Montana Story – Movie Review

Directed by:  Scott McGehee and David Siegel

Written by:  Scott McGehee, David Siegel, and Mike Spreter

Starring:  Haley Lu Richardson, Owen Teague, Gilbert Owuor, Kimberly Guerrero, Eugene Brave Rock, and Asivak Koostachin

Runtime:  113 minutes

‘Montana Story’:  A small family addresses a massive rift in Big Sky Country

Montana is 147,000 square miles, 255 miles long, and 630 miles wide.  

That’s a long way across the state.  One could drive from Boston to New York City, turn around and chauffeur back to Beantown, and then make a U-turn (yes, again) and head back to and reach The Big Apple, and that’s how big Montana is.  

It’s the nation’s fourth-largest state, with just over 1,000,000 residents.  According to Google, 1,062,000 individuals, or 7.2 people for every square mile. 

The Treasure State, the country’s 41st, is a vast, massive place, and with the starkest of contrasts, writers/directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel – along with writer Mike Spreter - wrote and drew up their movie about a small nuclear family’s crisis in Montana.

McGehee, Siegel, and Spreter may have included the clan’s last name during the film’s 113-minute runtime, possibly in passing, but this critic didn’t recall it or write it down.  However, surnames aren’t important here.  This tale about a family’s disintegration - and as a byproduct, an unofficial code of silence between its principal members – is, unfortunately, not a rare circumstance these days.

The domestic disfunction in this household isn’t uniquely American, but “Montana Story” - through the rugged-terrain captures, a sparse population, and the film’s measured pace – feels like a modern-day western, an isolated quarrel on a prairie but without whiskey shots in a saloon and gunfights on a dusty Main Street.   

It’s present-day, and 20-somethings Cal (Owen Teague) and Erin (Haley Lu Richardson) – brother and sister - are compelled to return to their childhood home because their father is in a coma, and the prognosis isn’t favorable.  Due to their pop’s condition, it’s clear that conversations will be one-sided, but the reason for Erin’s estrangement with her dad and Cal is a mystery. 

Something caused Erin’s distress, and the film barely gives any clues during the first act. Meanwhile, Richardson’s raw performance of a young woman unwilling or unable to shake the agony of her past pulls us into the story with equal parts of empathy and morbid curiosity.   

We’ll eventually get to Erin’s truth.  

Cal knows it because he lived under the same roof, so we saddle up to join their unplanned, fragmented reunion in Big Sky Country along with the family’s stressful economic realities.  

If you enjoyed Chloe Zhao’s “The Rider” (2017) or Kelly Reichardt’s “Certain Women” (2016) -which featured the American West as a majestic and timeless character while the human counterparts struggle with 21st-century society – then “Montana Story” is your film as well.  Like the aforementioned dramas, a horse plays a part in this picture too.  This stallion’s name – of a famous 1980s television star - helps deepen our connection to this beautiful animal.  Still, if this pony’s name were “Horsey”, our heart would go out to him and Erin’s attempt to address his immediate needs, which becomes her primary focus.

Valentina (Kimberly Guerrero), a family friend who also works on the ranch, says, “(Erin) doesn’t know how to make the pain go away.  This, she can do.”   

Well, when a family’s pieces don’t fit nicely into a Norman Rockwell painting, and the picture might resemble the complete opposite, one may set all kin-connections aside and walk away…whether in Montana, Delaware, or Timbuktu. 

That is Erin’s history, but she reaches for one small fragment, maybe two, to embrace in the here and now. 

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Happening – Movie Review

Directed by:  Audrey Diwan

Written by:  Audrey Diwan, Marcia Romano, and Anne Berest, based on Annie Ernaux’s autobiographical novel

Starring:  Anamaria Vartolomei, Louise Orry-Diquero, Luana Bajrami, Fabrizio Rongione, and Sandrine Bonnaire

Runtime:  95 minutes

‘Happening’:  Diwan’s abortion film is a distressing, timely, and important cinematic experience

“Accept it.  You have no choice.” – Dr. Ravinsky (Fabrizio Rongione)

Dr. Ravinsky voices this message to Anne Duchesne (Anamaria Vartolomei), a 23-year-old literature student, during a follow-up visit.  Even though he delivers these words with regret and empathy, the blow isn’t tempered to Anne’s ears.  She does not consent.  She cannot concede.

Anne is pregnant.  She wishes to terminate her pregnancy. 

However, it’s 1963 in Angoulême, France, and abortion won’t become legal until 1975.  Anne is stuck.  She wishes to continue her studies and verbalizes her situation.

“(It’s an) illness that strikes only women and turns them into housewives,” Anne says. 

She is trapped. 

Director/co-writer Audrey Diwan delivers a powerful and equally suffocating picture adapted from Annie Ernaux’s autobiographical novel, “L'événement”, which details her abortion story.  

“Happening” won the 2021 Venice Film Festival’s Golden Lion, its top prize, and Diwan and Vartolomei spoke with Fred Film Radio on Sept. 6, 2021. 

“The (abortion) law was approved in some countries 40 years ago.  Other countries still don’t have one.  I want to bring attention to this,” Diwan says and adds, “The situation is unlikely to change due to the lack of representation.  (However,) it’s harder to question clandestine abortions or denying medical abortions if you know what women go through and if there’s more representation of their pain and suffering.” 

Even though Diwan, Vartolomei, and Ernaux share a clear view, this film does not feel preachy, staged, or peppered with propaganda.  “Happening” is not a documentary with facts, figures, charts, physicians’ statements, and individual testimonials. 

Instead, Diwan takes a grounded, narrative approach by featuring one woman’s story.  

Without fanfare, fancy tricks, or large sets, Diwan and her camera follow Anne, an attractive co-ed, who surveys and literally walks through her immediate environment.  Ms. Duchesne regularly attends class, studies, and hangs out with friends at the dorms and local dance halls, where she, Brigitte (Louise Orry-Diquero), and Hélène (Luana Bajrami) often get dolled up to have fun and meet guys.  College-aged men and local firemen are seemingly everywhere.  The ladies desire sexual encounters, but their wants are primarily verbalized or explored through private female discourse.  Sex is taboo, and the fear of an unwanted pregnancy casts a forbidding shadow over their love lives.   

Little do Anne’s friends, colleagues, and mother and father know that she’s expecting. 

The pacing moves quickly through Anne’s days, and Diwan, Marcia Romano, and Anne Berest’s script accompanies her through individual scenes that usually last just a couple of minutes at a time.  The cinematic effect isn’t dreamlike or otherworldly, but these moments act as pragmatic remembrances or key memories that establish Anne’s uncomfortable disposition and unhelpful environment.  

She suffers in silence because simply speaking about abortion is treated – by those around her - as a capital offense.  The death penalty is not in play here, but an actual undertaking will welcome prison time. 

Speaking of time, Diwan seemingly spends the entire film with Vartolomei in her frame.  Naturally, for Audrey’s message to resonate, she has to lean on her lead, and 23-year-old Anamaria unquestionably carries the picture with a genuine, harrowing performance.  

Anamaria portrays Anne as a woman of grace and determination, but she balances these impressive qualities with inexperience and striking vulnerability.  Anne is alone in coping with her predicament.  Without the Internet at her fingertips, she spins with guesses and assumptions, searches through library books, and wonders where help resides.  As she regularly navigates through campus, pubs, and home, this 20-something carries conversations with measured decorum, but all the while, a hurricane torments her thoughts and demolishes her former peaceful existence.  

She’s present, but her mind is elsewhere. 

Dead ends, roadblocks, and one dastardly wrong turn obstruct Anne’s path, but her determined mettle drives her to find an escape from motherhood.  No question, this film’s indie feel, the constant use of a hand-held camera, the choice of natural sounds instead of a musical score, and Anne’s complex performance contribute to an overall air of realism and unadulterated angst for our protagonist, a woman without options…or any good ones.   

Anne’s dilemma is uncomfortable, and Vartolomei and Diwan ensure that we experience her emotional anguish.  Therefore, this drama sometimes seems like other genres.  “Happening” feels like a tick-tock thriller.  Rather than present the movie in chapters, Diwan divvies up her film by weeks.  Weeks usually are benign markers, but here, each semaine is another daunting reminder of Anne’s limited window.      

Espionage pictures and horror films are other types of movies that come to mind, but most of all, “Happening” – a tense drama - feels contemporary, even though it’s set almost 60 years in the past.

With the current leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft which foreshadows the overturning of the country’s landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, “Happening” suddenly feels as relevant today as its Kennedy-era time warp.  Anne’s urgency is paramount, and suddenly the U.S.A.’s pro-choice supporters face the same pressure, while pro-life champions believe that relief is in sight.  

For every voting adult on both sides of the abortion debate, “Happening” – the most timely and important movie of the year (so far) in this critic’s opinion - is required viewing.  Be warned, this movie is upsetting, deeply uncomfortable, and visceral, and quite frankly, so is the stark divide between pro-life and pro-choice beliefs.  With all the legitimate noise between these two entrenched camps, here’s an affecting account about a young woman struggling in silence and reaching for her voice when a doctor says, “You have no choice.”  

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Dir: Sam Raimi

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Benedict Wong, Rachel McAdams, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Xochitl Gómez

2h 6m

The latest entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe expands the possibilities of where these superhero films can go. With a multiverse in the narrative mix, we can have multiple Dr. Strange's or alternate worlds where events viewers have experienced alter enough to change familiarity. And, in the case of "Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," you can bring the creative genius of director Sam Raimi to incorporate his unique blend of cinematic madness into the mix. 

Madness is the best way to describe Raimi's return to the genre he had a hand in defining with films like "Darkman" and the original "Spider-Man" trilogy. The narrative is messy and convoluted from the start, with motions back to the Disney+ "WandaVision" series and the most recent "Spider-Man: No Way Home" film. But as the story settles into its multiverse theme, the exciting, exuberant style of Sam Raimi takes over, pushing the gore and horror elements about as far as any Marvel film has while also composing a frame of visuals that feels different for the Marvel cinematic style. It's refreshing watching the old tools used with new creative hands.

The film opens with alternate-universe Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) protecting a young girl with special powers named America Chavez (Xochitl Gómez) from a creature in pursuit. Things end badly, and America, who can jump from universe to universe but doesn't know how to control her power, escapes into the dimension with the familiar Stephen Strange. In this world, Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), better known now as The Scarlett Witch, is still grieving the trauma of the reality she created, which ultimately came crumbling down, losing the family she so desperately wanted. America's abilities are powerful and feared, and Dr. Strange, along with ally Sorcerer Supreme Wong (Benedict Wong), are the only ones who can help her. The two travel through numerous alternate universes in hopes of finding a solution. 

Sam Raimi composes "Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" at breakneck speed, hardly allowing any time for the viewer to get comfortable with the story before introducing either an action sequence or more exposition to race to the finish line. Raimi assumes that if you are in the theater for this film, you have watched the prerequisite shows/movies to understand the aggressive plotting. While the story is chaotic, sometimes in disarray, it utilizes the strongest characters, Dr. Strange and the Scarlett Witch, to anchor the emotions. The emphasis here leaves a problem for the newest character America Chavez, played with confidence by Xochitl Gómez, who isn't provided with many opportunities to impose emotions into the story surrounding her. 

