Minions: The Rise of Gru – Movie Review

Directed by:  Kyle Balda, Brad Ableson, and Jonathan del Val

Written by:  Matthew Fogel

Starring:  Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, Taraji P. Henson, Michelle Yeoh, Julie Andrews, Lucy Lawless, Danny Trejo, Dolph Lundgren, and Jean-Claude Van Damme

Runtime:  79 minutes

 ‘Minions: The Rise of Gru’ doesn’t ascend to greatness 

The 1970s were groovy.  

Disco, bell bottoms, Gloria Steinem, The Eagles, and “Star Wars”! 

However, the “Me Decade” also had the OPEC Crisis, sunken living rooms, and Love Canal. 

For better or worse, the 1970s happened, and this unique transition between the turbulent 60s and the Reagan years has its cheerleaders and detractors.   

Illumination (the studio that brought the world four Minions movies) grabbed pom-poms, a megaphone, and practiced acrobat routines to embrace 1976, the setting for a big-screen adventure with Gru (Steve Carell) and his Tic Tac-shaped, canary yellow buddies in “Minions: The Rise of Gru”.  

For Minions fans, this fifth film in the series, a prequel, is a harmless spectacle with familiar clatter and chatter.  Parents will most likely find their preteen children full of content after they digest 79 minutes of shiny objects and The Three Stooges routines.  Chaperoning happy kids is a win for any mom or dad, but be warned, you’ll also need to sit through this forced, unnecessary, and uninspired beginning of Gru’s ascension to villainy.  The new wrinkle here?  Our “hero” is a boy, 11-plus years young (if memory serves), with dreams of joining The Vicious 6, a pack of supervillains.  

Yes, directors Kyle Balda, Brad Ableson, and Jonathan del Val expect the audience to acknowledge a half-dozen new characters that enjoy dishing out rousing unrest.  

Here’s a reference guide before walking into the theatre. 

Wild Knuckles (Alan Arkin) is the aging leader.  He’s old-school tough.

Belle Bottom (Taraji P. Henson) rides a motorcycle and leaves her pursuers in a purple haze. 

Jean-Clawed is voiced by Jean-Claude Van Damme.  How about that?  Although this Jean has a giant lobster claw in place of an arm. 

Nun-Chuck (Lucy Lawless) is a nun who – you guessed it – wields a particular martial arts weapon.

Stronghold (Danny Trejo) and Svengeance (Dolph Lundgren) round out the infamous gang, but this muscleman and roller skating fella didn’t leave much of an impression.  Perhaps, Belle Bottom’s hip style and Jean-Clawed’s talon had more memorable panache.  

Still, kudos to the film’s casting team – Terri Douglas, Barbara Harris, and Mickie McGowan – for their inspiring voice-actor choices across the board. 

Did I mention that Julie Andrews (yes, THAT Julie Andrews) and Michelle Yeoh lend their voices as well?  

So, this infamous hexad boots one of its baddies during a heist of a 45 record-sized medallion called the Zodiac Stone.  Suddenly, this quintet is short one scoundrel, and Gru realizes an opportunity to plug in as their newest member.

Can this young man graduate from drenching random adults with cheese whiz to adult-level treachery?  Well, he does have an army of loyal googly-eyed goofballs.  Not so fast because Gru does not want his assembly of assistants to accompany him.  

That doesn’t seem like he’s orchestrating a winning strategy.  Unfortunately, the script devolves into a kidnapping, and simultaneously, several characters desperately search for the stone that acts as a MacGuffin.  

It’s a simple gimmick that allows four accident-prone aides to split off into separate adventures from Gru.  The Minions’ explorations are mostly forgettable, but this critic remembers not laughing once while the little fellas seek their fearless, inexperienced leader and the aforementioned prized possession.  Although, they might mumble that Gru is their treasured asset.  

Somehow, the script shoehorns Kevin, Stuart, and Bob into a detour where an acupuncturist (Yeoh) teaches martial arts to the little dudes.  You are right if you guessed that their learnings would come in handy during the third act! 

So, does Gru ascend from protégé to master scoundrel?  Not really.  Balda, Ableson, and del Val’s film should be called “Minions: Gru Takes One Step”.  

It may be difficult to protest too much when the colorful, rubbery animation is competent, and older moviegoers will appreciate 70s tunes from Simon & Garfunkel, KC & The Sunshine Band, The Steve Miller Band, and others.  Still, we get so many snippets of familiar hits that the music becomes a distraction.  The filmmakers in “Cruella” (2021) did the same thing, as both crews seem just a little too overzealous in peppering the audience with well-known samples.  

We also received several pop culture references from the period.  Please note that two Steven Spielberg flicks get brief mentions, but one of his movies wasn’t released until 1977.  Ah, tsk, tsk. 

Most people won’t sweat the small stuff, and Illumination will probably grant us another sequel, perhaps when Gru turns 15 in “Minions: Gru needs Clearasil”.  Well, Minions devotees will do cartwheels.  Just one request:  Can we make the runtime shorter than 1 hour and 19 minutes?

Jeff’s ranking

2/4 stars

---

Elvis - Movie Review

Directed by:  Baz Luhrmann

Written by:  Baz Luhrmann, Sam Bromell, Craig Pearce, and Jeremy Doner

Starring:  Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson, Richard Roxburgh, and Kelvin Harrison Jr.

Runtime:  159 minutes

During key points, you’ll feel “all shook up,” but ‘Elvis’ could have used “a little less conversation.”   Maybe a lot less.

Elvis Aaron Presley.  

The King of Rock and Roll. 

He shook his hips and “rattled and rolled” to Earth-shattering success in the 1950s.  He coped with some career dips, but The King “couldn’t help falling in love” with new triumphs – beginning in 1969 - in Las Vegas.  He sold millions of records and inspired worldwide audiences, and his towering, legendary mark remains Herculean, even 45 years after his death, Aug. 16, 1977 at just 42.  

Fearless filmmaker Baz Luhrmann - who embraces bold, boisterous projects like “Moulin Rouge!” (2001) and “The Great Gatsby” (2013) – recruited a (now) 30-year-old Austin Butler and an 85 million-dollar budget for a big-time, big-screen Elvis biography that, quite frankly, looks twice as expensive as the said finances.  

Luhrmann watched Elvis movies growing up and spoke with “CBS Mornings” on June 16, 2022 to explain his motivations for this royal exploration. 

“I always thought if you want to look at America in the 50s, 60s, and the 70s, (Elvis has) this great way of exploring (the time), because he’s there, one way or the other, the good, the bad, the ugly.  It (was) only when I thought about the idea of Col. Tom Parker.  The sell and the soul.  That’s America.  That’s what I wanted to explore,” Luhrmann said.

Baz, indeed, dives into Parker and Presley’s business relationship from Elvis’ beginnings during a 1954 Louisiana Hayride appearance to his 1970s Vegas swan song. 

“Elvis” travels a sprawling 23 years of the man’s career, and even though the runtime clocks at 159 minutes, most of the movie feels rushed.  Not hurried during individual moments, but the picture feels like a run-through of Elvis’ greatest highlights, almost like a reel. 

Although, sometimes…a glorious, fabulous reel.     

Butler is a dead-ringer for The King, and he never falters, not even for a second.  He looks, speaks, and sings like Elvis and graces the screen with raw power and sex appeal, especially when donning a pink suit during his Hayride debut, as young women scream, screech, and squeal.  

Luhrmann captures wide shots, closeups, and every angle in between during the three-minute sequence where Butler showcases Elvis’ God-given charisma, musical gifts, and twists and shouts. 

It’s here that Col. Tom Parker (Tom Hanks) - an overweight, almost-50, small-time music promoter with carnival barker vibes - discovers EP.  Parker’s business know-how (that he refers to as snow jobs or “snow”) and Presley’s allure and talent catapult them to mountains of riches and one Graceland. 

From here, the narrative zips, stops, fast-forwards, and momentary pauses through a collection of vivid memories.  Through most of the first two acts, we get snippets of conversations with Elvis’ mom (Helen Thomson), dad (Richard Roxburgh), B.B. King (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), the Memphis Mafia, and Priscilla (Olivia DeJonge).  

