material for being so dense that even 150 minutes isn't enough to do it justice. But, for example, we do have the result of there not exactly being much of a climactic sequence, and the final line being "this is just the beginning" further driving the point home that this is basically only half a movie. It's a good thing that Part Two has officially been greenlit, or this movie would be rendered pointless. 

For fans of the sci-fi/fantasy genre, Dune is well worth dipping your toe into even if you aren't familiar with the source material. It does more than enough to distinguish itself from other works of the genre and stand on its own. While I have heard that this series gets weirder as time goes on, I am at least quite interested to see how Dune Part Two goes. 

Black Widow

 

RATING: C+

It's hard to believe it has been two years since the last Marvel Cinematic Universe film outing. Yes, we've had a handful of miniseries' via Disney Plus, but I'm not really counting those (and am also hoping they won't expect us to have seen those in order to understand future movies). But it's been two years since Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home. And this would appear to be the last throwback to the Infinity Saga before we start rolling with stuff like Eternals and Spider-Man: No Way Home and bring in the multiverse (sigh). 

Ultimately, the main reason this movie exists is because the fans clamored for it; but the studio supposedly couldn't find a place for one before. Now with Natasha's storyline definitively ending in Endgame, there is nowhere to go but backwards. The result is a prequel of sorts that takes place between Civil War and Infinity War while Natasha is on the run (again). And the first thought that comes to mind is... why couldn't they just have released it in between those two movies? 

So shortly after Natasha went after the run in Civil War, she finds herself crossing paths with her dark past; specifically, the brutal "Red Room" where she had been trained that had been hinted at in Age of Ultron. This leads to her reuniting with her surrogate family from those early days; specifically, her "sister" Yelena. Together, they will face off against a new threat (I think?) from the Red Room, as well as the foe Taskmaster. 

There are definitely some interesting pieces in here. The film is at least partially built around Natasha and her old "family," and on at least two out of three members, it works pretty well. Yelena (Florence Pugh) is easily the highlight of the movie overall, with her frequent snarking with Natasha as well as being able to hold her own as well due to also being part of the Black Widow program. David Harbour is also clearly enjoying himself as Alexei / the Red Guardian and gives the film another strong source of levity. Rachel Weisz's mother figure doesn't fare as well, but that's in part due to her character being more complicated (and not in a good way). 

There is some fun action here as well. We get some of the usual moments for Natasha as well as Yelena to have some good fighting scenes. Natasha also gets another classic moment of turning the interrogation around. Some of the earlier Taskmaster fights are quite good as well, who is formidable due to having the ability to mimic fighting styles. Elsewhere, the film does a good job at times of showing the horrors (well, sometimes more implied than shown) of the Black Widow program--to the point where real-life trafficking parallels can feel invoked. Such scenes are creepily effective. 

However, there are definitely issues here. To start with, this doesn't completely feel like Natasha's film--in part because it does not do much with her character. She's supposed to be confronting her dark past, and there's good opportunity for this after a revelation about a particularly alarming thing she did. The problem is the film does not a good enough job of making her seem properly remorseful--a poor oversight on the writers' part, who seem to be more focused on the levity and family side of things--as well as the evils of the program itself--at the cost of character development, as well as sometimes borderline hand-waving the terrible things the individuals have done. 

And there is also the matter of Taskmaster. I cannot say I know much about the Taskmaster of the comics, but plenty of comic-book fans were unhappy with the film version. And the reveal of the identity of Taskmaster here is ultimately rather underwhelming. Taskmaster is set up as this formidable foe and the presumed primary antagonist, but much of this gets undone by the final act as Taskmaster is revealed to be playing a rather different role than expected. 

Speaking of the final act, that also in general is a bit underwhelming. There does not seem to be a grand deal in the way of stakes--or at least, not by Marvel movie standards. Yeah, not everything can be an "Avengers-level threat," as it was put in Far From Home, but it doesn't really match up to the darker tone set up earlier on, and due to the previously mentioned underwhelming reveals as well as the storyline not being entirely coherent, one can end up feeling less invested by the time stuff starts blowing up. While Ant-Man and the Wasp also did not have as big stakes (aside from Hank going to the Quantum Realm to find his wife), that one was at least a little more innovative and genuinely fun, and less fundamentally flawed. Black Widow at least gets the "fun" part more or less down, but it's too weighed down by the flaws to be particularly notable. 

Black Widow is a decently enjoyable pastime, but it's also a bit of a mess. While a lot of this boils down to poor character development and arcs, it also boils down to the fact that this film does not really mean anything in the grand scheme of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It mostly just exists so that they could have a solo movie for Natasha and possibly introduce a future replacement for Scarlett Johansson. It does leave a tease for one of the upcoming Disney Plus series in the post-credits scene, but at this stage, I could not possibly care less about that. And while it may be a welcome enough addition for fans of the character, I do not think it should be too much to ask in an entertainment series this utterly vast that the installments matter in the grand scope of the series. 

No Time to Die

 

RATING: B+

Well, it only took six years including a year-and-a-half delay thanks to a global pandemic, but the newest James Bond has finally arrived--and the final one for Daniel Craig. Which is what we thought last time around, but this time it is pretty definitively the end. Though I liked Spectre a lot more than most, that last installment was a bit divisive--so the question is, in the actual finale, if MGM can stick the landing with this iteration of Bond. 

When we last left Bond, he had retired from MI6 and had run off with Madeleine for a happier life (hence why Spectre could've served as an ending for this iteration of Bond if it had to). This film initially picks up where that one left off, but when an incident leads Bond to believe Madeleine betrayed him, he strikes off on his own. Years later, he is approached by his old CIA friend Felix (who was missing from the last two movies), who is looking for his help in finding a missing scientist. This ultimately kickstarts a plot that leads Bond to cross paths with both Madeleine and MI6 again, as well as pit him against a new villain with world-threatening plans. And of course, despite being in jail, Ernst Stavro Blofeld and SPECTRE are still in the picture... 