Raimi's unique vision and style is the real champion of the film. With influences from "The Evil Dead," "Army of Darkness," and "Drag Me To Hell," Raimi pushes the film into horror movie territory with his iconic zooms, sound clashes, and mischievous use of horror mixing humor that has defined many of his movies. It's a real treat to see the director back in the comic book movie chair. 

It helps that Benedict Cumberbatch is leading the charge as the charming yet arrogant Master of the Mystical Arts, Dr. Strange. Still, the shining star of this film belongs to Elizabeth Olsen playing the vengeance-fueled Scarlett Witch. Olsen embodies a wide range of emotions, anger and rage countered by fear and sorrow. At one moment, both the chaos-magic-wielding Scarlett Witch and homemaking-mom Wanda Maximoff encounter each other; the concluding interaction is a fascinating look at the evolution of this character and the emotions that compose her entire story. 

"Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" may not execute all of its narrative ambitions consistently, but that never keeps the film from being entertaining and a fast-paced experience. Raimi's style, restrained within the Marvel Universe, still adds humor, heart, and, surprisingly, hints of horror throughout, especially in the film's second half, which feels just a tiny step away from going into the director's full signature. Hopefully, Sam Raimi returns for more of these superhero adventures. 

Monte's Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness – Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Directed by:  Sam Raimi

Written by:  Michael Waldron

Starring:  Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Benedict Wong, Xochitl Gomez, Rachel McAdams, and Chiwetel Ejiofor

Runtime:  126 minutes

‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ conjures frustration

(Warning, Spoiler Alert: This review explains the “WandaVision” (2021) streaming series and, therefore, Wanda Maximoff’s (Elizabeth Olsen) motivation in this film.)

“Things just got out of hand.” – Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch)

After watching “Doctor Strange 2”, yes, the Good Doctor is correct, but this critic has a different thought.  Despite some big moments in the multiverse and director Sam Raimi raising Cain in some glorious spots, this Doctor Strange sequel conjures frustration.  

First of all, Marvel Studios misnamed the movie because the title character feels like a secondary one.  “Wanda the Movie” is a more appropriate moniker. 

You see, in “WandaVision”, the 2021 Disney+ streaming series, Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) feels distraught because her partner, Vision (Paul Bettany), died in “Avengers: Infinity War” (2018).  Actually, she killed him for the greater good, and then the 8-foot purple baddie, Thanos (Josh Brolin), turned back time and ended him too.

In the aforementioned TV show, Wanda wanders into the “Back to the Future”-like town of Westview, and to her surprise, Vision is alive, and this Android-Witch couple spawns a couple of kids, Billy and Tommy.  Before you can say, “Well, we all stepped into ‘The Twilight Zone’,” the boys – suddenly and magically – become about 10 years old.  It turns out that Wanda created her vibranium-made beau and her kiddos out of thin air, but by the end of the series, she loses her family. 

Fast forward to this flick, and she wants them back.  Well, Wanda pines for Billy and Tommy, but – inexplicably - she makes no overture for Vision.  Wanda believes that the multiverse – and via Brittanica.com, the definition is “a hypothetical collection of potentially diverse, observable universes” – is her best option to find a version of her kids, so she can be Mom again.  

Being a wife again never crossed her mind.  Good to know….and poor Vision.

For answers, Wanda turns to Strange and his new sidekick, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), a teenager sporting a jean jacket.  So, Wanda, America, Strange, and his trusted colleague/the Sorcerer Supreme Wong (Benedict Wong) travel the multiverse.  

Hey, since Wanda conjured up Billy and Tommy once, why couldn’t she summon the kiddos again…in our realm, Earth-616? 

The thought never crossed her mind?  Okay, then. 

“Doctor Strange 2” is Wanda’s movie, as screenwriter Michael Waldron addresses the woman’s challenging, complicated emotional journey.  She’s a bit lost, but Ms. Maximoff hopes that she finds her offspring by traveling across realities.  Olsen carries a commanding presence as Wanda (aka Scarlet Witch) and convincingly delivers her character’s angst and massive power upgrade.  In fact, at the end of “WandaVision”, we see Wanda reading a forbidden book of spells called the Darkhold, which appears to be the equivalent of pouring nuclear fuel in a DeLorean.  

1.21 gigawatts, anyone? 

By comparison, the script relegates Stephen Strange to an inconsequential arc.  Is Stephen fulfilled?  Is he happy?  Strange slightly ponders the question for a minute here or there, but our lead/supporting character does have a meaningful conversation with Dr. Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) for a pleasant moment.  To follow up, Disney+ could create a six-part episode run where Stephen talks to a therapist.  Hey, Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) can lend his counselor’s number, right? 

Waldron scribes several significant minutes for McAdams’ Christine, and the character enjoys a profound impact in this film.  Let’s hope her narrative continues in a future Strange sequel, and quite frankly, McAdams should star in everything.  Cumberbatch carries the Strange flag…err cape with gravitas and gusto.  However, Wong (a constant voice of reason and a welcome sight in every scene) is now the Sorcerer Supreme.  Stephen was snapped during “Infinity War”, so he lost his title.  Our magical hero wobbles with a tad of loneliness too.  Oh brother.  Hopefully, a third film will offer more substantive personal challenges and superhero growth.  Well, Raimi teases/promises Strange’s return to the big screen at the movie’s end.

Speaking of Raimi, his fans will enjoy callbacks to his “Evil Dead” movies, including not one but two magical books.  Now, “Doctor Strange 2” isn’t exactly a horror movie, but Sam includes several sequences that feel like old times, as this flick is the closest that the MCU has reached the said genre.  Some scenes might be too intense for young children, but Marvel made a PG-13 film, so in no way is this movie “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974), “Saw” (2004), or “Martyrs” (2008).  Although a gory rated-R Marvel film would be a “gutsy” (pardon the pun) choice, a PG-13 rating is not a fatal sin. 

It’s a multiverse movie, so the possibilities are endless.  Raimi, Waldron, and company treat us to peeks into many trippy, kooky, and fascinating universes, primarily during one scene as America and Strange travel on a “magical, mystery tour.”  

Since this Marvel installment is called “The Multiverse of Madness”, are there life-altering forces that could wreck existence?  Are there damaging aftereffects from “Spider-Man: No Way Home” (2021), where villains and heroes trekked back and forth between other universes?  

The answers are not really and no. 

While we spend our time in dazzling places where life feels out of sorts, like a “Black Mirror” episode on steroids, Wanda hopes to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for Billy and Tommy again.  (For a second time, why can’t she whip up a new Billy and Tommy in our universe and save herself the aggravation?) 

To do an explore-the-multiverse film justice, one might need 150 to 180 on-screen minutes to work through an infinitely complex storyline.  However, “DS 2” features a limited conflict - one that isn’t particularly cataclysmic - so the 126-minute runtime is probably the right decision. 

Here’s another decision.  Raimi and Waldron offer about 10 to 15 minutes of stand-up-and-cheer sequences to make comic book and MCU fans giddy with teenage glee and include 50, 60, 70, and 80-somethings in the adolescent joy.  No joke, it becomes impossible to listen to the on-screen dialogue while the theatre erupts with deafening praise.  No complaints, because that’s a good thing.  

The problem, however, is that the precious 600 or 900 seconds do not last forever (and note, I didn’t look at a stopwatch), and the fact that these moments didn’t extend to 3,600 or 5,400 seconds in this film is borderline criminal or plain foolish.  It feels like the filmmakers lead us into an amusement park, walk us past three dozen towering, riotous roller coasters, and offer – and we take - a ride on just one.  After the single dizzying spin, they rip us out of our seats and shove us out the exit door.  How frustrating. 

Sigh.  Doctor Strange is right.  Things just got out of hand.  

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

The Duke - Movie Review

Directed by: Roger Michell

Written by:  Richard Bean and Clive Coleman

Starring:  Jim Broadbent, Helen Mirren, Fionn Whitehead, Jack Bandeira, and Matthew Goode

Runtime:  96 minutes

‘The Duke’ isn’t a regal biopic, but it’s a lovely one

Roger Michell’s new movie isn’t a biopic about Duke University Men’s Basketball Coach Mike Krzyzewski, but the film’s title would be apropos for one.  Coach K is considered basketball royalty.  He won five national championships and ended his career in 2022 as the sport’s win leader with 1,202 victories against just 368 losses.  

Indeed, the man deserves all the praise and adoration in the world, but after the unrelenting, unyielding, and insufferable press from January to April about his last season, this critic is profoundly relieved that “The Duke” isn’t remotely connected to college hoops.

No, Michell (“Notting Hill” (1999), “Morning Glory” (2010)), who sadly passed away last year at 65, directed a celluloid biography about someone altogether different, Kempton Bunton, an ordinary Newcastle, England resident, and a nominal 1961 event.

Kempton (Jim Broadbent) stole The Portrait of the Duke of Wellington from the National Gallery in London, which caused a countrywide stir, and the police had zero suspects.

The British government paid 140,000 pounds for Francisco de Goya’s painting, so how did this 50-something lift it…undetected?

The whole thing became a puzzler for quite a while for the Brits and the movie audience, as Michell, Broadbent, and screenwriters Richard Bean and Clive Coleman do not delve into Mr. Bunton’s plan.

This particular theft is the cinematic opposite of the elaborate, massively involved heists at The Bellagio and Charlotte Motor Speedway in Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s Eleven” (2001) and “Logan Lucky” (2017), respectively.

So, don’t walk into “The Duke” and expect a highly-crafted robbery because this theft wasn’t.  Instead, the film offers a more valuable approach for this story, namely a thoughtful reflection on a commonplace family.  Yes, 1961 was a simpler time, although, for Kempton, his wife Dorothy (Helen Mirren), and their two sons – like millions of other English (and American) families – rubbing two shillings together could be a daunting proposition. 

Kempton and Dorothy make honest livings, but driving a cab, cleaning houses while on your hands and knees for long hours, or shuffling thousands of loaves in a bakery can wear on one’s spirit, especially when the meager financial rewards might seem like bread crumbs.

Cinematographer Mike Eley - who worked with Michell on “My Cousin Rachel” (2017) and “Blackbird” (2019) – offers dour and muted grays, greens, and browns both inside and outside, as neon greens and blues (from the 1990s) seem about as far away as the 22nd century.

(As a public service announcement and general observation, as someone who lived through the 1990s, that decade’s fashion statements weren’t an improvement.)

These working-class color palettes fill the screen throughout the picture, but two particular moments will make you lean forward in your theatre seat with a bit of awe.

First, the opening credits feature our hero walking by row housing made of worn red brick, and he steps by a random garbage truck.  In the distance, an ominous collection of active smokestacks spew grime into the air, but a contrasting upbeat, big-band ditty simultaneously blasts through the speakers.  Second, editor Kristina Hetherington brilliantly pieces together a montage of vintage 1960s London that perfectly matches Eley and Michell’s capture of Kempton wandering The Big Smoke, as if Broadbent magically steps into a gentle time warp, and he graciously invites us along. 

Grace might be the operative word for “The Duke”, as Michell spends the bulk of the thrifty 96-minute runtime capturing Kempton’s and Dorothy’s idiosyncrasies, and Broadbent and Mirren might be perfectly cast.

Broadbent’s Kempton is a laid-back, charismatic working stiff who pays his dues but doesn’t feel he should shell out unfair ones.  Namely, his biggest beef is with the government charging a television tax, so he starts his own one-man “Free TV for the OAP” campaign. 

A television tax?  Was that a thing?  Yikes. 

(Well, current cable and streaming fees are no picnic either, but I digress.)