However, other than Vernon’s (Roxburgh) passive management style, we don’t learn a lot of substance from his family or B.B.  DeJonge’s Priscilla doesn’t offer much insight into their relationship.  She only seems to exist on-screen to draw physical likenesses between the actress and the famous spouse.  

We randomly see Elvis drive his pink Cadillac, loiter around his Memphis home, and listen to the Colonel’s money-making ideas, like a cinematic version of news B-roll.  Fragments of images act as fillers.  There’s an emotional distance between the events on-screen and the audience (or at least this critic).  Luhrmann and cinematographer Mandy Walker capture glorious, vibrant images (even on a regular ol’ tour bus), but several middling exchanges are sadly highlighted by a running timeline of infamous 1960s deaths. 

However, I “don’t want to be cruel” and bury this movie because the third act comes alive by finally slowing down to feature the intricacies of two massive Elvis accomplishments: his NBC Comeback Special and Vegas residency.  Rather than do-si-do around Parker’s song and dance, Elvis challenges him but also falls for his snow.  

The Vegas saga may last 50 minutes of screen time, and the big-band production highs and the notorious lows fascinate and delve into Elvis’ health setbacks and economic knots.  (Next time, please set the entire movie in Vegas.)

Yes, Baz explores “the sell and the soul,” and The Colonel narrates the picture, which is a curious choice, but then, Elvis recounting his own story seems a bit presumptuous.  

Still, Hanks donning a “fat suit” and channeling Parker’s view of the 23-year ride seems misplaced to truly discover Elvis.  Perhaps that distance is appropriate, but we certainly secure a front-row seat of Butler’s spectacular work, including his actual singing.  Sometimes on his own.  Other times, The King’s voice (from the grave) accompanies him.  

Austin gives a heroic performance, and Baz delivers on his vision.  During key points, you’ll undoubtedly feel “all shook up,” but “Elvis” could have used “a little less conversation.”  

Maybe a lot less.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

The Black Phone – Movie Review

Directed by:  Scott Derrickson

Written by:  Scott Derrickson and Roberg Cargill, based on Joe Hill’s short story

Starring:  Ethan Hawke, Mason Thames, Madeleine McGraw, Jeremy Davies, E. Roger Mitchell, and Troy Rudeseal

Runtime:  102 minutes

‘The Black Phone’ is a dialed-in horror flick

A parent’s worst nightmare. 

A kid’s worst nightmare too.

Director Scott Derrickson’s “The Black Phone” is a child abduction movie, and this 102-minute horror film will sometimes snatch your breath.  Rather than portray the story as a straight-up thriller with a sinister creep’s evident dangers versus a young hero’s tangible devices for escape, somewhere in the second act, “The Black Phone” departs from pragmatism and enters other startling spaces.  

Derrickson and writer Robert Cargill’s screenplay dramatically turns and feels like a Stephen King adaptation, especially to this critic, who spent several formative years reading the man’s novels and short-story collections.  

In what ways?  Specifically in two places, but you’ll have to see the movie to discover them.  Needless to say, after watching and enjoying this effective chiller, it is no surprise that Derrickson’s film is based on Joe Hill’s short story of the same name. 

Joe is King’s son, and not unlike writer/director Brandon Cronenberg’s (“Possessor” (2020)) similar talents with his famous father, David, Mr. Hill seems like a chip off the old horror-genre block.  (Note, I haven’t read Joe’s work, but I should probably get started!)

Not to be mistaken for an ordinary block of tired cinematic ideas, “The Black Phone” is a taut, enthralling thriller.  The deliberate narrative leads us down a perilous path in the tightest of confines: a bleak basement with concrete slabs resembling a third-world prison and one black rotary phone fastened to a wall.  An industrial steel door is the only viable exit.  

Departing 2022, “The Black Phone” introduces 1978 North Denver and an all-American setting in middle-class suburbia.  Kids ride their bikes without helmets or chaperones.  A schoolyard fight doesn’t end until the winning pugilist mashes the losing one to a bloody pulp.  Little League baseball players don’t have year-round coaching, club teams, or seemingly any parental interest in wins and losses.

Children are left to their own devices, and they can turn to The Eagles or Foghat and live “Life in the Fast Lane” or take a “Slow Ride”.  In most circumstances, they “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper”, however, these days – Oct. 1978 – just about everyone in the Mile High City feels on edge because an unknown menace named The Grabber (Ethan Hawke) snatches youngsters off the street, and these poor souls disappear for good.   

The featured kid (maybe a sixth or seventh grader), Finney Shaw (Mason Thames), could be described as a poor soul before his kidnapping.  A triad of classmates regularly bullies Finney, and his alcoholic father (Jeremy Davies) frequently pours grief onto him and our protagonist’s sister, Gwen (Madeleine McGraw).  Derrickson and the three actors effectively establish the Shaw family’s troubling home life during the first act.  

Dear Old Dad requires constant silence when he’s not yelling like a maniac and beating his kids.  Davies – who runs a respectable track record of playing unstable characters – and McGraw carry a horrifically uncomfortable scene.  After the aforementioned confrontation, we immediately realize that Finney and Gwen rely on one another, and Derrickson introduces an ironic comparison.  The film’s true villain is The Grabber, a man who works in shadows and hushed surroundings, but Terrence (Davies) is a menacing scoundrel at home and displays his ugly emotional warts by shouting at the top of his lungs and swinging a leather belt.  

Unfortunately, life seizes Finney from a troubled house and into a life-or-death dilemma.  The Grabber chooses him.  For most of the 102-minute runtime, the young man attempts to cope with incarceration and the seedy, sick realization of a hellish demise.  Although the R-rated “The Black Phone” barely spills any blood, the primary theme triggers anxiety faster than you can say, “No escape!”  

Even though the sound department includes a few cheap jump scares with sudden bullets of haphazard industrial blares, the genre’s familiar audio signatures aren’t needed.  Finney’s anxious self-talk, miserable claustrophobia, and the constant anticipation of peril from a 40 or 50-something sicko deliver all the dramatic tension that the filmmakers need.

Hawke’s The Grabber doesn’t visit Master Shaw every minute, and his sporadic entrances have no warnings.  Each appearance brings a sense of dread, but when he’s not on-screen, we – just like Finney - wonder about his whereabouts.  Hawke brings a terribly offsetting vibe here, as The Grabber could fly off the handle at any time, but his quiet, creepy cadence almost conveys something worse: the constant threat of violence.  He’s wearing a mask, which resembles a twisted cross between a face covering from “The Purge” series and a gargoyle.  This bizarre sight serves a practical purpose because The Purge-Gargoyle disguise hides Hawke’s face, and quite frankly, witnessing Ethan tormenting Finney on-screen might not suspend our disbelief.  Because the film hides the actor’s identity, even though we know Mr. Hawke is playing the prime antagonist, it immediately forges a sense of wonder of who or what is underneath.  The man’s Hollywood star power doesn’t become a distraction.  

There are minimal disruptions to the quick-hitting flow of this tick-tock thriller.  Gwen and the police desperately search for Finney, and since we have a straightforward premise here, Derrickson has plenty of space to develop these characters.  Both are bright kiddos who don’t make foolish decisions.  Finney’s humility makes him accessible to the audience, and his level head and ingenuity will lead him to a successful career in engineering or the military if he can survive this ordeal.  Meanwhile, Madeleine’s Gwen is a wonder of a kid sister.  She will mix it up with fisticuffs, chew out adults, and lean on – sometimes literally – her big brother.  Gwen displays relentless worry and determination, and we sympathize with her desperation.  

Add groovy 1970s tunes and fashion statements and a world without smartphones, and “The Black Phone” is a dialed-in horror flick, save for an utterly implausible plot hole that could fit a fleet of 1974 GTOs.  However, if you ignore this point (or simply accept it), just about everything else rings true! 

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Cha Cha Real Smooth – Movie Review

Written and directed by:  Cooper Raiff

 Starring:  Cooper Raiff, Dakota Johnson, Leslie Mann, Brad Garrett, Evan Assante, Vanessa Burghardt, and Raul Castillo

 Runtime:  104 minutes

‘Cha Cha Real Smooth’ has some rough spots, but Raiff and Johnson enjoy lovely, effortless chemistry

Andrew is lost.