This is an unusual recent case of a movie having a quite troubled production and still managing to overcome it. They had an abrupt director switch, writers who were initially allegedly at a loss for ideas for political reasons, a bunch of script rewrites even as filming began... and somehow this managed to not be a failure. 

However, this does feel like a bit of a different Bond movie. It kind of is purely by nature, seeing as this is the first iteration of Bond to have any serious continuity between movies and to actually have a conclusive "ending." But it also feels a bit more dramatic, as Bond finally wrestles with the cost of not trusting anyone. It has a bit more in common with Casino Royale than it does Skyfall or Spectre. 

This does kind of lead in to one of the bigger flaws of the movie--the villain Safin (Rami Malek) and his plan. It's never made completely clear what exactly the full scope of his plans and motivations are. He has a connection to Madeleine, but the "reveal" there turns out to be underwhelming, especially when compared to Silva's past with M in Skyfall or Blofeld's past with Bond in Spectre. Malek is appropriately creepy at times (an early flashback involving him invokes some jump scares, of all things), but his character is not fleshed out well enough for him to truly stand out. 

The issue there is that this movie seems to be wrestling between being a little more character-focused like Casino Royale was, and being the usual spy action flick we're used to. The difference is that the villainous plot/characters in Casino Royale, while convoluted, could still be followed. Here, the best we get is a vague monologue from Safin about how he sees himself and his "mission" which leads directly to one of the catchphrases used most heavily in the trailers from Bond: "History isn't kind to those who play god." Considering that Safin still plays an important role in the course of the plot, this lack of clear explanation does bring down the movie a notch. 

There is still plenty to like about this movie, however. There's both some great car chases and gunfight sequences, and some of the hand-to-hand fights are quite well filmed due to the camera not cutting constantly. Daniel Craig also turns in possibly his best performance in the series, and Lea Seydoux seems a bit more comfortable in her role as Madeleine this time as well. Hans Zimmer predictably gives us a great soundtrack which fits pretty well for a less traditional, more serious Bond movie. 

This movie also has some serious daring; in the pursuit of being a definitive conclusion to a saga of Bond, it takes the franchise to places it has never gone before. As a result, the stakes do truly feel like they are truly high and that anything could happen--and thus, it's an unexpectedly brutal watch at times. 

And while previous Daniel Craig Bond movies hinted at times at a less cold, more thoughtful Bond, this one finally seems to fulfill that ambition. If Casino Royale was the story of how Bond's heart was broken and thus turned him into the cold and sometimes ruthless secret agent we all know, No Time to Die is the story of him finally confronting his issues; and while the execution isn't perfect, the result is a pleasant and satisfying turn for his character arc.

The film can admittedly feel bloated at times with its 163-minute runtime, even without shoving a ton of side plots at us (and this again makes one wonder why Safin's character is not more fleshed out). And the different tone of this movie might throw some off looking for a typical Bond adventure--but this is not that. This is a definitively concluding chapter that resolves the story and character of this series of Bond movies, and it does so on its own terms. The results aren't quite classic, but they do leave an impact. It's anybody's guess what lies in store for the future of the Bond franchise, but the legacy of the Daniel Craig saga will be very difficult to top. 

Bill and Ted Face the Music

 

RATING: C

It would be pretty easy to accuse this movie of being a tired cash-grab attempting to bank on viewers' nostalgia for a franchise long dormant (specifically, *three decades* dormant). In all fairness, though, Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter *wanted* this movie to happen. Though the resurgence of Keanu's popularity since John Wick took off probably did make it a lot easier to sell this idea to a distributor (hence why we are also getting a Matrix 4... sigh). 

The problem with going this long in between sequels is that, naturally, your main actors will have aged. And it's admittedly a bit hard to imagine Keanu returning to his unusually silly role from his youth with Alex Winter in their mid-50's going "Whoa!" and doing air guitar. Fortunately, that does turn out to be the least of this movie's problems; surprisingly, they are able to still make their performances believable as the two crazy rockers while still acting like they have aged. 

The first problem with this movie is that it sort of retcons the ending of Bogus Journey (the second movie from 1991). At the end of that movie, it appeared they were very much on their way to fulfilling their destiny, to the point where they were performing *on Mars.* But now... according to this movie... they crashed and burned not long after that, and in fact still haven't fulfilled their destiny or written "the song" that will change everything and unite the world or whatever. Their careers are virtually toast and their marriages are on rocky ground. Oh, and apparently time and space are starting to collapse and the song needs to be written. 

Frankly, though, one probably doesn't go to a Bill and Ted movie for a plot. The last two movies at times made about as much sense as Monty Python. With that in mind, I would've just as easily accepted a third movie where some evil villain messed with time to erase Bill and Ted's accomplishments and they had to fix everything by going on another excellent or bogus venture. 

And that leads to the next problem with this movie: it feels more serious than its predecessors, and that's not necessarily a good thing. This franchise has been at its best when they've given zero hoots and just done whatever they wanted because it's funny. I would not say that sort of thing often, but even though those previous movies didn't make much sense, it was clear they were not supposed to--and they were so fully invested in the zaniness that it was not a problem. And because of this movie taking itself a little more seriously, this makes the time-travel parts that don't make much more sense more problematic. 