Well, it’s a two-man effort because his dutiful son joins him.  Meanwhile, Dorothy believes this is just another of her husband’s unfruitful pursuits.  Her limited patience is well warranted because she’s seen Kempton stand on his idealistic soapbox for years.  The tension between the two isn’t solely spiked because of the TV tariff.  They haven’t yet found peace from a past tragedy, and Broadbent’s and Mirren’s performances and the script handle this delicate issue with care and maturity. 

Make sure you bring a tissue or two to the cinema for those specific moments but by and large, prepare to smile during this lovely time at the movies.  Incidentally, “The Duke” is rated R, one of 2022’s great mysteries, because this movie seems like a PG-13 film or possibly a PG affair.  Well, if Kempton Bunton were alive in 2022, he would have another legit complaint.

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

The Bad Guys - Movie Review

Dir: Pierre Perifel

Starring: Sam Rockwell, Zazie Beetz, Marc Maron, Awkwafina, Craig Robinson, Anthony Ramos, Richard Ayoade, Alex Borstein, and Lilly Singh

1h 40m

Director Pierre Perifel introduces the cartoon caper “The Bad Guys” with a breakneck scene involving all the familiar moves of some of the greatest heist films in cinematic history. A calculated setup involving complex schemes leads to a city-wide car chase. All the players are introduced in fun moments detailing their skillset; it’s fast-paced, humorous, and clever right out of the starting gates. The crew crazy enough to conduct this crime caper is a group of scary animals: a wolf, a snake, a piranha, a spider, and a shark.

Adapted from the acclaimed children’s graphic novel from author Aaron Blabey, “The Bad Guys” offers an impressive cast of voice actors and a clear understanding of why heist films are so appealing, even with a gang of the most often feared creatures in the animal kingdom as characters. While “The Bad Guys” often falls into familiar territory with its story motivations, especially for more mature movie fans who have connected with “Oceans 11” or “Despicable Me,” the pacing of the story has the energy to keep one entertained and comic book designs offer a refreshing animated look for these capering creatures. 

The cunning group of master thieves, led by the dashing Mr. Wolf (Sam Rockwell), are a notorious group of criminals known for hatching a perfect heist and, most frustrating for the city police chief, never getting caught. The most wanted band of bad guys also boasts the master-of-disguise Mr. Shark (Craig Robinson), the safecracking expert Mr. Snake (Marc Maron), the short-tempered “muscle” Mr. Piranha (Anthony Ramos), and the expert hacker Ms. Tarantula (Awkwafina). The crew is ready to score the biggest heist of their careers, but they are caught at their getaway, forcing Mr. Wolf to hatch a plan to save his crew from jail. The solution: The Bad Guys will turn into The Good Guys.

“The Bad Guys” begins in a diner, with Mr. Wolf and Mr. Snake bantering back and forth in a booth like two friends who have known each other for a long time. They leave their table en route to rob a bank across the street while the restaurant-goers cower in fear. In this opening scene, director Pierre Perifel establishes all the themes that the film uses for inspiration. Fast-talking bad guys with charming characteristics, frenzied car chases up, down, and all around the screen frame, and humor utilized within every dangerous scenario. The beginning moments of “The Bad Guys” establish an animated feature riffing on all the elements of beloved genre heist movies, and it accomplishes it with skill and entertainment.

Unfortunately, the promising introduction doesn’t continue farther than the halfway point of the film, which transitions into familiar trappings like introducing supplemental characters that feel unnecessary and a big bad with motivations that aren’t as interesting as watching the primary characters interact with each other. While the steam ultimately runs out of the narrative places this film can go, the characters are so enjoyable that the missteps don’t seem so noticeable when the Bad Guys are plotting a heist during a dance scene or mocking each other during a birthday party. 

“The Bad Guys” is an enjoyable romp with silly scenarios and slapstick comedy to keep the kids laughing and enough charming characters and ingenious designs to keep parents engaged. 

Monte’s Rating
3.25 out of 5.00

---

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent – Movie Review

Directed by:  Tom Gormican

Written by:  Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten

Starring:   Nicolas Cage, Pedro Pascal, Tiffany Haddish, Ike Barinholtz, and Neil Patrick Harris

Runtime:  107 minutes

‘The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent’ isn’t a heavy burden.  It’s a light, enjoyable, and surreal escape, and at times, it’s a blast. 

“The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” – “This is a big night for me.  This is the first time I’ve been on national television on a talk show in 14 years.” – Nicolas Cage on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, April 20, 2022 

Nicolas Cage has 110 acting credits (according to IMDb).  He has worked with the best in the business, including the Coen Brothers, David Lynch, Werner Herzog, John Woo, Spike Jonze, Ridley Scott, John Travolta, Kathleen Turner, Holly Hunter, John Cusack, John Malkovich, Penelope Cruz, Chris Cooper, Dennis Hopper, Matt Dillon, Sam Rockwell, Sean Connery, and Meryl Streep.  

Wow, right? 

He won a 1996 Best Actor Oscar for playing a self-destructive alcoholic in “Leaving Las Vegas” (1995), and the Academy nominated him for his work in “Adaptation” (2002), Spike Jonze’s bizarre dramedy.  

It’s been almost 20 years since Cage’s last Oscar nomination, and he won’t earn an Academy Award for his performance in “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent”, but he is unquestionably welcome here in an utterly out-of-the-box role.  

In director/co-writer Tom Gormican’s laugh-out-loud comedy, Nicolas plays “Nick Cage”, a version but not an exact copy of himself, where he searches for a new film gig while also living in a Los Angeles hotel and racking up a 600,000 dollar expense.

While seeking the next “Gone in 60 Seconds” (2000), “National Treasure” (2004), “Mandy” (2018), or “Pig” (2021), his agent (Neil Patrick Harris) mentions that a wealthy businessman wants Nick to attend a birthday party in Spain…for a million-dollar payday.  So, he flies to the festivities to meet and celebrate with Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal).  

Javi is a Nick Cage superfan!  

Mr. Gutierrez not only hopes that this Hollywood star will become his BFF but that Cage will also read his script and wish to star in his film!  However, if you give Javi truth serum, he would gladly take Nick passing on his screenplay if it meant that they would become best friends.  For sure, seven days a week and twice on Sundays. 

This film’s basic premise:  a fan meets a celebrity.  Nick is a reluctant guest, while Javi bursts with cartwheel-joy that his favorite actor is lodging at his massive coastal home, a once-in-a-lifetime visit.   

We have the semi-immovable object versus the not-so-irresistible force.  Cage and Pascal share winning comedic chemistry (like they have been buds for years) and work their characters’ deep-seated feelings.  All the moments between the actors feel effortless and work extremely well.  While Javi pulls, Nick quasi-pushes away, but a million bucks is a ton of dough, and, after taxes, this hefty sum will help pay off his looming hotel bill.  So, he plays along, and Nick grows fond of Javi, as this fanatic’s dreams may just come true. 

The audience is thrown into the middle of this potential bromance and the surreal experience of witnessing Nicolas playing Nick!  

Gormican and co-writer Kevin Etten are NC fans themselves, and even though the script calls for Cage to dance with self-deprecation, the picture lays a strong foundation of respect and love for Nicolas.  In fact, the movie is a celebration of the man. The screenplay garners sympathy for Nick and dreams up playful banter, and we aren’t laughing at Cage’s eccentricities but with him.  To Cage’s credit, he’s a committed good sport while opening up his black Ferrari passenger door and offering to take us on a 107-minute theatrical spin.

Well, Gormican took a spin at questions from FOX 7 Austin at the 2022 SXSW red carpet about his intention for the film.

“There’s a blending of reality and fiction, and we get to sort of screw with the identity of Nicolas Cage a little bit.  I want you to have fun, and I want us to remember what it’s like to go to theatres and laugh together,” Gormican said.

Speaking of reality and fiction, Sharon Horgan plays Cage’s ex-wife Olivia and Lily Mo Sheen is his 16-year-old daughter Abby, but you’d swear that they are his real ex and kid.  This critic HAD to double-check with IMDb to confirm that Horgan and Sheen are not related to Nick/Nicolas.  

They aren’t.

Gormican is correct that his movie is fun, especially during the first hour.  Every moment with Cage and Pascal during the opening 60-plus minutes is pure gold.  Their characters navigate through the initial “stranger phase” to (potential) best-buddy milestones, and Gormican and Etten pen amusing happenings and spaces for questionable judgment that allow two grown men to bond over nonsense, humility, and trust.  

However, the good times may not last, as Tiffany Haddish and Ike Barinholtz play a pair of law enforcement types who try to throw cold water on Nick and Javi’s friendship.  Quite frankly, Haddish and Barinholtz’s characters’ thread, which entangles Javi, is a bit silly.  Unfortunately, during the movie’s second half, this particular plot point devolves into routines that one might find on any last season episode of the “The A-Team” (1983 – 1987).  That’s not a compliment.  Still, Pascal and the wildcard Cage confidently step into these shallow waters.  

Since the movie’s overall premise continues into this curious pseudo-reality show, we’re – for the most part – thrilled to ride shotgun with our flashy protagonist.

“The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” isn’t a heavy burden.  Just the opposite.  It’s a light, refreshing escape.  At times, it’s a blast, but throughout the picture, it’s an absolute pleasure to “reconnect” with Cage, the man we’ve known for 40 years.  Don’t forget that Pedro is his worthy co-pilot, and here’s hoping that “Massive Talent” will help jumpstart Nicolas’ career into even grander projects and that talk shows won’t wait another 14 years to invite him back.  I’m good with 14 weeks.  How about 14 days?  14 hours will work too.

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Father Stu – Movie Review

Written and directed by:  Rosalind Ross

Starring:  Mark Wahlberg, Teresa Ruiz, Jacki Weaver, Mel Gibson, and Malcolm McDowell

Runtime:  124 minutes

‘Father Stu’:  Stuart Long’s story is inspirational, but the film isn’t divine

Stuart Long might remind you of Rocky Balboa.  

Rocky’s early days, anyway.  

Well, Stuart never fought Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, or Ivan Drago.  He didn’t win the Heavyweight Championship of the World, nor did he get his start in Philadelphia.  Stuart grew up in Montana, and he boxed his way to the state’s Golden Gloves Heavyweight Title.  Like Mr. Balboa, Mr. Long took his share of punishment in the ring, and Stu and Rocky also offer advice at times.  

For instance, in “Rocky” (1976), The Italian Stallion gives some fatherly guidance to 12-year-old Little Marie.

“You hang out with smart people, you get smart friends.  You hang out with yo-yo people, you get yo-yo friends.  You see?  It’s simple mathematics,” Rocky says.  

For Stuart, he ends his brief Big Sky fighting career and moves to Los Angeles to pursue acting.  He eventually bequeaths fatherly words too, but in a widely-different capacity.  The man grapples with an entirely separate profession, the priesthood.  

Stuart Long’s unlikely, winding journey from pugilist to priest is a true story, and Mark Wahlberg learned about Stu after speaking with two priests from his parish.

“The more I heard about Stu, the more convinced I was that I had to get this movie made,” Wahlberg said.  He added, “It was my mission to produce the film.”

Yes, Mark produced and stars in the man’s biopic, “Father Stu”, written and directed by Rosalind Ross, and he was committed to the project, including gaining 30 pounds in a few weeks with a diet ranging from 7,000 to 11,000 calories a day. 