He’s lost in New Jersey, and specifically, Livingston. 

Not literally, because Andrew (Cooper Raiff) leans on his smartphone as a baby kitten relies on its mother, so he’s familiar with Google Maps.

No, this 22-year-old Donnie Osmond lookalike is more than a smidge stumped about his life’s next steps.  Having just graduated with a marketing degree from Tulane University, Andrew didn’t ride the Green Wave towards an impressive corporate profession. 

His soon-to-be ex-girlfriend Maya (Amara Pedroso) asks the principal question:  “What are you gonna do after college?”

Raiff – who also wrote and directed “Cha Cha Real Smooth” – answers for Andrew in his boy-loses-girl, boy-meets-new-girl romantic drama with a spotlight on the blurry phase between freewheeling extended adolescence and adulthood. 

Andrew connects with an attractive 30-something mom named Domino (Dakota Johnson) at a bat mitzvah, and they are off to the maybe-romance-will-happen races, even though she’s already engaged.  

 There is genuine, magical stuff between Raiff and Johnson here.  Ultimately, this movie successfully resonates and tugs on our emotions based on the strengths of Raiff’s thoughtful written exchanges between the leads and Johnson’s soulful performance.

Newcomer Vanessa Burghardt is awfully good too as Domino’s daughter Lola and so is Raiff in key spots. 

He purposely writes Andrew as clumsy and inexperienced, but one problem arises: this character’s (sometimes) caustic behavior makes it a chore to always root for him.  For instance, he is frequently callous to his stepdad (Brad Garrett) without giving legit reasons for his putdowns.  Greg (Garrett) is supposed to be a jerk, but he never gives off those vibes.  Instead, he’s Andrew’s punching bag.  Also, on occasion, Andrew will threaten 13-year-olds and drink on the job, which aren’t accomplishments to place at the top of a resume.  Then again, Andrew never claims to be John Q. Model Citizen, either.  (He and several others also engage in an uncomfortable, gratuitous melee in the third act that could’ve been left on the cutting room floor.)

 To buy into Andrew, you need to accept his flaws, which isn’t always a simple task.  

 Another issue is the forced, central plot device that allows Andrew to pursue Domino throughout the film’s 104-minute runtime.  The night they meet, he lands a part-time job as a bar/bat mitzvah party starter.  (This is a real job???)  Since Domino and Lola regularly and conveniently attend every celebration Andrew works, he has recurrent and convenient opportunities to continue his crush and hopes that she’ll reciprocate.

Geez, how many Livingston kids are turning 12 or 13 anyway?  Domino and Andrew lead very separate lives, so the script needs logistical connective tissue.  It becomes a practical matter.  The suspension of disbelief takes a blow, but not a fatal one.

Conversely, what is alive?  The frank, insightful tete-a-tetes between the two leads and their awkward and stirring chemistry are! 

 Andrew might be 12, 13, or 14 years younger than Domino, but their lifestyles are decades apart. 

Front and center, Raiff pours a clear-cut disparity between Gen Z and Millennials onto the screen.  Any generational differences throughout the ages could place hurdles in a relationship, but this particular one involves the Gig Economy. 

Our protagonist can’t find footing with love, labor, and logic.  He lives at home with his mom (Leslie Mann), Greg, and shares a room with his 13-year-old brother (Evan Assante). 

This recent college graduate has the stability of the San Andreas Fault and expresses the common sense of ground beef every so often. 

His drinking at work and conflicts with kids are prime examples, and during a job interview, he states that his dad has Lou Gehrig’s disease when his father (or stepfather) doesn’t.  It’s fair to say that Andrew might not be ready for cubicle life, a mortgage, and 2.3 kids.  Meanwhile, Domino is a responsible, caring mom to Lola, lives in the suburbs, and is engaged to Joseph (Raul Castillo).  He’s an attorney and toils over a case in Chicago, so he’s usually working in The Windy City while she and Lola are on their own.  Why is she interested in Andrew?

Domino’s life is mostly settled, while Andrew deals with personal earthquakes.  Their attraction cuts across their experiences. 

Although the film devotes generous minutes to Domino’s hope for happiness, “Cha Cha” primarily is Andrew’s journey. 

The pacing and editing mirror Andrew’s frantic, cluttered headspace.  The narrative hops quickly between his mom and stepdad’s place, a bar/bat mitzvah, his fast-food day job, and Domino’s house.  However, Raiff usually slows down the intimate one-on-one conversations between Andrew and the individual players.  Time stops during the measured discourse between Andrew and his mom, little brother, Lola, or Domino.  Raiff carves out meaningful moments for each player.  Everyone gets a spot to shine, but Domino is always on Andrew’s mind, including when she’s off-screen.     

Their connection is earnest and respectful, as the two blend flirtations and sincerity into their intimate discourse.  The script dives into some remarkable depth about commitment, fear, and wants as the 20-something and 30-something let down their guards.  Raiff makes effective subtle choices with his camera by capturing soft touches, one particular chivalrous gesture with Andrew holding Domino’s elbows, and a lovely callback to “The Graduate” (1967) in her living room.

This wide-eyed, idealist man believes that “all you need is love,” but Domino’s relationship scars prove that love isn’t all you need.  Dakota’s Domino seems to eternally contemplate between the immediate joys of the here-and-now versus the long-term security of a hopeful future through warm smiles and occasional tears.  She grapples with tradeoffs and exposes her vulnerabilities. 

No doubt, she wields power between the two, as Andrew occasionally fumbles and crafts proposals for staying within her eyeshot.  He becomes Lola’s babysitter, and Burghardt – autistic in real-life – plays her character as autistic.  Andrew and Lola have this sweet older brother/younger sister vibe.  He’s babysitting Lola to gain favor with her mom, which initially seems like a bridge too far, but when you’re 22 and infatuated, you’ll make grocery store runs to Delaware without much of a second thought.

Let’s note that Andrew also genuinely cares for Lola’s welfare.

Speaking of notes, inspiring alternative music choices are featured all over this film, as recent hits from Jean Dawson, Rostam, Big Red Machine, Samia, and Hovvdy guide Andrew through his passionate and baffling sways. 

For Gen Z and Millennials, “Cha Cha Real Smooth” could be a 2022 cinematic anthem.  For Gen X and older crowds, maybe or maybe not, but we remember those lost days too, and this movie might spark memories for 104 minutes and beyond.

Jeff’s ranking 

2.5/4 stars

---

Brian and Charles - Movie Review

 Directed by:  Jim Archer 

Written by:  David Earl and Chris Hayward

Starring:  David Earl, Chris Hayward, Louise Brealey, and Jamie Michie

Runtime:  90 minutes

‘Brian and Charles’ has intriguing wiring and connections, but this quirky robot story tinkers too much

 “It’s alive!” – Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in “Frankenstein” (1931)

 Meet Brian! 

 Brian (David Earl) is a 40-something bachelor.  He lives in a modest home on spacious acreage in North Wales.  He’s an isolated soul but acts quite chipper, most likely to cover up his loneliness.  However, Brian is pretty darn eager to show off his work.  He’s an inventor but not in a lucrative tech business, nor does he own scores of million-dollar patents. 

 Think Rand Peltzer (Hoyt Axton), the dad in “Gremlins” (1984).  Remember every “gizmo” that Rand constructed was either wrapped with eccentricities or didn’t operate correctly after hitting the ON switch.  Brian might be Rand’s long-lost nephew from across the pond because his innovations follow a similar pattern, such as his pinecone bag and flying cuckoo clock. 

 Look, the clock doesn’t exactly fly, and our protagonist may be a bit cuckoo, but Brian’s a kindhearted fella. 

One day, his ambition and skillset merge into far-out science fiction terrain.  He creates a robot!  A walking, talking robot that stands about seven and a half feet tall with a washing machine for a chest.  Its (or his) name is Charles, who sports a bow tie, a blue button-down shirt, a brown sweater, khakis, shoes, a human-like latex face, some gray locks, and a pair of glasses.  