Then there is also the ending to contend with. Given that these movies have always have had happy endings, it's not really a spoiler to say that Bill and Ted emerge victorious in the end. But for an ending that would appear to definitively "fulfill their destiny" (since now we're saying the end of Bogus Journey did not do that), it is not the ending that you might expect. On one hand, the resolution appears to at least partially contradict the destinies of Bill and Ted that had been established in previous movies--which is a bit maddening. On the other hand, it does lean on a more on-the-nose interpretation of the metaphor of music being a uniting force that brings us together. This isn't a bad thing by any means, but the issue is the fact that it does not seem to fully jive with what had been built up in the past. 

What does still work about this movie? To start with, the two leads' performances. Yeah, it's been 30 years, but Winter and Reeves are clearly enjoying themselves. Winter in particular does a good job of picking up where he left off. And they get to be more creative with their performances when, as in previous movies, they meet future versions of themselves--and this time, thanks in part to improved CGI, the writers were able to be more creative with the possibilities to often amusing effect. There may be less constant humor in this movie than previous ones, but there are still some funny moments (though there's nothing as funny here as the Iron Maiden joke or Death having to say "You sunk my battleship"). 

Also of note is the addition of Bill and Ted's daughters, Billie and Thea (Bill and Ted named them after the other's friend, respectively--so Billie is Ted's daughter, Thea is Bill's daughter). They're both basically what one would hope for from the offspring of Bill and Ted, and they are welcome additions here. Both actresses--but Brigette Lundy-Paine in particular--do a good job of portraying them.

Face the Music is not without positives, but on the all it's not the (presumed) concluding chapter to this series that it could have been. Despite the best efforts of Reeves and Winter, this one is just not quite able to replicate the spirit of its predecessors. More die-hard fans who want to see these two say "whoa" or "excellent" or "be excellent to each other" one last time will probably want to check it out, but expectations should be a little tempered. 

A Quiet Place Part II

 

RATING: B

A Quiet Place "Part I" was quite arguably the best thing to happen to the horror genre in a very long time. Perhaps it helped that it wasn't purely a horror movie (there was some sci-fi/thriller crossover), but it was nothing like the gore-fests or supernatural terror stuff that litters the genre these days, which is why I almost never watch or review anything in this genre. But it also stood out for its simplicity and focusing on the one family and their life/dynamics in a terrifying world where sound equals death. Quite simply, A Quiet Place was an anomaly--in more ways than one, which made it stand out. 

Perhaps that's the first problem with the follow-up--as viewers of the first one will know (and if you haven't watched, then why are you reading the review for the second one?), John Krasinski's paternal character is gone now (though he does appear in an opening flashback). That leaves us with Evelyn, the two teen children, and the newborn. As meaningful as Lee's exit was, having the Abbott family missing one of the parents does take away something from the sequel, especially given how good Krasinski's and Emily Blunt's chemistry as a married couple was (given that they are married in real life). 

Still, it's hard to not be curious about what happens next--especially now that they found a weakness for the aliens. The answer is that it's time to venture out into the world--or what's left of it--and find other survivors. Unfortunately, the problem is that unlike our main characters, it seems that most of who's left has not held onto their humanity as well in the time of crisis. The first person they meet--an old friend from before the apocalypse--says that "the people that are left, they're not worth saving." However, it helps that they are at least now armed with a way to fight back against the aliens--thanks to the deaf Regan and her ear implants, and she seeks to find a way to help more using said method. 

The first movie leaned on the family dynamics to drive itself and the story, not unlike how The Incredibles did it for superhero movies. This one more becomes Regan's movie, as she chooses to go on her own quest to try to do some damage to the aliens. This both is a positive and a negative--while Regan and how she lives with deafness is still one of the more interesting things about these movies (helped by the fact that Millicent Simmonds is deaf in real life), separating her from the rest of the family doesn't feel like the best move--and this certainly does not benefit Evelyn or Marcus, who are basically relegated to "B" plot (and frankly, Marcus does not fare well for most of this one). On the other hand, I can't argue too much with how the main plotline with Regan plays out, which does work out just fine. 

The result of all this is a movie that does not quite hold up to its absurdly unique predecessor, but is still a worthy follow-up that expands the universe--and director Krasinski's knack for subtlety definitely works well in this regard. Also of note is that the movie does not really weaken the monsters beyond the weakness discovered at the end of the first movie, which some monster/alien sequels have made the mistake of doing.  

Besides Simmonds--who is a big part of what carries this movie--Cillian Murphy is the main other actor who stands out here, playing a rugged survivor who becomes entangled with the Abbott family. Given that we scarcely even saw other humans in the first movie, it is intriguing to see the movie's world through the perspective of another character. His performance and character arc is another big part of what makes Part II work.

While Part II might be missing part of what made Part I a standout, it still shouldn't disappoint viewers who are wanting to see what happens next. This one has its own spin that does help distinguish it well enough, even if not so distinctly. Like Part I, this one ends a bit abruptly, leaving one to wonder what direction Part III is going to go in. But as long as Krasinski remains at the director's helm, it's hard to see things going too wrong. 

Love and Monsters

RATING: A-

Here's yet another movie that got heavily victimized by the pandemic in 2020. After things went crazy, Paramount just gave up on this one and sent it to video on demand (and about a meager 400 theaters)--without much regard for promotion, even. It probably would've gone by with few having heard of it except for the fact that reviews were quite positive, which helped draw some attention to it. And ultimately, the critic and audience hype is to be believed--this is a movie that deserved much, much better than to get sent to a fate like VOD. 

This is a unique mash of genres--post-apocalyptic adventure mixed with a coming-of-age story (plus a dash of comedy--dark comedy, even--and romance). The former we've seen quite a lot of in the past decade; the latter has faded in recent years. Oh, and by the way, it's an original story with no source material--that's another trope we don't see much of anymore. 