Well, Stuart’s life is an inspiring, motivational one.  This critic is a better person for knowing it through watching “Father Stu”, but unfortunately, this film was an unsatisfying experience. 

“Father Stu” takes a straightforward approach in capturing Stuart’s sinful, meandering trek from fighter to father.  Rather than pause and lean into the lead’s emotional turns, the screenplay inexplicably rushes – like a checklist - through Stu’s major, massive, mountainous milestone events to seemingly ensure that “everything” is covered within the 124-minute runtime.  

The movie presents four momentous incidents - that will not be revealed in this review - that cause cavernous crossroads for Stuart and catapult him from his thumping origins to pious oratories.  In two instances, rather than bask in cinematic enlightenment, the audience receives a few minutes of matter-of-fact, unremarkable discourse.  Then, the movie feels like the script, actors, and crew shove on to a new collection of mundane minutes, like Stuart complaining about a motel television or his inability to ring a hospital nurse.  

Riveting stuff.  

Sure, Wahlberg does offer several quiet confessional moments and expresses Stuart’s feelings with his girlfriend, Carmen (Teresa Ruiz), mom (Jacki Weaver), and dad (Mel Gibson).  Still, far too often, snippets of twangy country ditties seem to lead and follow these moments and break up any headway to emotionally connect with the character.

Ross doesn’t give Ruiz and Weaver enough meaningful on-screen minutes.  However, the tightest connection is between Bill Long (Gibson) and his son.  Ross repeatedly films Bill sitting alone and watching television, and Gibson effectively communicates this dad’s regret.  Too many times, quite frankly, although those recurring solo shots eventually pay off in the third act.

Anyways, back to Stuart.   

Through the vast majority of this picture, Stuart is a happy-go-lucky screw-up.  Ultimately, he has good intentions, but via the baggage from his childhood, damaged ties with his estranged father, and a drink-and-punch-first outlook, he perpetually leaves his guard down to life’s haymakers.  Honky-tonk music and Long’s carefree banter seem to strive for tones reminiscent of “Smokey and the Bandit” (1977) or “Every Which Way But Loose” (1978).   The problem is that Stuart’s act is not terribly amusing, and regrettably, he doesn’t have an orangutan partner who can punch someone after a well-timed “Right turn, Clyde.”

Until Stuart finds God, he’s not exactly the world’s most likable guy.  Granted, that’s (probably) Ross’ and Wahlberg’s intention.  Stuart is in no way a villain, but for most of the film, I didn’t particularly root for him either.

Picture an unamusing, unsympathetic Philo Beddoe (Clint Eastwood) wandering into (and out of) figurative dead-ends for 80 minutes, and he suddenly turns to a seminary to reach for his life’s purpose.  Okay, Stuart ensures that his manners are more refined, but his new allies and human obstacles within the church don’t capture enough screen time to leave impressions, so most scenes with these men are wasted filler.   

What is Stuart’s roommate’s name again?

No question, it’s easy to admire Wahlberg’s commitment and passion for Father Stu and his film with the same name.  Some audiences will appreciate this movie more than this critic, and I hope that’s the case. 

On the other hand, Stuart’s most altruistic work occurs during the last years of his life, but Ross and Wahlberg portray only a few scant on-screen minutes of Father Stu’s devout examples.  Perhaps, the journey is more important than the destination.  

Still, the movie feels like the equivalent of filming Rocky Balboa vs. Apollo Creed’s first round in “Rocky” (1976) and then explaining the remaining 14 three-minute battles with a lengthy closing crawl just before the end credits.  

Jeff’s ranking
1.5/4 stars

---

X - Movie Review

Dir: Ti West

Starring: Mia Goth, Brittany Snow, Jenna Ortega, Martin Henderson, Owen Campbell, and Kid Cudi

1h 45m

A group of independent filmmakers set out to rural Texas to make their adult cinematic dreams come true. Full frame stars and strips designed font, presenting the year 1979, welcomes viewers to director Ti West's throwback genre homage titled "X." 

The opening moments shot through barn doors and into the bloody aftermath of a murder scene feel tailored for a 1970s Tobe Hooper or Wes Craven production with its grainy film look highlighted with yellow and brown hues. Director Ti West, returning to the genre for the first time in over a decade, takes an old-school slasher movie approach with "X," blending the renegade spirit of the early independent horror filmmakers and the dawn of mass-produced pornography for a satisfyingly violent and humorous romp.  

Maxine (Mia Goth) is an exotic dancer at the Bayou Burlesque, a railroad adjacent dive on the wrong side of town, but her ambitions are for stardom on the silver screen. Wayne (Martin Henderson), the proprietor of the strip club, has the perfect script for his muse called "The Farmer's Daughter." Wayne enlists a blond bombshell named Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow) and her ex-military boyfriend Jackson (Kid Cudi) to star in the film. RJ (Owen Campbell), the director who insists that it is possible to make "a good dirty movie," and Lorraine (Jenna Ortega), the quiet but observant girlfriend who holds the boom pole for sound, join in the filmmaking fun. The group jumps in Wayne's blue van and heads to an outskirts farmhouse owned by a frail older man named Howard (Stephen Ure) and his wife Pearl (Mia Goth in old-age makeup), who envies the sexual acts and youthful freedom of the filmmakers. 

Ti West positions adult pornography movies and slasher horror films in the same avenue of examination regarding the gratuitous nature of writhing bodies in states of pleasure with sex and pain with violence. West pokes fun and plays ingeniously with genre archetypes throughout the film. The pacing of anticipation with horror show techniques, a skinny-dipping scene shot from a birds-eye view with a stalking alligator is tense and elegantly composed. The careful structuring of sex scenarios shot with a 16mm camera rarely looks at the raw act of body parts in motion and instead focuses on the emotion of expressions. Both of these scenes display that West completely understands genre filmmaking and utilizes them for greater gazes beyond gratuitous violence and sex. 

 Once the film transitions into a slasher movie, with creative kills and a wealth of special makeup effects, the subplot concerning Pearl's envy of Maxine's beauty and the longing for sexual satisfaction meet their culmination underdeveloped. Still, West's journey through these subject matters of aging, lust, and infatuation are interestingly ventured when combined with the genre characteristics of a horror narrative. 

Mia Goth, who is excellent in the lead role, plays an unorthodox final girl who uses drugs, proudly owns her sexual freedom, and cares mostly about her singular well-being. Brittany Snow plays her seductive character with confidence, while Kid Cudi, with a 70's mustache, is cool, calm, and collected. 

"X" is a throwback midnight movie romp with a late 70s aesthetic that feels like it was shot from the same lens as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Ti West makes horror fans remember the days when genre films could be exploitative, evocative, and entertaining at the same time. 

Monte's Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Compartment No. 6 – Movie Review

Directed by:  Juho Kuosmanen

Written by:  Juho Kuosmanen, Andris Feldmanis, Livia Ulman, and Lyubov Mulmenko, based on Rosa Liksom’s novel

Starring:  Seidi Haarla, Yuriy Borisov, and Dinara Drukarova

Runtime:  107 minutes

 ‘Compartment No. 6’ offers a winning cinematic journey

“No spitting on the floor.” 

A train conductor warns Laura (Seidi Haarla) – a Finnish woman studying in Moscow - about this spewing statute as she boards a train.  Good to know because Laura was about to reach for a pinch of chewing tobacco.

No, not really.  

However, this 30-something is heading on a 1,200-mile journey (almost due north) from Moscow to Murmansk.  By car, the trip would take 23 ½ hours straight, but this railway carriage makes stops along the way, including an overnight in Petrozavodsk, and she has to share quarters with a stranger, Ljoha (Yuriy Borisov), for a couple of days.  

Now, he – about her age - doesn’t chew Skoal or the popular Russian brand, Siberia.  Still, Ljoha smokes and drinks constantly, and since Laura is traveling alone, he inquires if she’s a prostitute.  

Nice.  

Via first impressions, Ljoha has all the charm of Veruca Salt, and clearly, Laura hasn’t won a golden ticket. 

Despite Laura and Ljoha meeting on a train, director Juho Kuosmanen’s movie doesn’t resemble Richard Linklater’s “Before Sunrise” (1995), the romance picture that kicked off the “Before” trilogy with Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy).

The accommodations in this film are sans frills, as they travel without creature comforts during a frosty Russian winter.  

The blustery, snowy weather outside their window begs for emotional huddling and commiserating inside.  However, thin sheet metal walls are everywhere, and no, the second-class abodes aren’t as uncomfortable as sardine cans, but living conditions are cramped, and the overall ambiance lacks style points.  

The unassuming confines are all by design in “Compartment No. 6”, adapted from Rosa Liksom’s novel, an intriguing story about an educated woman feeling emotionally insecure in her current romantic relationship.  Laura also finds herself lost within her confined traveling space while looking out towards hundreds of vast, inhospitable miles.

Kuosmanen, Andris Feldmanis, Livia Ulman, and Lyubov Mulmenko penned the adapted screenplay from Laura’s perspective and expertly establish her character during the opening few minutes.  She attends a party in a spacious flat filled with intellectuals, professors, and their spouses, and everyone seems to enjoy plush and playful conversations.  We soon discover that Irina (Dinara Drukarova) – the hostess and a university faculty member - is Laura’s girlfriend.  Irina is older, established in her career, and wields power within these pleasant, elegant surroundings.  

Earlier at the get-together, someone referred to Laura as Irina’s lodger, meaning that the said person didn’t know how to characterize their lesbian relationship or didn’t realize that the two women were in one.  Probably the latter because it seems that Irina doesn’t advertise that she and Laura are lovers.  

The next day, Laura leaves for the station alone.  The two were supposed to travel to Murmansk - located almost on the Barents Sea, near Finland’s border – but Irina cancels due to work.  So, Laura takes tentative steps on an unsure trek, but this redhead dons a heavy green sweater and a thick powder-blue polyester coat to pacify her discomfort and cope with the bitter cold.  

Set in the 1980s or 1990s (and Liksom’s novel clocks in during the mid-80s), you won’t find iPhones, Google maps, or social media here, so immediate time and space are defined through earshot and eyeshot.  Laura has to bend to the train schedule’s mercy and forced discourse with her unrefined cohort.  She’s out of her comfort zone and stuck with her boorish new comrade, but Ljoha is more than calls for frequent drinks and gruff, frank talk.  

This thin fella with a shaved head and modest clothing doesn’t reveal anything from his past, but Laura and we gather that life has regularly dealt his cards from the bottom of the deck.  Ljoha has coped with loss and rejection, or perhaps he hasn’t thought enough of himself to take bold leaps that could lead to those aforementioned feelings.  Regardless, he’s suffered through bad beats, but there’s a good-natured, empathetic soul in there.  More importantly, Ljoha has a thoughtful one, which is quite the opposite of Laura’s current belle. 

“Compartment No. 6” is a movie draped with dueling imagery and themes.  It offers comparative views of a restricted, mechanical cubicle versus a wide-open, freezing tundra.  More intimately, Haarla and Borisov give authentic performances and gazes into their characters’ contrasting experiences and education, as their identical itineraries oblige these two towards compulsory exchanges and connection.  How deeply will their reciprocity run?  Kuosmanen, Haarla, and Borisov don’t race through Laura’s and Ljoha’s emotional beats over conventional, expected, and smooth pathways.  Quite the opposite.