 Meet Charles!  He’s one day old.

 Director Jim Archer and writers David Earl and Chris Hayward (who plays the aforementioned mechanical being) tell this 2022 odd-couple story.  “Brian and Charles” is a full-length feature based on their 2017 short.  Archer, Earl, and Hayward’s comedy is a 90-minute mockumentary, as Brian sometimes looks and talks to the camera. 

Cinematographer Murren Tullett – who worked with Archer on the TV series “Down from London” (2019) – nicely captures the pastoral landscape that one might expect in Wales.  Green pastures, gray skies, and quiet living resemble similar scenes in Upstate New York, Michigan, or Ohio in early fall or spring. 

 The film’s opening 10 minutes or so feature the funniest moments, as the awfully likable Brian proudly shows off his inventions around his property.  The effect soothes the audience into the movie’s oddball dynamic but then knocks us about with the emergence of our entrepreneur’s newest creation, who can also double as his friend! 

 Charles is a curious sort.  He has a childlike mind and an endless learning capacity with a speedy penchant for absorbing information.  Charles speaks with the metallic cadence of the old Speak & Spell electronic game and can seemingly read an entire dictionary faster than you can utter, “Hey, Charles, why don’t you pick up the ol’ Merriam-Webster.” 

 (Well, not that fast, but you get the idea.)

Although the movie kicks off and hums for a good 30 minutes as an eccentric comedic film, the tone changes into more “Frankenstein” spaces during the last 50 or so minutes, as Charles twists into a monster of a headache. 

 No, our professor-looking android doesn’t accidentally drown a girl in a lake, but he’s not exactly humorous, either.  After a short while, Brian’s praise and pride for his beloved new buddy turn to dire concern.  The consequences of successfully constructing a sentient being are painfully apparent.  Charles isn’t uber-thrilled lingering around his creator’s farm, especially when he learns about faraway places like Honolulu.

 Their friendly relationship becomes a parent-child state of affairs, and the kid can be a petulant one.

 Instead of our congenial protagonist bearing the fruits of his miraculous work, brand-new stressors enter his world when Charles threatens to leave.  Brian might be living solo again, but the unhealthier scenario is that outside forces could discover Charles. 

 Can you imagine the attention, and what would become of our metal friend? 

For some reason, the quirky humor tends to fade as the narrative strangely wanders into a conflict with a local bully (Jamie Michie).  The movie takes unexpected roads on both a redemption arc and a hero’s journey, and the cinematic pathways don’t exactly return to the pleasant, fun beginnings. 

 Now, Earl and Hayward’s script introduces Hazel (Louise Brealey), a sweet local interested in Brian and vice-versa.  Brian and Hazel get along swimmingly, but I wanted more time with these two treading into light banter and gentle courtship rather than the film’s direction into strident conflict with other parties. 

 Oh well, “Brian and Charles” has intriguing wiring and connections, but this robot story tinkers too much.

Jeff’s ranking 

2/4 stars

---

Jurassic World Dominion – Movie Review

Directed by:  Colin Trevorrow

Written by:  Colin Trevorrow and Emily Carmichael

Starring:  Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Omar Sy, Jeff Goldblum, DeWanda Wise, Campbell Scott, Mamoudou Athie, BD Wong, and Isabella Sermon

Runtime:  146 minutes

'Jurassic World Dominion" introduces chaos reality: a crowded, convoluted movie experience

In 1993’s “Jurassic Park”, Steven Spielberg’s groundbreaking thrill ride, mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) conveyed doubts about opening a dinosaur theme park.  He contended that the dinos’ behavior and biology are volatile, and Dr. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) hadn’t accounted for all of the forthcoming-prehistoric scenarios.  

“See, the Tyrannosaur doesn’t obey any set patterns or park schedules.  The essence of chaos,” Malcolm says and adds, “It simply deals with the unpredictability in complex systems.  The shorthand is the Butterfly Effect.  A butterfly can flap its wings in Peking, and in Central Park, you get rain instead of sunshine.” 

As we know, Ian was correct, as the out-of-place animals stirred colossal carnage, and the 1993 on-screen awe earned nearly a billion dollars at the box office and spurred four sequels.  

In 2022, director/writer Colin Trevorrow (“Jurassic World” (2015), “Safety Not Guaranteed” (2012)) and co-writer Emily Carmichael (“Pacific Rim: Uprising” (2018)) corral monster-movie ideas into the series’ fifth sequel, “Jurassic World Dominion”. 

Unfortunately, this bloated, scattered 146-minute film (that feels even longer) crams several key characters from the previous movies for nostalgia and moneymaking sake to help prop its tagline, “The Epic Conclusion of the Jurassic Era.”  

The conclusion?  Well, before the series ends, the filmmakers introduce chaos reality:  a crowded, convoluted movie experience.

“Dominion” constantly flashes shiny objects in the form of (seemingly) six-dozen impossible-to-live-through clashes that fill the screen with as much noise as possible.  The problem is that habitual life-or-death confrontations soon become routine exercises that numb us into submission, and the film’s sky-high stakes – the potential elimination of the planet’s food supply – are forgotten.  

Rather than take measured care with logic and pacing, the movie apparently focuses more importance on featuring our friends - Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), Owen (Chris Pratt), Alan (Sam Neill), Ellie (Laura Dern), Barry (Omar Sy), and Ian – constantly facing various hopeless scenarios that feel clinically engineered from a plastic lab.

Let’s set the homogenized stage.  

Some time has passed since “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” (2018), and Earth is a damn mess.  Jurassic creatures roam every corner of the planet, disrupting the fishing industry, American Midwest crops, urban skyscrapers, aviation, and you name it.  They are everywhere, and a five-minute newsfeed just after the movie begins explains all this.   If you want to feel powerless, Trevorrow, cinematographer John Schwartzman, and the special effects team succeed as they present a sense of worldwide dread.  So, they zero in on two plot lines.

First, Owen and Claire live like Mountain Family Robinson.  They’ve pseudo-adopted Maisie (Isabella Sermon).  She’s 14.  Owen and Claire “have” to protect her, and their velociraptor friend Blue has kin of her own.  Unfortunately, Maisie and the little raptor don’t remain chilling in the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the red-headed couple flips a switch from happy home mode to Indiana Jones vibes as they are willing to look - to the ends of the Earth – for them.  

Owen and Claire turn up in Malta, and by sheer serendipity, within a few minutes, she stumbles upon one of a handful of people (DeWanda Wise) on the island nation – a place with a land mass of 122 square miles and a population of 500,000 – who could help her locate the two missing kiddos.  Wow, imagine the luck?  Claire should play her Powerball numbers on Saturday.   

Meanwhile, Ellie drops in sandy, dusty Utah and at Alan’s paleoanthropological site.  They reconnect after three decades because she wants him to follow her to Biosyn Headquarters, so they can – together - acquire a sample of a manufactured locust.

You see, Biosyn is the new Jurassic Office Park, led by gray-haired introvert-genius Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), who seems like the long-lost CEO cousin of Peter Isherwell (Mark Rylance) in “Don’t Look Up” (2021).  Of course, he’s a bad guy, and it’s up to Ellie, Alan, and Ian (who, after 30 years, is still as snarky as you remember) to uncover Biosyn’s nefarious deeds. 

Lo and behold, Claire, Owen, and their new trusty pilot, Kayla (Wise), arrive at Biosyn too, so they and Ellie, Alan, and Ian can dodge large and small critters via tired and staged conflicts.  

For instance, Ellie and Alan enter an indoor locust farm without detection, but a security guard finds the footage of their intrusion 12 minutes later, not live during the actual break-in.  One would think with all the money poured into the place that…well, never mind.  

In another scene, Claire finds herself without a weapon in an unnatural habitat – that hosts something called a Giganotosaurus - and (spoiler alert) she somehow survives. We also witness a violent plane crash (that leaves two other heroes without a scratch or even a mild case of whiplash), a motorcycle chase, a foot pursuit on an ice lake, and a battle between a pair of titans recycled from at least one other “Jurassic” picture. 