In this version of the apocalypse, instead of nuclear war or an asteroid or aliens... it's bugs and small creatures of our own Earth growing to giant size and mutating, which then lay waste to the planet and drive the remaining humans underground to survive. The opening which explains this in about two or three minutes treats the whole thing with a certain dark lighthearted tone at times, setting the stage for the kind of semi-quirky adventure this will be. Joel (Dylan O'Brien), our restless protagonist, decides to leave his "colony" to go and find his former girlfriend Aimee's (Jessica Henwick) colony. Only 85 miles away. No big deal, right?

This kind of is a big deal, actually, when creatures like giant ants, centipedes, and other crazy mutations await. There's a reason people don't go to the surface anymore except for gathering supplies and what not. Doesn't help matters that Joel is kind of useless in combat mostly due to a "freezing up" issue. But he'll get some help (in the form of a dog, Michael Rooker, and a little girl who's with Rooker's character), and there will be plenty of adventures along the way. 

The premise is interesting enough in of itself, but the movie more than lives up to it. Let's start with the creatures, because they're a big part of the attraction. The giant bugs/monsters are wonderfully designed--quite well-detailed, and don't even rely heavily on CGI (another unusual thing these days, for all of CGI's benefits). There's even occasionally a level of personality to them, and how well crafted they are is a big part of what makes this work. 

Another big part of it, though, is Dylan O'Brien carrying the movie--especially since he spends about a third of the length talking either to himself, a dog, or something else non-human. A lot of the performance is played as dry/deadpan humor, but he sells almost every part of his performance even when it requires more subtlety. Props to Henwick and Rooker too (and the newcomer Ariana Greenblatt does well too), but O'Brien stands out the most. If you weren't sold on him after the Maze Runner trilogy, you should be by now. 

This movie has some other pleasant surprises up its sleeve as well--whether it's making the normal dog just as much of a character as the human ones, making a scene involving a robot the most emotionally impactful, or not relying on heavy spectacle for its climactic sequence while still being effectively exciting--not to mention the more realistic addressing of how Joel's continued crush ultimately plays out. 

Love and Monsters does a *lot* of things right--meshes its genres/tropes together seamlessly, creates well-crafted "monsters," and has a genuinely interesting plot and characters. The movie's also well-paced with scarcely a moment of boredom, and ultimately gives a satisfying (if somewhat bittersweet) conclusion. As far as adventure movies go, it's probably both the best of the past year and the most original/able to stand out in a crowded genre. 

Raya and the Last Dragon

RATING: B-

For a little over a decade, Disney animated features have generally been able to split into two camps. There's the ones starring a Disney Princess that, while they can certainly appeal to anybody and do, are generally marketed toward younger girls (regardless of whether that's actually an accurate reflection of the movie or not). Examples include Tangled and both Frozen movies. Then there's the more adventure-oriented ones, like Big Hero 6, Wreck-It Ralph, or Zootopia--features that could be mistaken for Pixar work, and where the opposite of the previously mentioned target audience trope may apply. 

Raya and the Last Dragon is the rare Disney feature (at least these days) that attempts to split the difference and market itself to both camps. It's more oriented in the realm of fantasy/adventure, but it also has a heroine for a protagonist--who's technically a princess, but that word is never really said out loud and she hasn't been included in the "Princess" marketing lineups. She's more of a warrior type anyway. The result of all this is basically what you'd get if you crossed Mulan and Avatar: The Last Airbender together. 

Raya and the Last Dragon has an interesting enough setting and backdrop. Basically, the people of this fantasy version of Asia used to live together alongside dragons (not the angry fire-breathing kind--in fact, these almost look more Luck Dragons from the Neverending Story, minus the dog ears). Unfortunately, the world is also under attack by a force called the Druun which turns people *and* dragons to stone. The last living dragon banished them with the help of a magic gem, but vanished and the rest of the dragons never returned. And now the world is divided in a power struggle for the gem--and eventually the Druun return (for semi-spoilerific reasons), forcing Raya to try and find the mythical "Last Dragon" in hopes of saving the world. 

It's less complicated than it might sound. In fact, this movie actually does a pretty good job of world-building in a relatively short amount of time. The problems don't lie in the movie's setting or plot, even if the latter is a tad derivative at times. Nor does it lie in the protagonist, who is an effectively likable character but also driven cynical and world-weary by the divisions. The problems lie elsewhere. 

Let's start with the movie's message, which is not very subtle. It's a very unity-based one, which leans heavily on the concept of trusting in order to get there. While this is not bad in of itself and even arguably quite timely, the problem is in the execution. The movie--and Sisu, the "Last Dragon"--tell us these things about trust often, but the movie also gives us plenty of reasons to do the opposite. By the time we get to the final act and the inevitable eventually occurs, it does not feel earned. 

Then there's the issue of the Druun. They're the real enemy here, but what are they? As we see them, they're basically giant dark purple clouds. The movie doesn't seem very interested in explaining properly what they are or their origins. Are they an evil force? Something created by mankind? Or are they just a literal metaphor? Sisu gives a brief monologue at some point, and the best we get is that they're "the opposite of dragons," which in this universe, are positively benevolent. While the effects of the Druun are effectively enough to set some tension, it's hard to "love to hate" a villainous force when it's basically just menacing clouds that you're not even really sure what they are. 

Finally, there's Sisu, the Last Dragon. For a mythical creature that's supposed to save everyone, she's a bit underwhelming--coming off as more goofy and awkward at times. This is done deliberately, but why? The movie can't decide whether to portray her as an awe-inspiring force of good, or simple comic relief--two things Disney normally doesn't have problems separating properly. This allows Sisu to play into the movie's quite anachronistic modern late-2010's banter, which is funny at times but also a little overdone. ("Bling is my thing," for example, is something that is actually said in this movie.) 