Life is complicated and sometimes littered with stutter steps, false starts, and dead ends.  Luckily, we have the free will to start over or turn around, and we may find ourselves in unforeseen, welcome latitudes.  For Laura, maybe an evening conversation and precious moments of trust with Ljoha and a new friend in Petrozavodsk are worlds more gratifying than a stuffy Moscow revelry.  Who knows, she may have purchased a winning train ticket. 

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

The Batman - Movie Review

Dir: Matt Reeves

Starring: Robert Pattinson, Zoë Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, Colin Farrell, John Turturro, Andy Serkis, and Paul Dano 

2h 55m

The opening scene of director Matt Reeves’ new incarnation of the Batman is the best introduction to the character delivered to film. In the black of night, with the fog-covered beam of the Bat-signal barely illuminating the skies of Gotham City, Bruce Wayne narrates the entire lore of the Dark Knight while bad guys cower at sounds echoing from the shadows. “I am vengeance” is the final phrase before the reveal from the darkness. 

Reeves, who co-wrote the script with Peter Craig, separates the superhero from the 60s television show playfulness and the 80s/90s playboy-by-day, caped-crusader-by-night designs. They move further away from Christopher Nolan’s serious trilogy and craft an even darker, more tormented, and traumatized version of Bruce Wayne in “The Batman.” The most noticeable emotion felt throughout Reeves’ film is dread. The darkness is consuming; much of the film feels shot with minimal light sources. The overwhelming tone feels like a mix of the horrific elements of David Fincher’s “Se7en” with the procedural aspects of “Zodiac.” 

Bruce Wayne (Robert Pattinson) arrives at a crime scene, led by his ally in the Gotham City Police Department, James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). It’s a gruesome murder of a political figure, orchestrated by a serial killer dubbed The Riddler (Paul Dano) who leaves ciphers and codes addressed to The Batman. Gotham City is corrupt, drugs are rampant, and criminal organizations with deep ties to everything in the city protect old secrets and introduce new mayhem. With the help of Alfred (Andy Serkis), Batman begins solving the devious riddles left for him, uncovering truths that challenge Gotham City’s legacy and Batman’s true identity. 

What Matt Reeves has done with “The Batman” is fascinating in a world dominated by the Marvel machine of superhero films. Those bright, heroic, and hopeful films have come to define cinematic representations of extraordinary people fighting the manifestations of evil from Earth and other galaxies. However, while “The Batman” composes an environment that feels otherworldly, not with fancy technology but more the essence of a society reorganized by the worst people after the first society failed, the quality of this film is grounded with gritty realism. Bad guys are pummeled with fists and heels; no special weapons are needed. And if Batman needs any wonderful toys, they often feel like homemade garage experiments. The Batmobile looks like a 1969 Dodge Charger with a jet engine attached to the back. When Batman must evade a group of bad guys, he jumps from a building in a contemporary wingsuit. 

 At a staggering 175-minutes, much of “The Batman” is a neo-noir crime drama mixed with serial killer horror movie vibes, sprinkled with an occasional action scene that doesn’t boast extravagance but is framed more for character emotions. When a group of officers secures a crime scene, with a medical examiner detailing the cause of death for an unlucky soul, you’d think an inquisitive gumshoe with a fedora, trench coat, and a lit cigarette will enter the moment to describe motive and the assailant. Nope, it’s Batman in a full heavy armor suit doing the detective work. It’s jarring at first, but it works because of Reeves’ steadfast direction. What also helps the detective story is the demented masked villain, a riddle-obsessed killer who uses codes and puzzles to lead Batman to the next victim. 

Robert Pattison is the most haunted, most traumatized, Batman of all the Batman’s. His eyes echo an incomplete life, unleashing moments of rage that are destructive with a vengeance. The central idea of Bruce Wayne’s life, where the isolated and lonely hero tightropes the thin boundaries of vigilante justice, pushes “The Batman” into bolder choices for the characters. It composes a villain that must be worse than the nightmares that haunt the memories of Bruce’s life. The narrative never delves below the surface often, it avoids telling the familiar back story at all costs, but Pattison conveys all the emotions exceptionally well in the quiet moments. Assisting in performance is the wonderfully manic Paul Dano as The Riddler. Colin Ferrall is nearly unrecognizable as The Penguin; he composes the only character of any fun in the film. Zoë Kravitz is somewhat lost in this long narrative but is charming and confident as Catwoman whenever on screen. 

“The Batman” is a bold concept, a push in an interesting, if not thoroughly developed, direction for the often familiar franchise vigilante. Robert Pattison proves completely capable of shouldering the weight and expectations of the Dark Knight. 

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

---

Lucy and Desi – Movie Review

Directed by:  Amy Poehler

Written by:  Mark Monroe

Runtime:  103 minutes

Chances are that you’ll say:  I admire ‘Lucy and Desi’

What’s your favorite “I Love Lucy” (1951 – 1957) episode?  

Vitameatavegamin?  The grape stomping/food fight?  The chocolate factory? 

Officially, these timeless, classic moments are “Lucy Does a TV Commercial” (S1E30), “Lucy’s Italian Movie” (S5E23), and “Job Switching” (S2E1), respectively.  For this critic, the insane, maddening conveyor belt with an endless and frightening supply of candy is my number one! 

“Listen, Ethel.  I think we’re fighting a losing game,” Lucy (Lucille Ball) claims with traces of despair and terror in her voice. 

Lucille Ball wasn’t the United States’ first comedienne, but she was the country’s leading television funny lady during the medium’s Golden Age.  

For casual fans who enjoyed the show’s original run or grew up consuming oodles of reruns, some of us weren’t aware of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz’s history and their labor behind the cameras until writer/director Aaron Sorkin’s “Being the Ricardos” (2021) arrived in theatres.  Well, I’ll speak for myself, anyway.  

His movie covers one week during a taping of an “I Love Lucy” episode, “Ethel and Fred Fight” (S2E4), but Sorkin champions an effective deep dive into the real-life couple’s working and personal relationships.  It’s an eye-opening picture that showcases Lucille’s command and vision of their sitcom’s material and Desi’s sharp, big-picture mind over the business and internal politics.

Sorkin – a masterclass storyteller – weaves an intricate, narrative view of this regal couple.  In director Amy Poehler’s documentary, “Lucy and Desi”, the prominent, successful SNL alum applies her distinctive lens to Ms. Ball and Mr. Arnaz, one filled with gratitude.  

Indeed, there’s no absolute need to see both movies, but “Being the Ricardos” and “Lucy and Desi” are splendid compliments for die-hard fanatics, casual devotees, and those with zero familiarity with the show.  However, if you are new to “I Love Lucy”, see Poehler’s doc first.  It’s jam-packed with seemingly hundreds of tidbits, facts, quips, comments, testimonials, and clips galore from their beloved program, personal lives, and business dealings. 

Did you know that Lucille starred in four more Lucy-based programs after the original show, and Vivian Vance joined her for three, or that Desilu Studios housed the indoor sets for “Hogan’s Heroes” (1965 – 1971)?  Not me. 

The info and perpetual array of rich, insightful visuals flood the screen so quickly and so often, you’ll swear that Poehler constructed a speedy conveyor belt of her own.

During a Jan. 23, 2022 IndieWire interview, Amy discusses her approach to the film. 

“(Lucille and Desi) are so famous and funny and successful, but over the years, they’ve become very 2D.  They’ve almost (become) Halloween costumes and not people,” Poehler says and adds, “After learning and researching much more about (their relationship), I found it as inspiring as their work, frankly.  So can we use that relationship as a structure in which to tell their story?” 

Poehler does, especially with Lucille’s and Desi’s own voices.  Years and years ago, “Ladies’ Home Journal” interviewed Lucille, and Amy explains that Ms. Ball liked the reporter, so she kept talking and left a wealth of audio.  Desi’s numerous voiceovers are from his book’s audio and other home recordings.

Not only was Poehler inspired, but she interviews two uber-prominent female redheads (and a very famous blonde too) – who will not be named in this review – and they add their admiring thoughts about Lucille, a woman who paved the way for generations of comics.  

Lucie Arnaz speaks frankly and candidly, too, takes a welcome lead at times, and opines about her parents and their ups and downs, including a disastrous European vacation, but also sunnier moments, like their partnership mentality.

“Lucy and Desi” is a blessing of a doc, but let’s also mention that several moments are laugh-out-loud funny.  Still, this movie shows that Ball and Arnaz were much more than their beloved yesterdecade sitcom.  Poehler and her team include so much that this 103-minute documentary requires repeat viewings, just like 180 episodes of “I Love Lucy”.  

Hey, let’s watch Lucy pitch Vitameatavegamin again! 

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Fresh – Movie Review

Directed by:  Mimi Cave

Written by:  Lauryn Kahn

Starring:  Daisy Edgar-Jones, Sebastian Stan, Jojo T. Gibbs, and Dayo Okeniyi

Runtime:  114 minutes

‘Fresh’: Bring your horror appetite but not a first date

“She’s fresh.  Fresh.  Exciting.  She’s so exciting to me.  She’s fresh.  Fresh.  Exciting.  She’s so inviting to me, yeah.” – “Fresh” (1984) by Kool & the Gang

According to Google, the definition of fresh is “food recently made or obtained; not canned, frozen, or otherwise preserved,” and “not previously known or used; new or different.” 

After experiencing director Mimi Cave’s wild, cannibal horror flick, probably 99 out of 100 moviegoers will declare that “Fresh” is the perfect title for this film, especially after reminders of the aforementioned Kool & the Gang lyrics and Google definitions. 

(The one outlier?  That person would perhaps state that “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (2020) is a flawless label for the Borat sequel.)  

Wait, a cannibal movie?  Why “Fresh”?  Let’s set the table without giving too much away. 

Noa (Daisy Edgar-Jones) - a personable, attractive 20-something – is single and copes with a semi-rotten dating life.  Well, it’s almost nonexistent, but we comically suffer and sympathize with her on a lousy date, one for the ages.  She also scans through bad and worse choices on her Puzzle Piece app that resembles Tinder or Match.

Where are all the good men, she wonders?  Apparently, they appear during late-night trips to the grocery store.  She runs into Steve (Sebastian Stan), a witty, striking 30-something, who starts a conversation, makes her laugh, and gets her number.  Steve seems like a great guy, but there’s a catch, of course.  

He eats people. 

Our young heroine discovers this fact in the most unappetizing and frightening way.  

“Fresh” is a surreal, startling story that doesn’t rely on jump scares or gimmicks.  Cave and screenwriter Lauryn Kahn conjure up a woman’s worst nightmare, and it’s not necessarily that their Noa’s new boyfriend chews on human flesh.  That simple, unfathomable fact certainly exists, but Noa makes a flippant – and seemingly safe - choice in a dating partner, and now, she faces suffocating consequences.

There’s a reason why the 1984 television movie “The Burning Bed”, starring Farrah Fawcett, was seen by millions of American women and discussed for years (and decades) later. 

Noa isn’t safe. 

To help break the consuming dread, Cave sprinkles in moments of reprieve, including just about every scene with Noa’s best friend.  Mollie (Jojo T. Gibbs) is her constant voice of reason and acts as a friendly, firm, and needed conscience. 

Steve doesn’t have an Instagram account.  Mollie immediately responds with, “That’s a red flag.”

Noa is in trouble, and Mollie is her one flesh and blood lifeline, and we – the audience - grasp onto her and Gibbs’ engaging performance like a life preserver in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. 