Kevin Jenkins’ production design and Michael Giacchino’s score seem tip-top, and hey, the dinosaurs look great.  Still, these efforts slide into the background because the terribly familiar mano a dino choreography – even though some scaly baddies attempt to shake down a motorcycle and airplane – just isn’t as remarkable to behold in the sixth film, especially when the attacks seemingly occur someone isn’t droning on about the moral implications of dinosaurs living in the 21st century. 

Remember 1993’s “Jurassic Park”, when two kids – Tim (Joseph Mazzello) and Lex (Ariana Richards) - couldn’t breathe while hiding in the kitchen from velociraptors in one of the most well-crafted nail-biting moments in recent action-adventure history?  Do you recall that you couldn’t find oxygen, as one could cut the theatre’s tension with a razor-sharp dinosaur tooth? 

Sigh, 1993 was a long time ago.    

Turning to the human characters, Claire and Owen don’t show much chemistry, but these two likable humanitarians/Rambo-types support each other, mainly when jagged raptor scares are imminent.  Hence, we are NOT rooting for a sudden breakup through their demise or infidelity.  Looking at the other pair, the script and Neill establish Alan’s endearing pining for Ellie after all these years.  The film teases a potential romantic dynamic that keeps us engaged with the elder statesman and stateswoman, but they are so occupied with not being slaughtered that a here-and-now affair seems impractical.  Maybe, when life slows down and dinosaurs are no longer causing worldwide headaches.  

When exactly will that happen?

The new characters didn’t particularly connect with me, although Biosyn Communications Director Ramsay Cole (Mamoudou Athie) has some nice moments, and Kayla carries a convincing tough-as-nails persona.

However, Dodgson has all the menace of an agitated pigeon.  Carmichael and Trevorrow also include another scientist, Charlotte (Elva Trill).  They repeatedly assert – through various mentions - that she could be the most brilliant mind the world has ever seen.  Fantastic, Charlotte makes Albert Einstein look like George the Animal Steele or Dennis Rodman.  We got the message…a few times. 

As far as other mentions, “Jurassic World Dominion” wraps up with another news clip that ties the loose threads that the 141 minutes of crowded dinosaur chaos didn’t address.  However, this bit of filmmaking mercy is welcomed because we didn’t need another 60 minutes tacked on to this flick.

Jeff’s ranking

1.5/4 stars

---

The Phantom of the Open – Movie Review

Directed by:  Craig Roberts

Written by:  Simon Farnaby, based on Scott Murray’s 2010 book

Starring:  Mark Rylance, Sally Hawkins, Rhys Ifans, Jake Davies, Christian Lees, Jonah Lees, Johann Myers, and Mark Lewis Jones

Runtime:  103 minutes

‘The Phantom of the Open’ scores a heartfelt birdie

Maurice Flitcroft’s (Mark Rylance) sports story can’t be true.  

No way.  It’s impossible. 

It couldn’t have happened, except it did. 

Maurice Flitcroft, a crane driver from the seaside town of Barrow-in-Furness, England, entered the 1976 British Open without ever playing a round of golf before in his 40-something years on Planet Earth.

He’s an athletic underdog of the highest order.  In some ways, not unlike the 1980 U.S. Hockey Team, Rudy Ruettiger, James ‘Buster’ Douglas, or the fictional Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), except in these cases, the athletes reached stratospheric highs through years of blood, sweat, and tears.  Mr. Flitcroft reached similar peaks but through luck and some well-placed initiative.  

Maurice’s journey is more similar to, let’s say, an everyday high school student applying and getting a mathematics teaching position at Stanford University.  It’s a fantastical achievement for this imaginary teenager, but what happens when the said kid has to lead 400-level lectures to Stanford seniors?  

Director Craig Roberts and screenwriter Simon Farnaby – who are primarily actors by trade but have been directing and writing since 2015 and 2006, respectively – embrace this real-life character’s tall tale in their heartfelt film.

“The Phantom of the Open” opens with Maurice (Rylance) recounting his trek to golfing fame with a television reporter.  He briefly dots his humble beginnings, growing up in the 1930s, having dreams, and noting his interests in the violin, reading, and learning foreign languages.  (We’ll see that the latter will come in handy.)  His childhood aspirations, however, faded due to the time in history and his environment, but Rylance’s reliable, tender performance – throughout the movie’s 103-minute runtime – conveys that Maurice was a kind, optimistic soul.   

In the film, we see Maurice living a simple life.  Working at Vickers Shipyard, he carries a lunch pail with regular invites of cheese and pickle sandwiches and enjoys his friends from 9 to 5.  At home, he’s close with his three grown boys (the oldest is his stepson) and devoted wife, Jean (Sally Hawkins), and they live in modest row housing with three channels on the telly and suppers around the table.  Money is tight, but so is their family.  Hawkins is terrific as Jean.  The script gives Sally plenty of screen time to express Jean’s support for her husband and kids, golf learning curve, and full partnership with Maurice as he attempts to navigate the fairways and greens in this hopeful new profession.  

You see, their oldest, Michael (Jake Davies), works in management at the shipyard, and with Vickers becoming nationalized, he realizes that job cuts loom.  Michael tells his dad, and Maurice decides to look for other work, and professional golf becomes his passion project.  His goal is to play in the British Open, and how difficult could that be?  “Open” is in the tournament’s name, which means it’s open to everyone, right?  

Maurice’s naïveté becomes a trusty asset because he simply applies to the Open, to be hosted at nearby Southport, just a two-hour drive from Barrow-in-Furness.  

The British Open Championship Offices in Scotland inexplicably accept his application, and here we go.  Maurice needs to practice to prepare for his big-stage debut.  

The film’s tone is mostly light, as bouncy old-school hits like “Build Me Up Buttercup”, “When You’re Smiling/The Sheik of Araby”, and “Put Your World in My World” accompany Maurice.  With comedic effects in play, Roberts captures enjoyable clips of Maurice attempting to learn the game himself.  As a permanently amateur golfer, I could certainly relate to our lead’s struggles on the tee box, fairway, and greens, but Maurice invites us to his preparation sessions, where we can chuckle at and with him…and ourselves.   

He eventually - although we don’t have to wait very long - reaches the British Open (also referred to as The Open Championship or The Open), and at times, Maurice’s heart is in his throat.  We’re right there with him.  Roberts nicely films his golf coverage, and he is Maurice’s caddy along with our hero’s energetic, infinitely positive twin boys, Gene (Christian Lees) and James (Jonah Lees).  How does Maurice perform at the titular event with so many eyes staring in his direction?  

You have to see the movie, but Mr. Flitcroft closes his eyes at the end of his swing, so that’s a tiny hint.  

By design, the movie’s pacing moves nimbly during the “front nine” and slows during the “back nine”, as the script places key events in Maurice’s lap during the first 53 minutes and then copes with the repercussions during the last 50.  The family’s happy home discovers new strife, primarily between Maurice and Michael, but also with Maurice’s internal churn, which he tries to hold close to the vest, sometimes to no avail.  These moments keep “The Phantom of the Open” from being a straight-up comedy, and the biopic spends more time at home and Maurice and Michael’s workplace than the course.  Still, for diehard and casual golf fans, Roberts features plenty of drives, chips, putts, and a few jaw-dropping surprises.

After watching this movie (and getting some looks at the real Maurice Flitcroft at the end), it isn’t easy to imagine another actor other than Rylance playing this linksman.  

(Although, admittedly, Rhys Ifans could give a healthy go as Maurice, but he’s perfectly suited as our lead’s chief rival, Open Official Keith Mackenzie.  Rhys is also downright unrecognizable here, sporting glasses and a thick mustache, but I digress.)  

Mark brings an eccentric it-factor to the screen in his grandest roles, like a Soviet spy in “Bridge of Spies” (2015) and tech CEOs in “Ready Player One” (2018) and “Don’t Look Up” (2021).  Add Maurice Flitcroft to his impressive resume.  Mark’s Maurice offers an enthusiastic innocence, blue-collar substance, love of family, and a steady, measured view of trying his best.  

Maurice doesn’t stress about worldwide clamor or distractions, as critical happenings appear right in front of his face, including the choice between a 4-wood and a driver, the distance to the pin, or the break on a green.  However, Jean, Michael, Gene, and James always occupy his thoughts, and his love for them shines on the screen.  