Despite these various issues, it's not like there's nothing to be enjoyed here. As mentioned earlier, the backdrop and story are interesting enough. There's also some exciting melee combat sequences, as well as some martial arts. The animation is also quite astounding, bringing the environments to life beautifully. The side characters that join Raya on her quest are memorable as well. The movie certainly isn't boring either. 

Raya and the Last Dragon is a flawed but ultimately still enjoyable feature from Disney. Nothing to necessarily write home about, but hardly a waste of time either. Whatever the issues, there's enough of a sense of adventure and fun here as well as enough likable characters that it still makes for an entertaining time. Just don't go into it expecting a classic. 

Greenland

 

RATING: B-

Disaster films do not exactly have a good rep these days. They started gaining notoriety for being mostly spectacle-filled, effects-heavy pieces with very little substance and often flat out terrible writing. Roland Emmerich didn't do much to help this case between The Day After Tomorrow and 2012, which are kind of poster cases for this issue. In particular since the latter film, the genre's popularity seems to have tanked. Such films can be mildly enjoyable sometimes, but there's almost always nothing to them beyond popcorn entertainment--and it's a grimmer sort. 

Greenland at least takes a different route than most of its peers--it is in fact less about the spectacle and more about the human element. While there are scenes of destruction, they don't take up the majority of the movie and they often happen so fast there's not much time for action. And we generally only see it from the main characters' perspectives--and unlike some of the other movies in this genre, the destruction doesn't follow them wherever they go, so a lot of what we see is limited to news reports. 

Greenland's big disaster event is a comet breaking up into chunks in the atmosphere which then turn into meteors--which cause enough devastation by themselves, but there's one on the way which will cause an extinction level event. Fortunately, the world governments are somewhat prepared (because of course they are)--and as a result, there is still a way out for part of the population. Cue Gerard Butler's character and his family trying to get to safety before civilization as we know it is quite literally wiped out. 

This is a rather grim movie--not just because of the disaster in it, but because it also makes a point of showing how humans would react in such times. In that respect, it actually is fairly realistic; while there are some number of good people doing the best they can, there's also a number of people who will do whatever they can to survive. In that sense, it's comparable to Steven Spielberg's version of War of the Worlds, although it arguably takes things even further. 

Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach of focusing more firmly on the disaster from the perspective of the protagonists is you have to have a good leading cast for that. Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning were parts of what helped War of the Worlds work in that regard. Gerard Butler, while not a bad actor, isn't able to do the same and carry the movie here. Morena Baccarin fares better as the wife of the main family, but aside from Roy from The Office and Scott Glenn (both in smaller roles, though Glenn fares pretty well), there's no one else you've probably heard of in this movie. And while the characters themselves do grow on you over time, they don't really grab you from the start. (It doesn't help matters that in this case the movie *does* make use of disaster cliches with its main characters--estranged parents, child with a health condition.) The film and its characters get better later, but there is also a bit of time-wasting in the first half involving a quite idiotic kidnapping. 

Besides the 2005 War of the Worlds comparisons, this could also be called a more competent version of 2012--also about an apocalyptic event, but with better writing, more realistic and less over-the-top, and less annoying characters (and less characters in general). Some aspects of this film--such as the occasionally bumpy first half and the abrupt ending--hold it back a little bit, but it's still a step above a lot of the films in this genre from the past two decades. 

Greenland isn't necessarily anything to write home about, but it's better than might be expected because of its showcasing of how humans would react with an incoming extinction level event. To a degree, the movie almost feels like it's more about that than the Garrity family that we spend most of the time with. The uglier side of that human nature seen here and the very nature of the unstoppable apocalyptic event on the way might make this movie rather too bleak and grim for some. But if you've watched some of the bigger disaster releases from recent years and wished they would be better, this one might pleasantly surprise you a little with its more consistently serious take on a movie disaster. 

Soul

 

RATING: A

Soul is Pixar's newest and was also one of multiple unfortunate movie victims of the pandemic. Coming at a point when Disney was desperately throwing stuff at the wall trying to figure out how they could still make bank on their movies during a time like this (spoiler: they couldn't), one such result was Soul becoming a "straight-to-streaming" feature--which, much like "direct-to-video" before it, isn't usually a good thing (though perhaps not to the same extent). 

Soul also is Pete Docter's newest turn at the director chair, who has been considered one of Pixar's best. And... well, he did give us Monsters Inc and Up, both classics. Most would say the same about his most recent feature prior to this, Inside Out, though I am in the vast dissenting minority. There were more issues with that movie than most would care to admit, but part of it was limiting human emotion to five distinct ones and not much else--and the film not really reaching the heights of its ambitions. 

With all of that said, Inside Out was still very creative--considering that Docter was trying to essentially anthropomorphize abstract concepts at that point. He sticks to that formula for Soul, which takes things some steps further and asks: where do personalities come from? What "sparks" our souls? And some of that may actually sound a little similar to Inside Out (or at least the former question, anyway), and it's certainly not impossible that Docter is working with some concepts here he first came up with during the making of Inside Out. But this is a whole different beast in general. Instead of going into people's minds, we go to a whole different plane of existence where personalities and "souls" are created--or at least, the parts of their soul that make them who they are. (No explanation on where the souls come from *before* they enter this personality-creating plane of existence--also, despite dealing with things like the afterlife and souls, there's scarcely a hint of spirituality of any sort here.) 

This place is where jazz musician Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) ends up when he accidentally falls into a manhole, which seemingly kills him--and instead of going to the afterlife (here only called "The Great Beyond"), he ends up fighting his way into the "Great Before," the plane of existence where the personalities are created. Quite simply, Joe doesn't want to die yet--he's got a certain driven mentality beyond the usual. His adventure to try to reunite himself with his body leads him to cross paths with "22" (Tina Fey), a soul manifestation that, unlike most others, doesn't actually want to go to Earth. 