In her first big-screen lead role, Edgar-Jones is quite convincing as a vulnerable, everyday lady who finds herself in quite the pickle, and Noa needs to lean on her inner strength, perseverance, and knowhow to return to singlehood and a normal life.  Meanwhile, Stan chews up the screen as the disgusting, duplicitous dude whose frightening existence meets a surreal 80s soundtrack with songs like Animotion’s “Obsession” (1984) and a couple of other well-chosen picks.  Nicely done.  

These musical overlays offer some morsels of normalcy but then again, not so much, as “Fresh” triggers uncomfortable memories of the “Sister Christian” scene in Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Boogie Nights” (1997).   

Cave and Kahn mix in some spooky shades of “Ex Machina” (2014) and “Get Out” (2017) in their devouring, hold-on-tight horror film.  Certainly, “Fresh” caters to a female audience in big, blatant ways but also with subtle moments too, including the dreaded line “Come on.  Give me a smile.”  Still, this film is for everyone with a strong stomach, but it’s probably not a first-date movie.  Definitely not, but bring a BFF, a group of pals, or a partner who you know very, very well and who your Mollie has completely vetted.   

Geez, dating in 2022.  What a mess.  

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Cyrano – Movie Review

Directed by:  Joe Wright

Written by:  Erica Schmidt, based on Edmond Rostand’s play

Starring:  Peter Dinklage, Haley Bennett, Kelvin Harrison Jr., and Ben Mendelsohn

Runtime:  124 minutes

‘Cyrano’ has no self-doubt 

“I like to think that (this movie) allows (the “Cyrano” story) to speak more universally, and not just specifically to someone my size or somebody who is differently-abled.  We all have that sort of insecurity when it comes to the person that we are.”  - Peter Dinklage, Dec. 26, 2021 “CBS Sunday Morning” interview with Lesley Stahl

Edmond Rostand’s 1897 seminal play “Cyrano de Bergerac” – set in the 17th century - is 125 years old, but the title character’s internal struggle has existed as long as humans have stood upright. 

Self-doubt.

Based on a real-life Cyrano, Rostand’s creation is about one man’s apprehension to pursue love due to his insecurities, ones based solely on his looks.  Cyrano believes that he isn’t worthy of another’s love, anyone’s love, due to his unusually lengthy nose.

Theatrical, television, and film artists have retold this classic for decades, perhaps because Cyrano’s woes resonate with our misgivings.  Granted, barely anyone walking and talking on Planet Earth has a Cyrano-sized nose.  Still, we’re all humans, and self-criticism is a frank, unfortunate, and familiar art form.  We can find anything to criticize ourselves.  

In the 21st-century social media age, perhaps our self-deprecating struggles are noticeably more pronounced than in tighter 17th and 19th-century community circles. 

Well, in 2018, Erica Schmidt – Peter Dinklage’s wife - wrote and directed a musical version of the seminal story starring Peter and Haley Bennett.  Director Joe Wright (“Pride & Prejudice” (2005), “Darkest Hour” (2017)) saw the play in Connecticut and asked Erica to write a screenplay and Peter and Haley to star in his film adaptation. 

This movie differs from “Cyrano de Bergerac” (1950), starring Jose Ferrer, who won the 1951 Best Actor Oscar for his swashbuckling (and tragic) take on the character, and “Roxanne” (1987) with Steve Martin’s modern-day interpretation as Charlie “C. D.” Bales, a small-town fire chief.  “Cyrano de Bergerac” (1990) showcases Gerard Depardieu, and he and the cast appropriately speak in French.  The 1990 film garnered a Best Costume Design Oscar and four other Academy Award nominations, including Best Actor (for Depardieu) and Best Foreign Language Film.  Sadly, this critic has yet to see the last-mentioned movie.

In this 2021 account, Wright replaces our hero’s nose-anxiety with height challenges.  Although this particular self-criticism speaks to new visual reactions, Cyrano’s (Dinklage) vulnerable churn remains virtually identical to past performances….that this critic has seen.

Cyrano - in love with his longtime friend, Roxanne (Bennett), but afraid to express it – discovers that she has a case of “le coup de foudre” with a handsome new soldier, Christian (Kelvin Harrison Jr.).  Rather than Cyrano professing his deep affections for Roxanne, he helps Christian win her over by writing love letters in the young legionnaire’s name.  You see, Christian doesn’t have the knack for the written or spoken word.   

Since this retelling doesn’t sway too differently from the basic story, why see this “Cyrano”?

A few reasons.  

Dinklage and Bennett share intriguing, enjoyable chemistry and are a lovely pair.  Wright captures several close-ups of his two main actors during the most critical times, such as when Roxanne admits her adoration for Christian instead of her beloved friend.  Throughout the film, Bennett’s Roxanne looks angelic with beautiful, porcelain skin and a trusting presence, while she’s plainly unaware that her declarations for another inflict painful, damaging blows to her lovesick friend.  Meanwhile, we see the color and life drain from Cyrano’s face upon learning those fateful, aching words.  

However, Dinklage’s Cyrano capably seizes chances for swordplay and clashes during the first act on a theatre stage and later in the streets.  Still, Ferrer had more opportunities to wield Cyrano’s steel.  

Also, this movie maintains its harmonious roots from Schmidt’s musical, which offers a refreshing slant to the lavish production, and Dinklage and Bennett are competent crooners.  Their ranges aren’t operatic, but Dinklage and Bennett’s rendition of “Overcome” during the famous balcony scene is beyond convincing.  In fact, my glasses fogged due to streams of tears as Cyrano and Roxanne asserted their loving testimonies and Aaron and Bryce Dessner plucked an array of string instruments during post-production (or in the background somewhere).

Yes, the moment overcame this critic as well! 

Admittedly, I approached this film with curiosity, sometimes partaking in a study of compare and contrast, wondering about Wright’s angle towards the source material.  Still, Dinklage, Bennett, and Harrison Jr. (to a lesser degree) – at times - shook me out of my quasi-scientific study and into unadulterated periods of astonishment, especially since Schmidt captures layered nuance with both playful banter and crucial, solemn discourse between Cyrano and Roxanne. 

In this case, the love story rests on a stunning foundation, namely Sicily.  Wright, the cast, and crew filmed on location on the dazzling island, and our leads and seemingly hundreds of extras stroll, frolic, and fight on a bedrock of history.  Apparently, archeologists discovered human settlements dating back 14,000 years on the isle, a place that hosted wars and various kingdoms throughout the centuries.  Of course, it feels apropos that Wright filmed this historic (and historical) literary account on such a recognized locale.  No doubt, this film doesn’t look or feel manufactured on a Hollywood sound stage, and Wright takes full advantage of his topographical and architectural riches, including duels and dances on ancient boulevards and war movements at the foot of Mount Etna. 

(In fact, Etna erupted during the filming!  What?) 

While Wright offers grounded realism for our 17th-century players, the audience does lose some polish that a studio stage would provide.  A shine, actually, because some specific indoor scenes and outdoor shots at night appear dim on the big screen.  It feels like cinematographer Seamus McGarvey – who collaborated with Wright on “Atonement” (2007), “Anna Karenina” (2012), and “Pan” (2015) – uses candlelight inside and limited glows outside.  Simply put, the film operates in shadows at times.  It’s distracting when we need more precise, brighter views of clanging swords or De Guiche (Ben Mendelsohn) – the movie’s villain – delivering some selfish, icky lines to force Roxanne’s hand in marriage.  

A couple of other issues light up.  

Mendelsohn – who played one of the most depraved antagonists in recent memory as Uncle Pope in “Animal Kingdom” (2010) – has lapped up villainous roles for years, but he isn’t quite menacing enough here.  Yes, De Guiche delivers some devastating edicts but only through their ultimate outcomes, not in the heat of the moments.  A few subtle, sinister twirls of De Guiche’s mustache would’ve gone a long way, but unfortunately, we don’t get them. 

Speaking of twirls, the film could’ve also placed de Bergerac in more spots of whimsy or joy.  The screenplay plays it straight as Cyrano marches down the inevitable enabling path towards Christian and Roxanne.  However, as a principal mentor in a French regiment, one would think that Cyrano would frequently lead men in boisterous group exchanges, battles of wit, and laughs.  Such happenings would help bolster our on-screen hero.  However, besides a very public spanking of an oafish jerk in the first-act theatre scene and then, an entanglement of blades on the ancient streets, de Bergerac often converses in tighter quarters, without public eyes to marvel at his humor, wisdom, and athletic showmanship.  In most cases, his magnanimous talents are primarily on display only for individual, intimate conversations with his trusty friend Le Bret (Bashir Salahuddin), Christian, or Roxanne. 

The result is a serious, subdued, and pained Cyrano, and you might wish that our champion have grander, more celebrated collaborations, cherished fellowships, and some chuckles during the second or third acts.  

Overall, this film holds tightly onto more sober tones, but it isn’t without some whimsy.  Still, you won’t find anyone utter, “Because I was afraid of worms, Roxanne!  Worms!”

Hey, that’s alright. 

“Cyrano” (2021) is a fine achievement.  Dinklage and Bennett confidently and successfully step into these unforgettable characters with Oscar-nominated costumes and a flat-out spectacular backdrop, and Wright, Schmidt, Harrison Jr., the Dessners, the crew, the rest of the cast, and the leads will probably trigger tears that could fall onto your popcorn.  Bring tissues to catch them because we may cry for Cyrano and maybe a little for ourselves too.  Not many of us are entirely free of insecurity.   

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Movie Review

Dir: David Blue Garcia

Starring: Sarah Yarkin, Elsie Fisher, Jacob Latimore, Olwen Fouéré, Moe Dunford, Nell Hudson, Jessica Allain, and Mark Burnham

1h 21m

For nearly 50 years, Tobe Hooper's masterpiece of independent filmmaking, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," has populated every list detailing the most influential, greatest, scariest horror films of all time. And it justifiably deserves every single accolade in some way. 

The gruesome masked killer, Leatherface, has continued his rampage as any good scary movie villain should, with sequels, remakes, origin stories, and now, with David Blue Garcia's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," a chance to communicate the massacre again in modern times. The result is an uneven mix of modernistic sentiments and simplified social commentary combined with the visceral driving force of a buzzing chainsaw, brutal gore, and unabashed violence for the sake of violence. 

A group of idealistic young people escapes the city for a new beginning in the rural town of Harlow. Melody (Sarah Yarkin) and her teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher) have short-lived peace as they disrupt the residence of deranged serial killer Leatherface, whose legacy of bloodshed continues to haunt the residents of the abandoned town. But a survivor from the 1973 massacre, Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré), has been waiting for the opportunity to have her revenge.

The return to the saga started in 1973 brings an aged Leatherface, with shaggy grey hair, a noticeable limp, but still faster and more robust than any twenty-something young person in the film, face to face with modern times. Gen Z'ers are gentrifying a rundown town, driving electric cars, and all of them eager to live stream every aspect of their lives. As one social media-minded man brutally finds out, Leatherface doesn't have time for views and likes.

Director David Blue Garcia wastes zero time with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," it's a quick trip down a familiar dusty road. Each iteration of the Texas Chainsaw killer gets progressively more violent and gory throughout the franchise history. Tobe Hooper's original film was relatively bloodless, with violence implied with camera framing and positioning. Garcia's vision doubles down on the gory carnage and sadistic mayhem, leaving nothing to the imagination. 