Yes, you might gladly shed a couple of tears - that have nothing to do with an errant shot or putt - during this warm underdog sports movie.

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Crimes of the Future - Movie Review

Dir: David Cronenberg

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Léa Seydoux, Kristen Stewart, and Scott Speedman

1h 47m

The cinematic work of director David Cronenberg can horrify as much as it can intrigue, sometimes separately but often at the same time, pulling viewers through an array of imagery and emotions during the journey. Cronenberg is one of few directors to defy genre expectations with nearly every film composed. The straightforward definition for the auteur’s work would be horror, and with the festering wounds, gruesome body metamorphosis, and exploding heads, it wouldn’t be a wrong classification. However, underneath the horror is a filmmaker using the genre to explore deeper themes surrounding sex, violence, humanity, and evolution in physical and psychological ways. 

“Crimes of the Future” is an interesting film, a balancing act of the provocative imagery and thought-provoking themes that have defined David Cronenberg’s career. At its core, the film explores the question, “what are we growing into?” The examination of the human condition because of the forces pulling, pushing, and sometimes plunging into the bodies and minds of humans has always been on Cronenberg’s mind. In “Crimes of the Future,” people continue to evolve and mutate more curious, corrupted, and complicated. Using a subtle touch, Cronenberg curates a film with simple questions that yield complex answers. 

Saul Tenser (Viggo Mortensen) is a celebrity performance artist who, with surgical assistance from his partner Caprice (Léa Seydoux), performs public showcases to display the metamorphosis of his internal organs. Saul rests within a mechanical structure that looks wrapped in pink flesh during one performance art exhibition. Caprice utilizes a pulsing controller with flashing lights to conduct the surgery; Saul’s reaction during the procedure is one of pleasure, an ecstasy in every facial expression. 

The distant future in “Crimes of the Future” is a wasteland. The world is depleted of resources, decay is rampant in every structure, and violence lingers in the dark corners of the streets. Humanity wanders the city, medicated with foreign substances and conducting self-gratifying acts of disfigurement to cope with the reality they are responsible for creating. Cronenberg maintains a frightening look at the future world here, never shying from the negative progression no matter how dark they become. It’s reflective of the characters in the film, all of whom have grown to survive the devastated and devolved world.  

Saul’s evolution, with an immunity to disease and infection that allows his open wounds accessible entrance and exit, promotes the growth of organs that place him in varying degrees of discomfort and distress. This internal transformation intrigues an investigator, an amusing take from Kristen Stewart, who works for the National Organ Registry. From this point, the film finds a familiar path with Cronenberg’s past works, “Videodrome” and “Scanners” being the most prominent examples, but not as aggressive or sensationalized. “Crimes of the Future” finds a subtler approach that lingers and haunts rather than becomes a full-tilt horror show. 

Cronenberg deftly handles the composition of characters throughout the film, imbuing them with feelings that evoke odd compassion for their journey, one that feels doomed from their introduction. Mortensen and Seydoux have lovely chemistry, specifically during the strangest moments in the film. Both actors commit entirely to the character motivations throughout; their performances hold the film together. 

“Crimes of the Future” may not evoke the same horror sensations of David Cronenberg’s past, but that doesn’t keep it from being any less affecting. It should be noted that the film opens with a shocking death scene involving a child; it’s a bleak and startling way, warning to open a movie. Still, it’s not often that you encounter a film as challenging as this on the big screen. While some elements don’t connect in meaningful ways, in the hands of David Cronenberg, the experience is nonetheless intriguing. 

Monte’s Rating

3.75 out of 5.00

---

Fire Island – Movie Review

Directed by:  Andrew Ahn

Written by:  Joel Kim Booster

Starring:  Joel Kim Booster, Bowen Yang, Margaret Cho, Conrad Ricamora, James Scully, Matt Rogers, Tomas Matos, and Torian Miller

Runtime:  105 minutes

‘Fire Island’ is a welcoming and boisterous vacation

“Vacation, all I ever wanted.  Vacation, had to get away.” – “Vacation” (1982) by The Go-Go’s

The next lyric in The Go-Go’s 80s classic is “Vacation, meant to be alone,” however, that is not Noah’s (Joel Kim Booster), Howie’s (Bowen Yang), Keegan’s (Tomas Matos), Luke’s (Matt Rogers), and Max’s (Torian Miller) collective intention.  

It’s summertime, and these five 30-somethings – friends for years - travel on the South Bay Clipper to Fire Island for a week of drinking, dancing, finding drugs, meeting guys, hooking up, and forgetting the stresses of their 9 to 5s, rent, and any other complications that life presents in 2022. 

“Get this party started on a Saturday night.  Everybody’s waiting for me to arrive.  Sending out a message to all of my friends.  We’ll be looking flashy in my Mercedes Benz.” – “Get the Party Started” (2001) by Pink

This Pink tune is apropos for “Fire Island” except for the Mercedes Benz mention.  Noah and the guys are working stiffs, so big paychecks and snazzy rides are more foreign than the London Eye and the Sydney Opera House.  

Noah adds, “So, yeah, we’re poor.  Not, like, poor-poor, but poor as in none of us have a chance in hell in buying property, ever.” 

They stay with their friend Erin (Margaret Cho).  She owns a spacious, friendly home on the island, and Erin’s always happy to host her buds.  However, this summer will be her last go-round.  She’s selling the place, so this ups the ante for Noah and his pals to live it up this week.  The gents celebrate with pure exuberance while their support for each other shines.  From the get-go on The Clipper and through Noah’s narration, the film establishes that these five friends eternally trust one another, which allows the audience to enjoy them as a united front for (or against) any hijinks or misadventures that they’ll discover.   

Director Andrew Ahn discusses the friendship showcased on-screen in a May 20, 2022 interview with Flickering Myth. 

“I got the script for ‘Fire Island’ a year into the pandemic.  I wasn’t able to hang out with my chosen family, my friends, so to see that in the script, how much the script celebrates chosen family, how it celebrates queer Asian-American friendship, that was super exciting to me.” Ahn said. 

Although Noah, Howie, Keegan, Luke, and Max are the Five Musketeers, the latter three are very much supporting characters for comic relief.  

Noah and Howie are the two leads, and these best friends search for romance, but their approaches originate from vastly different spaces on the confidence spectrum.  Noah keeps himself in tip-top shape, regularly and randomly hooks up, including a semi-awkward morning realization – during the opening scene - where his one-night stand is still present in his bed.  No question, Noah is carefree and self-assured.  Meanwhile, Howie’s a bit down and complains that he’s 30 and never had a boyfriend.  His cycle of solitude keeps spinning him in place, and without any experience as a foundation, Howie cannot visualize any romantic success. 

They are polar opposites, but they are vacationing in a sizzling place where single gay men appear easier to hook than dropping a fishing line into a school of fish.  

So, Noah and Howie find chances for amour, and no, not with each other, but with a lawyer, Will (Conrad Ricamora), and a doctor, Charlie (James Scully).

If the lawyer and doctor professions immediately call to economic disparities between the sets of friends, that is by design, as “Fire Island” – written by Booster - is patterned after Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”. 

“The genesis of the entire movie started when Bowen and I (took our first trip to Fire Island).  I brought “Pride and Prejudice” with me as my beach read.  Everything (Austen) is talking about in this book is so relevant to what we are experiencing on this island, the class divisions and the ways people communicated across class,” Booster said in Eric Anderson’s May 18, 2022 AwardsWatch.com interview.  

Booster adds, “And it was so much clearer when you’re on a place like Fire Island, where there are no straight people to oppress us, like how do we oppress each other?”  

Joel and Bowen are best friends in real life, and the chemistry between the two comedians pours off the page and screen.  Howie frequently leans on his BFF for encouragement or to listen, and Noah is always there with a shoulder and ear.  Yes, Howie’s struggles pull away from the usual zany shenanigans.  However, Ahn and Booster leave plenty of such moments, like during a party at the rich cats’ mansion (that looks like a modern-day Hollywood Hills manor smack dab on a New York isle) and clubbing at a popular spot called the Ice Palace, as Andrew filmed on Fire Island, N.Y. 