What follows is probably Pixar's most existentialist movie ever--not just because it asks questions about things like purpose or what makes life worth living, but because it goes to some different planes of existence--at least one of which is quite literally an abstract everyday metaphor made into a visible reality. There's even a scene where one of the caretakers of the "Great Before"--which appears to us as a 2-D presence made up of traced lines--tells Joe that it is manifesting itself in a form that "your puny human mind can understand." 

Delving into such topics and going to such places could've pretty easily turned out disastrous--in fact, it could've even come off as one of those movies where you ask what kind of drugs they were on. The result instead ranks among Pixar's most creative features ever, and arguably one of their more profound ones. Without giving too much away, the "moral takeaways" of this film are not too dissimilar to the likes of Cars or Monsters University. 

While perhaps there are certain things about this movie that are a little oversimplified, the movie does such a good job with the marks they're going for that it can be overlooked. Even if there's a thing or two I wished they'd touched on more or given a little more closure, the film ultimately reaches a satisfying conclusion all its own. 

There's plenty of other good qualities here. The film is quite hilarious, with some borderline meta humor at times or poking fun at real life figures or stereotypes (example: why the New York Knicks actually suck). The voice acting is also strong--Jamie Foxx is quite excellent here as he brings both the emotion and comic relief when needed. Also of note is the soundtrack, composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross of Nine Inch Nails, of all people--their more ethereal, very slightly techno-ish feel at times is often the completely correct vibe for the scenes in the different dimensions/planes of existence. (Jazz fans will probably be pleased as well, I assume--though jazz is not really my thing, so I'm not very qualified to say.) 

There are some things about this movie that are admittedly hard to explain without seeing the movie itself (or at least a trailer). Suffice it to say that it may just be best to take this reviewer's word for it--as well as all the other critics and fans who have showered praise upon this movie--and give it a go. Also suffice to say that while this obviously isn't the movie's fault, it deserved better than being "straight to streaming." This may not be saying much since most movies were postponed last year, but it's hard for me to see much else topping this for being the best film of 2020. 

Godzilla vs. Kong

 

RATING: B

The MonsterVerse is up to its fourth movie now, and this is the one they've been trying to build toward--an opportunity for Godzilla and King Kong to be in the same movie together, and punch each other in the face. 

On its face, that premise may sound a little preposterous. Since when would King Kong even be big enough to go toe-to-toe with the massive Godzilla, for starters? To be fair, there actually was a "King Kong vs. Godzilla" movie made back in the days of the original Japanese Godzilla movies (back when it was just dudes in rubber suits), so there is at least a precedent. And they did set themselves up for a bigger Kong to begin with--he was definitely larger in Kong: Skull Island than usual, and they said he was "still growing" in that one. So, at least in this universe, this is plausible. 

Anyway, if the idea of these two juggernaut monsters fighting each other doesn't particularly appeal, you're not going to have a very fun time here--because that basically is the premise, and not a whole lot else. Of course, one frankly shouldn't have been expecting much of anything highbrow from this sort of movie anyway. 

What sets up the big fight is Godzilla suddenly going rogue and attacking a city--for the first time in the series. While some realize there must be a reason as Godzilla only attacks when provoked, others wish to simply come up with a way to fight back. The result is Kong getting released from Skull Island--and Godzilla immediately seeks him out, because apparently this world isn't big enough for two apex predators/titans. Turns out there's more going on here, though, as there's a conspiracy going on involving a mega-corp to wipe out the titans for good. Because this world also isn't big enough for humans and titans! Which, in real life, would actually be kind of true--but in this universe, they've established that it actually is big enough (somehow). 

This movie does indeed deliver on the premise, and then gives us more as well. Much like Batman vs Superman before it (except this is a lot better) and other such movies/events, once the two main characters duke it out a little bit, they then have to team up to fight an even bigger threat--which some already knew who that was, thanks to leaks. But let's just say that, for multiple reasons, this movie ends up going into more sci-fi territory compared to its predecessors than one might have otherwise expected. 

One big plus about this movie is that it knows exactly what kind of movie it is and doesn't try too hard to be anything else. One of the primary criticisms of previous movies has been underwhelming and uninteresting human characters--presumably in an attempt to make the movies more than just monster movies. The problem was, they tried a little too hard. The 2014 Godzilla movie actually sort of worked in that regard somehow, while King of the Monsters tried to do a balancing act between the awesome monster fights and the human backdrop that causes the plot--with quite shaky results. Here, the humans are not as important to the storyline--and while most of them still aren't particularly interesting, the movie is ironically a little better off for it, as it's not pretending to be something it's not. The movie knows what we're here for. 

And that's another thing--there's some improvements on the monster fights too. Another criticism of previous movies was the fact that most of them took place at nighttime. Not really the case here--only one fight *starts out* at nighttime, and it's still lit up by the neon Hong Kong skyline (yes, Hong Kong is the main city that gets laid to waste by the fighting monsters here). Otherwise, most of our other fights or general monster action takes place in daytime, and this definitely helps with the quite awesome battle scenes. These improvements alone might be enough to make it the best movie in the series so far, though it's close. 

Other pluses in the movie include a good soundtrack by Junkie XL, and among the human characters, the little girl Jia stands out due to her connection with Kong. Also, Rebecca Hall at least seems like she's enjoying herself. (Yes, Eleven's actress returns in this movie, but she feels oddly tacked on here.) Also, the visuals in this movie are superb; in particular, the Hollow Earth that's been briefly alluded to in passing in previous movies (it's okay if you forgot about it) is visited, and the scenery there is astounding. 