At a sweet-spot running time of 83 minutes, Garcia treats this film primarily as a buffet of bloodshed. It is an uncomplicated story that tries to flex a deeper underlying agenda about trauma and empowerment but never takes the time to explore it. It's the film's major fault and what ultimately makes it unmemorable after it's over. 

Survivor Sally Hardesty, played with ferocity by Olwen Fouéré, returns to exact some justice after all these years. The past torments Sally's character; she carries a picture of her friends and displays a demeanor of a hunter waiting for their prey. This character examination arrives with thought-provoking potential but is completely underutilized. Instead of creating a dynamic between Sally and the monster who ruined her life, the narrative build-up for Sally's character only supports Leatherface's one-note backstory. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is seldom committed to anything more than the surface level carnage and gore. 

Ricardo Diaz's cinematography heightens the looming threat of Leatherface's return. The appearance of the chainsaw-wielding killer in a field of sunflowers followed by a wide shot of him lumbering towards his hometown with an on-coming storm in the distance is striking. The highlight, however, is seeing the iconic monster highlighted with blue lights on a party bus, which is just the beginning of a fun scene for the franchise character. 

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" delivers on everything its title could promise; director David Blue Garcia takes you to Texas for a brutal, gory chainsaw massacre. Everything left on the ground after the chainsaw stops turning composes the remainder of this film.

Monte's Rating

2.25 out of 5.00

---

Dog – Movie Review

Directed by:  Reid Carolin and Channing Tatum

Written by:  Reid Carolin

Starring:  Channing Tatum, Q’orianka Kilcher, and Eric Urbiztondo

Runtime:  97 minutes

‘Dog’ attempts too many tricks during this bumpy but well-intentioned road trip

U.S. Army Ranger Jackson Briggs (Channing Tatum) is struggling.  He needs a job.

Briggs served in the Middle East for years and lives stateside now but suffers from concussions and post-traumatic stress.  The man searches for a purpose and – hopefully - another military assignment.  However, he deals with more rejection than a ticketless, penniless football fan negotiating with pricey scalpers outside a Super Bowl venue.   

Well, finally, an old colleague grants him a chance.  It’s a weekend job but a valuable, salient one.  

Sadly, a fellow U.S. Army patriot, Sgt. Riley Rodriguez (Eric Urbiztondo), passed away, and his upcoming funeral is set in Nogales, Ariz.  He’s survived by his military dog - a Belgian Malinois named Lulu, who served for several years - and Jackson must drive this heroic hound from the Pacific Northwest to Sgt. Rodriguez’s service.  

On the surface, this sounds like a straightforward, stress-free task.  Briggs and Lulu can enjoy lovely views and human and canine banter on I-5 or the Pacific Coast Highway for a couple of days, but this road trip is more winding than the tricky pathways through the Cascades.  

You see, Lulu hurts from as many emotional and physical scars as Jackson.  She needs to wear a muzzle frequently, and off-camera, she allegedly and recently put three guys in the ER.  

Perhaps, Jackson should wear a dog trainer’s bite suit for 1,500-plus miles, right?

This movie – made by first-time directors Reid Carolin and Tatum – has two major themes in its favor: person-pooch bonding and veterans returning from war.  It’s darn near impossible to be against these two big-screen ideas.  Hey, I am a huge animal person and have massive respect for our soldiers.  

The filmmakers’ hearts are in the right place, and at times, they push the right buttons, but contrived plot devices and conflicting tones travel over a bumpy celluloid terrain.

With his soldierly experience, Jackson respects authority and responsibility.  Still, connecting with a volatile, dangerous dog in a closed space, namely in his aging, blue Ford SUV for hundreds of miles, sounds like standing in a closet full of mousetraps for three days straight.  

That’s a tricky business, so the film introduces some enormously random encounters for our confined couple, including a tantric tryst (for Jackson) and a kidnapping.  What?  Okay, not at the same time. 

(Note: two notable cameos grace our screen during Jackson and Lulu’s adventures, including one that WWE fans will love.) 

These moments are about as distant from the primary storyline as your local gas station is to the surface of Mars.  Regrettably, these bizarre cinematic rest stops feel like indiscriminate oddities to pass the time.  Well, not exactly.  We become familiar with Jackson and Lulu, and they are both sympathetic characters, even though our four-legged lady could chew up Briggs like a stuffed animal at any moment.  

Look, Lulu’s behavior is wildly inconsistent.  She might rip up Jackson’s vehicle one minute but later, sit quietly on a 4-star hotel room’s bed.  She’ll leap out of his truck’s shattered open window in one instance but not catch the jumping urge for hours and hours.  Sometimes, she’s okay without a muzzle, but during other cases, she needs one. 

Overall, we can assume where their eventual relationship will land, but mechanically, their growth along the way feels flawed, and so does the film’s atmosphere.  We volley from intentional slapstick to grave trauma from the pains of combat, and it isn’t easy to entirely wrap your arms around both concepts with a 97-minute movie that feels very rushed in the third act.  

No doubt, Tatum is a charismatic screen presence.  Men want to be him, and women want to date him, and Channing successfully portrays Jackson as an agreeable, capable figure.  Jackson and Lulu are cut from the same cloth, and they need one another, but to include both comedy and sobriety within this film, we almost needed one grounded lead character to anchor the picture and carry us (and the other co-star) through to the end.  As-is, “Dog” feels simultaneously a bit too much and not enough.  

That doesn’t mean that audiences – including dog lovers - won’t enjoy this story, and hey, Channing is undoubtedly a likable fellow.  Kudos to him for raising awareness for soldiers, both humans and dogs.  

If you want to learn more about dogs at war and the soldiers who handle them, “Megan Leavey” (2017), starring Kate Mara as the title character, is a stronger movie.  It’s a sobering picture, but it doesn’t bathe the audience in tears.  Still, it splashes us at times.  

If you decide to see “Dog”, make me a deal and watch “Megan Leavey” too.  My guess is that Channing won’t mind.  

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Uncharted – Movie Review

Directed by:  Ruben Fleischer

Written by:  Rafe Judkins, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway

Starring:  Mark Wahlberg, Tom Holland, Antonio Banderas, Sophia Ali, and Tati Gabrielle

Runtime:  116 minutes

‘Uncharted’ is lost

“There are places out there you can’t find on any map.  They’re not gone.  They’re just lost.” – Nathan Drake (Tom Holland) 

“The weather started getting rough.  The tiny ship was tossed.  If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost.”  - “The Ballad of ‘Gilligan’s Island’” 

“Gillian’s Island” (1964 – 1967), an amusing, silly sitcom of seven castaways stuck on an uncharted island, was joyful candy – 22 minutes every weekday minus the ads – for this latchkey kid during the 1980s.  In several episodes, The Professor (Russell Johnson), Mary Ann (Dawn Wells), The Skipper (Alan Hale Jr.), and company would conceive ingenious ideas to leave the island, but Gilligan (Bob Denver) – the show’s biggest originator of comic relief emanating from his brain and skinny 5’ 8” frame - would inevitably botch up their plans.  By the 21st minute and 59th second of airtime, our heroes were still stuck on this Pacific isle for another misadventure.  

Sure, each show’s arc was entirely predictable, but, back in the day, this 11-year-old kid enjoyed every single small-screen installment while - usually - guessing the eventual outcome.  

“Uncharted” – a 120 million dollar, globe-trotting adventure flick - pits Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) and Nathan Drake on a search for a missing 16th-century treasure from Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition.  

How about that?  

No, Victor and Nathan aren’t searching for the S.S. Minnow, but the film’s major beats are pretty darn foreseeable.  Add juvenile discourse between the leads, far-fetched plot devices, and a few dull action set-pieces devised on CGI walls larger than Fenway Park’s Green Monster, and you have yourself a mindless action picture.  

This movie is lost. 

No, director Ruben Fleischer’s “Uncharted” is not based on a TV show but a video game, which admittedly this critic has never played, so I cannot delve into comparisons but only describe the events that unfold over the 116-minute presentation.

On the big screen, Nathan (about 10 years young) and his older brother Sam are master thieves.  Well, not precisely expert bandits because they keep getting caught, and when a cop says that Sam has “three strikes”, Older Bro disappears.  

About 15 years later, Sam is still unaccounted for, but we meet Nathan again, and he looks like Tom Holland.  Nathan might be in his mid-20s, but the man has garnered a lifetime of talents.  He packs more uses than a Swiss Army knife with a decoder ring attachment.  Not only can Master Drake bartend, but he can turn off the electricity (at least attempt to) at a downtown auction house, nimbly hop around on rooftops better than the Scaffolding Dude in “Casino Royale” (2006), and swim underwater without damaging his cellphone.  

Luckily, Victor found him because Nathan can work these mad skills plus some pickpocketing aptitudes to find billions in Magellan’s loot. 

Why trust Victor?  Well, Mr. Sullivan claims to have known Sam, so there you go. 

This dubious duo form a pact about as thin as the patience of a 3-year-old hopped up on Jolt Cola and search for the gold.  Of course, they bump into a frenemy with the same gilded quest (Sophia Ali) and a few baddies, including a heavy with an indecipherable Scottish accent (Steven Waddington), a wealthy socialite/businessman (Antonio Banderas), and a martial arts expert who carries a knife more frequently than her car keys (Tati Gabrielle).  

When our heroes untangle themselves from frequent jams, Victor addresses Nathan as “Kid” so often that college students everywhere will create a drinking game in his honor, and the young man usually responds by popping a Bubble Yum and declaring, “Whoa,” or “No way.”  

Just think “National Treasure” (2004) meets “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) but without intrigue or fun. 

However, Fleischer and his team film in Barcelona, and they capture some flat-out gorgeous shots of the City of Counts, including a Gaudi creation and (I think) the Magic Fountains of Montjuic.  

These beautiful Spanish moments certainly beat a pair of manufactured CGI stunts involving a cargo plane and an insane sequence during the final act.  Admittedly, I didn’t see the film’s finale coming.  

Points for that, but instead of this movie, maybe play the video game (I guess) or watch something completely predictable but also gratifying, like “Gilligan’s Island, S3E27, It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane”, where the gang discovers a jet pack, but Gilligan uses up most of the fuel, and then…   

Jeff’s ranking

1.5/4 stars

---

Death on the Nile - Movie Review

Dir: Kenneth Branagh

Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Gal Gadot, Armie Hammer, Annette Bening, Rose Leslie, Letitia Wright, Sophie Okonedo, Ali Fazal, Emma Mackey, Dawn French, Tom Bateman, Jennifer Saunders, and Russell Brand

2h 7m

Cinema has produced no shortage of brilliant detectives solving all manner of devious deeds, but one of the greatest delivered to novels, television, and film is Hercule Poirot. The Belgian investigator with a mustache that could be a character all by itself was created by Agatha Christie and has appeared in numerous novels, short stories, and various movies/television shows played by prestigious actors. Austin Trevor in 1931s “Alibi” and Tony Randall in 1965s “The Alphabet Murders” played the role of the famous sleuth. Albert Finney received an Oscar nomination playing Poirot in 1974s “Murder on the Orient Express.” A few years later, Peter Ustinov donned the mustache in six different films, including “Death on the Nile” in 1978 and “Evil Under the Sun” in 1982. But the longest run playing the famed detective belongs to David Suchet, who portrayed Hercule from 1989-2014 in the British series “Agatha Christie’s Poirot.” 