Pals Keegan and Luke regularly offer colorful discourse, including imitating Marisa Tomei during a festive game night.  Meanwhile, Max exemplifies a subdued loner who might disappear for more than a hot minute but returns for a quick quip or two.  For most characters, the dialogue moves lightning fast with jibes and comebacks.  Think attractive 30-year-old Henny Youngmen (and one Youngwoman in Cho) on overdrive.  Charlie, Will, and Dex (Zane Phillips) are the notable exceptions, as they seem more measured for different reasons.  For the record, Dex’s subplot feels like it stalls the film’s mojo with unnecessary drama.  Still, the 105-minute runtime moves leisurely to settle into this modern-day LGBTQ tale that is part Jane Austen and part “American Pie” (1999) because these guys are here for rolls in the Fire-Island hay.  

Okay, it’s pretty easy to predict the movie’s third act, but “Fire Island” is a welcoming and boisterous R-rated vacation.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

Top Gun: Maverick - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Dir: Joseph Kosinski

Starring: Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Glen Powell, Monica Barbaro, Bashir Salahuddin, Charles Parnell, Lewis Pullman, Danny Ramirez, Greg Tarzan Davis, and Ed Harris

2h 11m

In the opening of director Joseph Kosinski’s “Top Gun: Maverick,” a sequel to the beloved 1986 film, the iconic theme plays over scenes of a fighter jet prepping for takeoff. And as the engines explode and the jet booms into the sky, Kenny Loggin’s “Danger Zone” pumps through the speakers. In these first few minutes of the film, without a single line of dialog spoken, it’s clear that “Top Gun: Maverick” targets the cinematic nostalgia of the late 1980s. 

Tom Cruise returns as Navy pilot Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, upgraded from Lieutenant to Captain but still arrogantly brazen with the higher-ups looking to ground him once and for all. Times are changing, drones are making the top aviators obsolete, and Maverick realizes that his time in the sky might be coming to an end. Stationed at a test facility in the Mojave Desert, Maverick defies orders from an Admiral (Ed Harris) and pushes an advanced jet to Mach 10 speed. Things don’t end well. The Admiral, in response to Maverick’s final plea against droned pilots, tells him, “The future is coming, and you aren’t in it.” 

“Top Gun: Maverick” is a sequel, but it feels more like a reboot. From a story perspective, the framework is similar, in some ways identical, to the original film. Scenes feel pulled from the 1986 movie, updated with new faces, and reintroduced for modern times. Tom Cruise chases a jet on a motorcycle, shirtless sports are played in the sand, and one character swaggers and taunts other pilots in the Top Gun program with smirking, blond-haired similarities of a past character. It’s lazy storytelling, but something in the charming tone, purposefully old school style and action-packed pacing hides the faulty parts. 

Lieutenant Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), whose late father Nick “Goose” Bradshaw was Mavericks wingman from the original film, is recruited to an elite squad of pilots to fly a top-secret mission with parameters that seem impossible for an average pilot. After being saved from court-martial by Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer), Maverick is ordered back to the Top Gun academy to teach and prepare the pilots for the mission. 

The addition of Rooster offers a nice conflict to the story, and Teller is more than capable of holding his own against Cruise. While Rooster’s story plays just a small piece in the film, it helps connect the dots between Maverick’s unresolved emotions from the past and the resistance he exhibits moving into the future. The death of Goose and the failure Maverick feels in being a father figure to Rooster are quickly examined but do a decent enough job of introducing internal conflict that requires resolve. 

The more superficial conflict is examined through the lens of zooming jets in combat in the sky. The action is exceptional throughout the film, with most scenes featuring the actual actors twisting, turning, and being placed in situations with the immense forces exerted on their bodies. It’s exciting filmmaking to watch, adding another element to blur the lines between the special visual effects and reality, a trait is has become a calling card for any Tom Cruise fronted adventure. 

“Top Gun: Maverick,” with its purposeful nostalgic callbacks and familiar storytelling design, is a delightful movie. Watch it on a giant screen and prepare yourself for a popcorn movie of the highest cinematic gratification of recent years.  

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

---

Top Gun: Maverick – Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Directed by:  Joseph Kosinski

Written by:  Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Charles Parnell, Glen Powell, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman, Danny Ramirez, Greg Tarzan Davis, and Val Kilmer

Runtime:  131 minutes

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ soars above the 1986 original

“Top Gun” (1986) flew Tom Cruise into the Southern California skies and exploded his stardom into the stratosphere.  Thirty-six years later, he returns as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell in a sequel that soars above the original.

During the biggest, boldest moments – and there are plenty of them in this 152 million-dollar budget blockbuster - Maverick “takes it right into the Danger Zone,” and yes, this film will “take your breath away.” 

With a 131-minute runtime – which tops a comparatively thinner 105 minutes of the 1986 picture – “Top Gun: Maverick” delivers more on-screen time for honest-to-goodness real F-18 fighter jets in action.  The first-person footage is spectacular during the pilots’ training exercises and the eventual mission, which feels as dangerous as a heart attack during an alligator assault. 

“(Director of Photography) Claudio Miranda and I worked closely with SONY to develop a new camera system called the VENICE, which allows us to put very high-quality motion picture (IMAX-quality) cameras, in fact, six of them, inside the cockpit of the F-18 to capture all the action of the film,” director Joseph Kosinski said during a May 1, 2022 interview with Mulderville.  

He adds that four cameras point towards the actors – who actually sit in jets during filming – and two other lenses point forward to capture the action.  (Note, the actors – including Cruise – did not fly the F-18s, but they were seated in the cockpits during the shoots and went through extensive training to do so.)

As cutting edge as the 1986 film was, the staggering, jaw-dropping results in “Maverick” seem light years ahead.  If you feel safe sitting in a theatre these days, do yourself a favor and see this movie on the largest screen that you can find.   

Speaking of finding, Kosinski reunites with Cruise for “Maverick”, as they worked together on the complicated sci-fi film “Oblivion” (2013).  This time, the pair – along with screenwriters Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie – rightfully forge a straightforward narrative that leans on the first movie’s strengths, improves upon them, and pushes out some of the 1986 fluff.  

Cheese might be a better word because “Top Gun” hasn’t aged particularly well (in my opinion), including the flight instructor-pilot relationship between Charlie (Kelly McGillis) and Maverick, one that would never “fly” by today’s standards.

Although, please watch “Top Gun” as a prerequisite, especially if it’s been a hot minute or three decades since your last viewing. 

In “Maverick”, movie-time moves at the same pace as actual time.  It’s been 30-plus years since Lt. Mitchell left Top Gun at Naval Air Station Miramar in sunny San Diego, but Maverick has not turned to another career.  He’s not preparing tax returns or hosting an Airbnb property.  Mav still flies planes for the military, and he’s damn good at it.  One of his colleagues calls him “the fastest man alive.” 

However, circumstances early in the first act ship (now) Capt. Mitchell from his current duties back to Top Gun, and hence the film bathes in nostalgia and recognizable SoCal real estate. 

In many ways, “Maverick” uses a very familiar formula (hint: from 36 years ago), so brace yourself for storytelling recycling.  The similar cinematic flight paths on the Naval base could trigger cynical eye-rolls, but the script makes no apologies.  For instance, Kosinski simply subs in a different sport for the Kenny Loggins’ “Playing with the Boys” volleyball scene, and he clones another Iceman by inserting a smug jerk to aggravate the other airmen and airwomen.  The said antagonist’s name is Hangman (Glen Powell), and the other pilots – all considered the best in the world - have catchy monikers too.

Fanboy (Danny Ramirez), Coyote (Greg Tarzan Davis), Payback (Jay Ellis), Phoenix (Monica Barbaro), Bob (Lewis Pullman), Hangman, and Rooster (Miles Teller), who is Goose’s (Anthony Edwards) son, receive the most screen time.  Goose, of course, died in 1986 during a flight that Pete piloted, so Rooster and Mav have more built-in tension than a Norwegian strongman tug of war contest.  

For the record, the makeup team did a phenomenal job to make Teller look like Edwards’ Goose, or perhaps, they just added a mustache.  Who knows precisely, but wow, well done! 