Godzilla vs Kong is a surprising success for the MonsterVerse--it delivers on what you should expect and gives some bonuses too, and isn't dragged down too much by the humans (save for the subplot involving Eleven and the conspiracy theorist hacker). Credit to Adam Wingard for making the kind of popcorn action movie that we all wanted, without dumbing things down much or dramatizing too much of things we don't care about. It's not exactly an intelligent movie, but it's hardly brain-dead either and is quite a bit of fun. Fans of the franchise, monster/kaiju movies, or just fun escapist popcorn action movies in general will want to check this out. 

News of the World

RATING: C+

This was one of the few semi-major releases of 2020 to keep its release date. That might have been because, despite being a Paul Greengrass directed-piece starring Tom Hanks, it wasn't going to be a blockbuster or anything and it had a low budget (probably most of which was spent on snagging Hanks, considering the lack of any other known names on the cast list)--it may have cost more than it would've been worth to delay it repeatedly/indefinitely. 

A neo-western drama/historical fiction piece, News of the World takes place a few years after the Civil War. One former army member from the south (Captain Jefferson Kidd) makes a living reading newspapers to town populaces, going from place to place--apparently, this is actually a lucrative venture due to it being a time when a good number of people were too busy to study the newspapers that much. 

Despite him reading the "news of the world" and that being the title of the movie, that's not really the centerpiece of the plot. That happens when he is en-route to another town when he stumbles upon an abandoned girl, who has been living with the Kiowa after her German-American parents died. Problem is the Kiowa are holed up in Oklahoma (while the story takes place in Texas) and no one seems particularly interested/able in getting her to her "home" in a decent amount of time. Cue a western road trip move of sorts with Kidd and the kid to get her someplace she can be taken care of. 

While the concept may not feel unfamiliar, per se--it's still an interesting story that's helped out by the historic backdrop of the instability of the first several post-Civil War years. As a period piece, this works pretty well. Tom Hanks brings his A-game, as per the usual. And while Helena Zengel (who plays the child Johanna) doesn't seem to be given as much to work with character-wise, she's not half-bad as a newcomer. 

As a result of the instability of the region, there's some obstacles along the road which help lend this movie to adventure territory--namely, would-be-traffickers and a stop in a town run by radical dissenters. The former encounter gives us a shootout which involves some creative ammo. 

The primary problems with this movie come after these encounters. The last third of the movie is surprisingly underwhelming. While there is a resolution of sorts (and a satisfying one at that), there's no real final act/climax--not even on a dramatic level, let alone in the western/adventure territory. The rest of the movie just kind of happens with very little fanfare--quite unusual for something in this genre. I'm not saying we needed another gunfight or whatever, but at least have some sort of noteworthy dramatic conflict to close your story. 

The other problems with this movie revolve around the lack of interesting characters beyond the main two. Everyone else is just a placeholder along their journey, be it for good or for ill. As a result, Tom Hanks is left to pretty much carry the movie by himself. This sort of works, but only to put it into "slightly above average" territory.  

One more positive, however, comes in the direction. Paul Greengrass, while a competent director, does have a reputation for relying on shaky-cam and jump-cuts during more fast-paced scenes. That is nowhere to be found here--this movie is very well filmed, has good cinematography, and never really leaves you with confusion as to what's going on. 

News of the World is nothing special, but it can maintain one's interest if they're into this sort of genre or if they're big fans of Tom Hanks. The movie's big slow-down in the last half-hour or so is what really hurts it--otherwise it might've been a little more memorable. But there's still just enough positives that it doesn't feel like a waste of time. 

The Croods: A New Age

 

RATING: C

In a 2020 hellscape where--among other things--there were very few movies coming out, one thing that was likely unexpected was that one of the few movies that *did* squeeze through and still get released in theaters would be... a sequel to The Croods? For one thing, did that movie even really need a sequel? And why do it seven years later? Dreamworks (or their parent company, Comcast) must have not been expecting much of a return, because they went ahead and pushed it through despite low chances of making much money out of it. Not sure this movie needed to exist, but sure sounds better than Trolls World Tour or Boss Baby 2. Ugh. 

In defense of The Croods, it's not like there was that much inherently wrong with its predecessor, besides the heavy playing out of the "overprotective dad hates/is scared of anything new" trope. But it didn't do much to stand out from the crowd of computer-animated movies beyond its superb visuals--and Nicolas Cage, I guess, even if we could only hear him hamming it up this time. 

By the events of this movie, this prehistoric Flinstones-esque family is still fighting for survival, along with their new pets. The only main change is that now Eep and Guy have become *that* kind of teenage couple. You know the type. Until they run across a giant wall housing a sanctuary where other humans are living--humans that are more advanced, at least by prehistoric standards. And to top it off? They're called the "Bettermans." What kicks off is a saga of these two families' rivalries and how it gets both of them into trouble. 

Considering the time gap between the two movies and the fact that almost entirely different people made this one, this movie's a bit better than it has any right to be. Unfortunately, it does suffer from a couple of the same problems as its predecessor--and adds a new one or two as well. Conflict is still manufactured by characters being needlessly obtuse. The Betterman parents and their superiority complex get annoying fairly quick, as does their attempts to split up a certain new couple and send the rest on their way (though their daughter Dawn fares better--on a few occasions she seems like one of the only sane people in the movie). 

Also, especially down the stretch, this film gets to be a lot more over-the-top than its predecessor, and not necessarily in a good way. You'd think in a world where crazy animal combinations like a tiger cat exist, things would already be that way--but the first film took a lot of its eccentric creations/ideas and played them fairly straight. Here, it's to the point where after the teaming up of some certain characters, we get a crazy caption-filled almost-anime-esque intro sequence for this new "group" that's not as cool as the movie thinks it is. There are a couple of other cringe-worthy scenes. 