 Returning director/actor Kenneth Branagh remakes another Agatha Christie classic, “Death on the Nile,” and continues his charming, witty performance as the observant investigator Hercule Poirot. Steeped in a controversy surrounding sexual assault allegations for star Armie Hammer and release delays due to covid-19, “Death on the Nile” floats into theaters this week. The film, which boasts a talented cast and revamps the “whodunit” quality of the original movie with better thrills and suspense, struggles to maintain its messy momentum once it sets sail—leaving the film continuously on the verge of sinking before it reaches the harbors. 

Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is on holiday abroad in Egypt. While gazing at a pyramid and enjoying a snack, Poirot is reacquainted with old friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) and invited to attend a Nile cruise to celebrate the marriage of Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) to heiress Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot). Poirot, initially reluctant but eventually intrigued by the devious, many times ruthless group of celebrators, boards the luxury boat. Linnet is relieved to be on the Nile and away from her former best friend Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), who has stalked the couple every step of their celebration. Linnet is terrified for her safety. She confides in Poirot, detailing the fears she experiences because of her wealth. After a night of revelry, which ends in a vengeful argument, events turn deadly as a murder happens onboard the ship. 

 Kenneth Branagh’s “Death on the Nile” does a fine job of maintaining, and in some places heightening, the suspense found in Christie’s novel. Writer Michael Green, who also wrote 2017s “Murder on the Orient Express,” labors over the tangled relationships of all the guests in the beginning half of the film, introducing red herrings and ulterior motives that emerge but are quickly dismissed once the mystery begins. And it takes some time to get to the actual mystery of the story. Green’s overabundant development never seems to add much to the plotting procedural that takes place once the crime occurs. However, once Poirot begins accusing everyone of murder, and the twists and turns start to find purpose, the film finds its footing.

Kenneth Branagh’s performance is, oddly, a highlight of the film. While the character often sways between calculated and comical, Branagh enjoys the time under the mustache. That makes all the difference when the film tries to be a serious whodunit. However, Gal Gadot and Armie Hammer are not having the same fun as their romance comes to life with little chemistry between the two actors. Emma Mackey, playing the jaded and vengeful Jacqueline, provides enough scorned craziness to make any scene with her enjoyable. For the most part, the talented cast is provided few scenes to develop their characters, but some are offered the occasional monologue to chew the scenery in amusing ways. 

Kenneth Branagh’s “Death on the Nile” updates Agatha Christie’s novel to make the mystery more suspenseful. Branagh’s portrayal of famed investigator Poirot is amusing in the best way possible. Still, even with an all-star cast and updated elements to enliven the mystery, “Death on the Nile” struggles to find its rhythm of storytelling. 

Monte’s Rating

3.25 out of 5.00

---

Breaking Bread – Movie Review

Directed by:  Beth Elise Hawk

Starring:  Dr. Nof Atamna-Ismaeel, Shlomi Meir, Ali Khattib, Osama Dalal, Ilan Ferron, Tomer Abergel, Salah Cordi, Shoshi Karaman, and Fadi Karaman

Runtime:  85 minutes

‘Breaking Bread’:  Leave your politics at home but bring your appetite to this warm, sincere documentary

“I don’t believe there is any room for politics in the kitchen.” – Dr. Nof Atamna-Ismaeel

Dr. Nof Atamna-Ismaeel practices what she preaches.  In 2014, she – of Palestinian descent - became the first Muslim Arab to win Israel’s MasterChef.  Soon after, the good doctor founded the A-Sham Arabic Food Festival, an annual event in Haifa, Israel.  

This isn’t an ordinary celebration because Jewish and Arab chefs must work together in individual restaurants and kitchenettes to prepare meals for the flocks of festival attendees.

How about that?  

Director Beth Elise Hawk’s inspiring documentary features Dr. Atamna-Ismaeel and several other cuisine artists, as they explain - and also demonstrate in real-time – their experiences in sharing kitchens, cultures, cordial working relationships, and hopefully future friendships. 

Hawk takes boundless care in featuring many participating chefs and offers them generous minutes of screen time to tell their personal stories.  In most cases, Hawk introduces the cuisiniers as pairs, one Jewish and one Arab, as she interviews them individually and then together.  We meet Shlomi Meir and Ali Khattib, Osama Dalal and Ilan Ferron, and Tomer Abergel and Salah Cordi.  The men didn’t collaborate or know one another before the festival, but the camera warmly discovers genuine geniality.  

“Food can bring us together.  No, food can bring the first step, and from there, it depends on what we choose.” Dalal declares.  

Ferron says, “I don’t give a f*** that he’s Arab like he doesn’t give a f*** that I’m a Jew.  The only thing that we’re going to give a f*** about is making art.” 

Viewing The Middle East from across the Atlantic Ocean, tensions never seem to ease.  However, Hawk doesn’t find any apprehension between her on-screen guests, as they share stories, spaces, stovetops, and recipes.  For instance, Ali holds up a small bag of prepared items that are individual-sized and shaped like racquetballs and tells Shlomi that these will feed 70 people.  Later, Shlomi invites Ali into his restaurant’s prep area and teaches him to make one of his dumplings, which he nicely does.  

Although only men were previously mentioned in pairs, the festival is not male-only.  Female chefs also offer their perspectives, including Shoshi Karaman, a Jewish woman paired with her husband Fadi, an Arab man.  The camera loves Shoshi and Fadi because, after just 20 seconds of screen time, you’ll want to invite them out for a drink, coffee, or dinner, if they cook, of course. 

The film offers personal close-ups of all the players, both literally and figuratively (with their backstories), but also the meals – big and small – that they prepare.  With a runtime of 85 minutes, Hawk spends about 70 by tap-dancing between picturesque Haifa (a coastal locale in which a portion of the city center sits on an enormous butte), other nearby locations, the featured personalities, and naturally, food!  

If you are trying to lose weight or fast, do not watch “Breaking Bread”.  Hawk features dozens upon dozens of mouth-watering meals from the region, including countless shots of salads, hummus, pitas, dumplings, towering plates of peas, rice, spices, and meats.  Our director isn’t bashful about showcasing the diverse, delectable, and delicious dishes that attract our eyes and appetites.  

“Breaking Bread isn’t a procedural-based doc that details the festival’s logistics and explicitly describes specific recipes.  

Instead, Hawk dives deeply into a few key stories to illuminate the chefs’ specific outlooks and experiences, both historically and today.  Then, she thoughtfully includes the new harmonious connections along with splendid cuisine.  This movie is a constant array of good feelings and intentions, instead of frequent news reports that pose the opposite view.  

The doc, however, spends so much time with the new cooking celebrities that Hawk only leaves about 10 minutes for the festival itself.  This critic looked at his watch a few times while wondering when the formal festivities would begin.  We see a few restaurant settings and numerous joyful moments in the kitchens during the A-Sham Arabic Food Festival, but the film doesn’t catch broad, wide shots of crowds in the streets of overhead captures of the setting.  Yes, everyone seems cheerful and jolly, but we didn’t get interviews of the patrons enjoying their meals.  It feels like a big miss, but perhaps the crew dealt with filming limitations during the event. 

Still, “Breaking Bread” spreads so much goodwill and introduces these surprising, sincere collaborations that this documentary is worth a trip to the movies.  Hey, this doc might inspire you to drop some serious cash on a one-way ticket to Haifa for a holiday getaway of dining.  

Just leave your diet and politics at home.  

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

I Want You Back – Movie Review

Directed by:  Jason Orley

Written by:  Isaac Aptaker and Elizabeth Berger

Starring:  Jenny Slate, Charlie Day, Scott Eastwood, and Gina Rodriguez

Runtime:  110 minutes

‘I Want You Back’: Day and Slate are heartbroken troublemakers in this light, likable rom-com

“I Want You Back” (2022) – Have you ever been dumped?  Everyone has at one point.  Wait, everyone?  Okay, Gisele Bundchen probably has avoided that particular emotional turmoil, but for mere mortals, it’s an unfortunate “wrong” of passage for anyone putting themselves “out there” in the dating world.  

Director Jason Orley’s rom-com “I Want You Back” squarely focuses on two specific dumpees, Emma (Jenny Slate) and Peter (Charlie Day).  About seven minutes into his film, Orley features a montage of our heroes with Jimmy Durante’s “The Glory of Love” playing in the background.

“You’ve got to win a little, lose a little.  And always have the blues a little.  That’s the story of, that’s the glory of love.”   

Durante’s timeless tune applies to Emma and Peter, but only the “lose” and “blues” parts.  These two 30-somethings are heartbroken that their significant others, Noah (Scott Eastwood) and Anne (Gina Rodriguez), have called it quits.  

Emma and Peter may live in Atlanta, but it feels like Splitsville City.  They don’t know one another but will soon meet by chance because they work in the same building and commiserate over their losses.  (Isn’t it always by chance in these movies?)

After a few conversations of misery loves company, both leads opt for deep self-reflection and growth.  Emma purchases Rosetta Stone to learn French, and Peter becomes an animal shelter volunteer.   

Just kidding.  

C’mon.  Emma and Peter both want their significant others back!  So, they work together to break up Noah’s and Anne’s brand-new relationships, so their old flames will sprint back to their broken-hearted selves. Pretty darn devious, but will their Anti-Cupid scheme work?  

Oh, this isn’t a chance meeting.  This is fate!  (Isn’t it always through fate in these movies?) 

“I Want You Back” looks and feels like every other rom-com out there.  Everyone resides in comfortable, spacious suburbia and works in picturesque downtown high rises.  Actually, Emma lives with a 20-something couple attending law school, but their condo has all the residential trimmings…except for soundproof walls. 

We don’t see our leads working that often because they spend most of their waking hours calculating their next awkward moves towards ruining their exes’ current romances.  After sitting through countless romantic comedies over the last who-knows-how-many years, one might deduce this flick’s eventual ending.  

Will your deductions be accurate?  Well, let’s not give anything away.  

This film feels a bit different because Slate and Day are talented and seasoned comedic actors.  No, this material isn’t terribly challenging, but their comical gifts of gab and physicality-foolishness fit nicely with Isaac Aptaker and Elizabeth Berger’s script.  Both actors get chances to shine, including Peter’s daredevil attempt in a stranger’s backyard and Emma’s surreal acting opportunity, and these moments will drive genuine angst and applause. 

Meanwhile, Eastwood is awfully likable here as Emma’s ex.  Quite frankly, Noah handles their breakup with class and maturity, and his subsequent relationship with Ginny (Clark Backo) is lovely.  He is no villain, making Emma’s wishes feel childish and shortsighted.  Rodriguez plays Anne as more demanding and detached.  Still, Anne doesn’t want Peter any longer while he figuratively serenades to a second balcony window, one shut with a few nails hammered into the frame for good measure. 

So, our love-sick leads should lean on therapists or friends who should help flank their tipsy self-esteem rather than conspire and yearn for well-traveled but also uninvited roads from the past.  Then again, if Emma and Peter took healthy approaches from the get-go, we wouldn’t have a movie.  

Will they learn the err of their aching ways?

Looking back, Orley should’ve wrapped up his film – and Emma’s and Peter’s life lessons - at the 90-minute mark rather than stretch their journeys to 110 minutes.  Still, Slate’s and Day’s charisma and charm help win the “day” over their characters’ sometimes questionable motives and also the familiar sights and sounds of this bubble-gum genre.  

Well, now and then, bubble gum is worth a 110-minute chew, especially for those who have felt that breakup sting.  

That’s all of us…except Gisele.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---