Anyway, these aviators glide into Top Gun to train for a “Mission: Impossible” assignment that requires not one but two “miracles” to succeed.  This mission needs 6 pilots, and since 12 are on hand, do the math.  So let the competition between these alpha types begin.  

Why is Mav here?  He’s their instructor. 

Despite the eerily familiar plot, the storytelling on-base gathers and maintains intriguing speed and altitude for the audience to enjoy and readily absorb for several reasons, and here are three.  

First, the U.S. Navy defines the life-and-death aerial assignment upfront, right from the get-go, so the pilots’ practice runs over the California desert have meaning because the stakes are so grave, and we know them exactly.  Sure, Hangman, Rooster, Phoenix, and company (and yes, Maverick) offer their fair bursts of entertaining showboating.  Still, the film never wastes our time with goofball sideshows because all of this training leads to the ominous events in the upcoming third act.

Second, Mav doesn’t pursue a carefree, brand-new relationship.  Instead, he attempts to rekindle a friendship or perhaps something more with a long-time ex-girlfriend, Penny (Jennifer Connelly).  Connelly - one of Hollywood’s most reliable actresses - carries a successful, sassy air,  and Penny is Maverick’s equal.  She may not fly planes, but Penny owns her own business and a gorgeous coastal home and is more independent than Ross Perot in November 1992.  Yes, the woman is still stinging from her past with Pete, but she doesn’t need pity.  So, Maverick traverses in the air from 9 to 5, and after work, he tries to navigate grounded, meaningful discourse with Penny.  Their conversations are sometimes frank, sometimes playful, but they always act like grownups.  Well, almost always. 

Third, Maverick earned three more decades of piloting experience, but not without years of adversity.  The man is supremely confident in the air and - as you remember - sometimes reckless with an aircraft, but he lives with new vulnerabilities while on the ground.  We haven’t seen these new emotional wrinkles with Maverick, and Cruise devotes notable on-screen minutes exploring them.  This 2022 Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell – in some ways – is worlds different than his 1986 counterpart, but then again, aren’t we all. 

As mentioned earlier, the aerial acrobatics are out of this world.  Obvious credit goes to the state-of-the-art camerawork, as Kosinski and Miranda capture tight shots that point within the cockpits and the essential views of the action outside of them.  The audience gets authentic (and sometimes broad) looks at the danger in real-time, but we also understand the ins and outs of the mission.  Adm. Simpson (John Hamm), Adm. Bates (Charles Parnell), and Capt. Maverick repeatedly explain the upcoming 3rd act offensive during the first two acts, so the audience is fully informed, engaged, and emotionally invested in a hopeful outcome during the nerve-racking conclusion.   

So – again, if you feel safe – head to a theatre, spring for some popcorn or candy, and watch the country’s biggest box-office star at his best.  Maybe stick a U.S. flag pin on your lapel or look for a T-shirt with the Stars and Stripes because “Top Gun: Maverick” is an American military story, and pride and patriotism are two additional characters, at least to this critic.  

I felt them, and in one extravagant, unforgettable aircraft scene during the first act (that will not be specified in this review), one might feel pride mixed with a new, pragmatic visual understanding of where massive quantities of our tax dollars go.  

Nostalgia is another character, even though only one of the two 80s hits - Loggins’ “Danger Zone” and Berlin’s “Take My Breath Away” - makes it to this sequel.  That’s okay, Kosinski and company make room for one of The Who’s very best tunes, and hey, that’s another improvement.  

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

Downton Abbey: A New Era – Movie Review

Directed by:  Simon Curtis

Written by:  Julian Fellowes

Starring:  Michelle Dockery, Elizabeth McGovern, Hugh Bonneville, Jim Carter, Imelda Staunton, Kevin Doyle, and Maggie Smith

Runtime:  125 minutes

‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’:  Celebrate the series with this light, pleasing affair

“Everyone is healthy and happy at Downton Abbey.  Let’s all hold our breaths.” – Mr. Carson (Jim Carter)

“Downton Abbey” (2011 – 2016), the English television drama, is a big deal.  Set in Yorkshire and one day after the Titanic sunk, “Downton” became a PBS megahit.  The series garnered 15 Primetime Emmys, including Maggie Smith winning three Outstanding Supporting Actress awards. 

“Breaking Bad” (2008 – 2013) and “Game of Thrones” (2011 – 2019) had to make room for this darling British small-screen saga because it was one of the most talked-about TV shows in the U.S. during the last decade.  

Writer Julian Fellowes’ scripted creation is not the absolute biggest British import to arrive stateside since The Beatles.  “Dr. Who” (1963 – 1989, 2005 – Present), “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” (1969 – 1974), The Rolling Stones, and the “Harry Potter” novels and movies might lend convincing arguments for that title, but Fellowes’ tales of an affluent family and their servants attracted big audiences and won over critics. 

Unfortunately, this critic hasn’t watched the television series because, admittedly, theatrical and streaming movies usually collect my attention.  Although the show ended in 2015, Fellowes penned a “DA” feature film, and Michael Engler signed on to direct.  In the 2019 movie, the King and Queen visit Downton Abbey. 

Needless to say, feather dusters worked overtime, and no one said, “I don’t do windows.”

Engler and Fellowes arranged for the fans’ favorites to return in this capable and entertaining story at the estate.  

Three years later, and fast forward to 1928 on-screen, “Downton Abbey: A New Era” arrives, and so does a film crew!  Instead of royalty stopping by the manor, a movie studio and director Jack Barber (Hugh Dancy) wish to film their silent picture on location at Abbey, and Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery), Robert (Hugh Bonneville), Cora (Elizabeth McGovern), and the rest will host new guests.  

Director Simon Curtis (“My Week with Marilyn” (2011)) – who doesn’t have a previous connection with the show or the 2019 film – and Fellowes introduce a tandem narrative in which a French aristocrat passes away and curiously leaves his estate to Violet (played by 87-years-young Maggie Smith).   

While flashy showbiz types and grounded hosts and hostesses vie for emotional and literal elbow room, Robert, Cora, Mr. Carson, and others sail for Marseille to step into the family’s new French villa, which will cause hurt feelings for the widow, Mme de Montmirail (Nathalie Baye).  

Fellowes gets playful with dueling tales because, in both instances, strangers are forced to share space.  The script delights in two light culture clashes between the pushy, entitled entertainment industry types versus refined, polite formalities and the ever-present battle between English and French lifestyles.  

Grey Poupon, anyone? 

The “Abbey” stars get their big-screen spots to shine, as the film somehow finds room – during a 125-minute runtime - for just about everyone.  Just about, because Mary’s husband Henry (Matthew Goode) never appears, and his lonely wife frequently mentions that Mr. Talbot (Goode) is out racing cars, grabbing the tiger by the tail, or just enjoying life…somewhere other than home. 

So, who delivers (or gets) the best moments? 

In this “Downton Abbey” novice’s opinion:  Cora, Mr. Carson, Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle), Violet, and Lady Mary.  Lady Mary, for sure, and her arc reaffirms the woman’s rightful majestic headship over the manor.

As far as newcomers, a snotty actress Myrna Dalgleish (Laura Haddock) takes us on a gratifying journey, and Mr. Barber should be a welcome addition in a future movie.  It’s a shame that “Downton Abbey” devotees and new admirers might have to wait another three years to see their on-screen champions in a new feature, but another film may not ever come. 

Who knows?

No question, with these resonant, likable characters, “Downton” could pick up a new season tomorrow, I say.  With television’s long-form storytelling, a typical season allows for several festive peaks and stressful valleys for the viewers. 

However, fans haven’t seen their beloved characters in years.  Therefore, “Downton Abbey:  A New Era” doesn’t take chances or risks, but that’s okay.  This movie is a celebration and another golden opportunity to visit this Yorkshire County estate, admire domesticated luxuries, and fawn over posh threads, regal British formalities, and proper decorum.  

Don’t walk into this movie expecting taxing hairpin turns and a roller-coaster ride of high-stakes drama.  Instead, enjoy these old friends and memorable moments…without holding your breath…by and large.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

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

---