On the plus side, this is another visually gorgeous movie to look at. These two movies have had quite a penchant for colorful and detailed backgrounds. And the voice work is good too. The returning voices (namely Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone) are still good; but the newcomers (Peter Dinklage, Kelly Marie Tran) are *clearly* enjoying themselves, which does help the final product out a bit. 

There's still a fair amount of humor too, which includes the "antagonists." One of the latest weird animal cross-ups? "Punch Monkeys." It sounds stupid and it does seem that way at first, but it's actually often quite hilarious. Even the monkeys' *language* consists of punching. 

This movie doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, but it's not a total failure by any means either. And again, the question of whether this movie was even necessary could fairly be raised, but during a time where few movies are coming out, I suppose we take what we can get. There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your time (for example, Trolls World Tour).  

Wonder Woman 1984

 RATING: B

The DC Extended Universe has had a bit of a shaky run. The attempt to rush out the Justice League was a colossal failure for multiple reasons, and while the series is still sort of kicking, their future doesn't look bright. That said, they have been pretty good at doing solo movies. The first Wonder Woman and Shazam were excellent, Man of Steel was pretty great as well, and even Aquaman was surprisingly serviceable. Now, we get the first sequel to one of those solo movies (Batman vs Superman doesn't count as a Man of Steel sequel) in Wonder Woman 1984. Rather fitting, since Wonder Woman has been pretty easily the best thing to come out of the DCEU and the one thing that is universally believed to have been done right. 

Much like its predecessor, this one takes place in the past--although it does take a rather large time skip from World War I. The advantage of your protagonist being basically immortal is that you can put them in whatever time you want--and the chosen setting here was the American 80's, a rather promising idea. At this point, Diana is continuing to do Wonder Woman things, while somehow managing to remain fairly underground in the process (some suspension of disbelief is required there). When a mysterious artifact turns up that turns out to grant wishes, it puts her into conflict with an ambitious businessman (Maxwell Lord) whose plans/use of it eventually cause chaos--as well as (eventually) one of the more famous villains in the Wonder Woman canon--the Cheetah. Oh yeah, and the supposedly dead Steve Trevor is back somehow!

To get right to the points, WW84 is not as good as its predecessor. There's definitely some good Wonder Woman action as always, and the character herself is still enjoyable--but this is a more bumpy ride at times. To start with, there's actually barely any WW action for almost 90 minutes (save for a mall heist at the beginning, but that's more comedic than anything). The movie's first half spends a lot more time on establishing the characters of the two villains (which isn't a bad thing) as well as playing up the MacGuffin of this movie for a bit. Some of this still could've been cut down--namely, the very first scene involving a flashback to Themyscira could've been left out and it wouldn't have mattered one bit. 

Those are mostly issues with pacing and editing, but one more foundational flaw is that, for a movie set in the 80's, they do not bank on that setting or nostalgia as much as you'd think. There is a bit where Diana shows Steve around the city and a hilarious scene involving him trying on 80's fashion (and poking fun at it), but not a lot beyond that and a little of satirizing the more toxic consumerism/megalomania of the time. Not even one 80's song is played. Captain Marvel did a much better job of banking on the nostalgia of its 90's setting in multiple ways. Heck, the Bumblebee movie from the Transformers franchise did a much better job with the same 80's setting itself! 

Still, there's plenty to like here. As previously stated, there are some good action sequences, even if it takes a while to get to them. An Egypt highway chase and White House fight scene are particularly of note here. There's some impressive visuals as well, particularly in a scene where Diana and Chris drive a jet through a fireworks show. As usual, Diana/Wonder Woman herself (and Gal Gadot's performance) is a delight, and Chris Pine does well with the "man in the wrong time" role. But arguably of higher note are the villains. Kristen Wiig's Cheetah is actually played as more of a tragic villain, and it mostly works--though as an outsider to the comics, I do find myself wondering why a cheetah-human hybrid would be one of the most iconic villains of this canon. 

However, Pedro Pascal's performance as Max Lord is one of the very best things about this movie. He excellently plays a stereotypical charismatic 80's businessman with some unexpected depths who goes from silly to desperate to sympathetic to insane to power-hungry (and not necessarily in that order) quite convincingly. (And despite a mildly similar appearance, he's not really an expy for a certain real-life businessman of that era you may be thinking of.) It's Pascal's performance and Max's character arc that perhaps make this thing work the most, besides Diana herself. 

One other issue of note, though, is just *how* Steve Trevor ends up being in this movie. There were multiple theories before the movie's release, some of which were actually pretty good--but pretty much none of them ended up being right, and the actual explanation ended up being rather stupid--and odd/bizarre in the context of the plot, with a lot of unanswered questions. 

(SPOILER ALERT for the next paragraph, regarding the above subject.) 

Essentially, Steve unintentionally ends up in another man's body--which makes zero sense, and does raise some questions about whose body it actually is during that time period. Did the other guy get erased from existence temporarily? Is he still in there but suppressed? Why did Steve have to inhabit someone else to begin with? The movie is interested in answering exactly zero of these questions, and for some reason Diana and Steve don't seem to care that much either. This plot device could've been handled a *lot* better even in the context of the plot/MacGuffin that spawns him, but instead it's borderline hand-waved. 

Ultimately, WW84 isn't as great or even as impactful as its predecessor, but it's still a fairly good follow-up overall. It does stand on its own well too and doesn't depend on being a part of the further DCEU canon (though it does briefly set up its own threequel). As much as I've enjoyed the immersive Marvel Universe, these DC movies seem to work a lot better when they're more self-contained. This may be more of a bumpy ride than its predecessor, but it's still worth the watch, particularly if you're a fan of the character.