Nope - Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Jordan Peele

Starring:  Daniel Kaluuya, Keke Palmer, Brandon Perea, Michael Wincott, Steven Yeun, Wrenn Schmidt, and Keith David

Runtime:  130 minutes

‘Nope’ is a spectacular Maybe

“What is a bad miracle?  They got a word for that?” – Otis ‘OJ’ Haywood (Daniel Kaluuya)

Six months ago, OJ (which stands for Otis Jr.) witnessed a horrible freak accident, one caused by the said bad miracle that killed his father, Otis Sr. (Keith David), and injured one of their horses, Ghost.

Ghost survived, but this majestic animal’s spirit is bruised and a bit frayed. 

OJ is frazzled too, but he generally swallows his words and feelings.  He lived in the shadow of his ambitious father, the owner of Haywood’s Hollywood Horses, a stallion and mare training operation for the film and television industries.  However, with Otis Sr. gone, this 30-something introvert – who seems like he never wanted to work in the business – drives back and forth to La La Land from HHH’s secluded ranch in the dry, desert hills of Agua Dulce, a remote municipality just northeast of Santa Clarita, Calif.  

His sister, Emerald (Keke Palmer), helps out on rare occasions.  However, she’d rather be singing, dancing, or listening to records (and sometimes, this gregarious personality spins all three pursuits simultaneously) than walking mustangs, tending to the stables, and shoveling horse-you-know-what.  

Well, their daily grinds and grief screech to a halt because a UFO (yes, a UFO) – that soars over Agua Dulce – has immediately captured the Haywood siblings’ attention.

Jordan Peele has captured the horror world’s attention since his landmark directorial debut, “Get Out” (2017), fascinated and frightened audiences.  That film – an unimaginable concoction of “The Stepford Wives” (1975), “Frankenstein” (1931), “Roots” (1977), and more - earned four Academy Award nominations, including Jordan winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar.  

His masterful follow-up, “Us” (2019), married sinister doppelgängers with the 1986 Hands Across America project, a wonderfully bizarre match made in hell.  

Peele isn’t thinking out of the box.  He’s contemplating while off the planet!

In his third outing, this writer/director, again, wields unthinkable bold ideas because “Nope” is not an ordinary Unidentified Flying Object story.  Peele gifts us with, perhaps, a half-dozen scenes that will leave most moviegoers flat-out floored via a pair of shocking grand concepts, good old-fashioned scare tactics, and a fantastic, Oscar-worthy sound design. 

Horseshoes rumble on the desert floor and through our abdomens, and howling winds strangle the breath in our throats, especially on a lonesome locale where the crunch beneath a shoe’s sole or a simple flick of a switch perks up our ears. 

Yes, the movie’s central, earnest premise earns sky-high praise.  From that perspective, “Nope” stands just as tall as “Get Out” and “Us”, and the aforementioned (without explicitly mentioning) six demonstrative moments are the goo and glue of nightmares for the foreseeable future.  However, the overall execution of this one-of-kind cinematic thesis frequently stalls due to clumsy exchanges, clunky editing at times, a supposedly-critical supporting character becomes a bothersome distraction rather than an essential element, and recurring flashbacks that belong in a different movie. 

With all of that noise, the third-act payoffs don’t land like they should, at least to this critic, and the movie’s 130-minute runtime could’ve easily trimmed down to 100 or even 90 and still focused on the immediate wonders and threats.  

Speaking of wonders and threats, let’s get back to the story.  OJ and Emerald wish to capture their new visitor on film, and hey, they might make a small fortune and also contemplate that Oprah may call.  So, they enlist a Fry’s Electronics tech team employee, Angel (Brandon Perea), to install two video cameras that will help them cash in!  Angel’s technical competency is the stuff of legends, but his personal life has fallen into tatters of the brokenhearted.  Still, his humble absurdity delivers and lands comic relief versus the day’s pressing matters.  In fact, Palmer and Perea bring engaging and infectious upbeat energy, which counters Kaluuya’s deliberately subdued performance.  

Emerald and OJ have decades of history, and they tolerate a semi-cordial relationship, but her bohemian tendencies and his leveled pragmatism clash.  The brother-sister tension effectively plays out in the present-day as Emerald often gushes over her interests, while OJ wishes she’d lend more elbow grease at home.  

However, the film swings and misses during its one attempt to reflect upon their childhood years.  Peele wants us to connect to a specific third-act scene, based on Emerald’s memory when she was nine-years-young along with OJ’s massive leap of faith from a first-act observation.  It’s a critical moment, but the script doesn’t flush out her remembrance from yesterdecade enough.  Hence, this Haywood memory feels matter-of-fact at best rather than a profound emotional link between brother and sister. 

Perhaps, several Haywood reflections ended up on the cutting room floor.  Instead, the movie dedicates significant minutes to recollections of an altogether different experience, one that has nothing to do with OJ and Emerald.  

Granted, this particular incident – from 1998 – is a sicko, twisted horror show, one that will leave a theatre deathly silent and utterly aghast.  On the other hand, the linkage between this ’98 happening and ‘22 is a stretch.  Sure, it’s there, but it mainly feels disconnected from the movie’s primary driver and, quite frankly, unnecessary.  Although a separate short film about this unnamed appalling occurrence certainly feels in order, “Nope” needed to spend more time with OJ and Emerald’s relationship.  

Well, the Haywoods form a working partnership with a cinematographer (Michael Wincott) to assist with securing their Oprah shot, but Antlers Holst (Wincott) mumbles and broods with the usefulness of door stopper helplessly sitting in an abandoned building, and every minute with this character feels like a waste of time.  Although, Antlers’ presence possibly serves as a parallel role from a massively famous 20th-century movie, but that’s just a guess. 

Steven Yeun is quite good as OJ and Emerald’s neighbor, Ricky ‘Jupe’ Park.  Ricky and his wife Amber (Wrenn Schmidt) cope with the UFO much differently than the Haywoods, as their entrepreneurial endeavors and curiosity take them two steps forward.  At the same time, OJ and Emerald would rather observe while peddling backward a step.  These contrasts in styles clearly play out with their separate encounters but also with the makeup of their properties, which are curious to consider. 

Peele and cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema capture wondrous big-screen eye candy in the barren desert.  Unknown, out-of-this-world technology meets, but doesn’t necessarily greet, a wholly vulnerable landscape and its inhabitants, and Peele and Van Hoytema visit these confrontations with mystery and sleight of hand that peak our and the on-screen players’ interest and fear.  

Will we get more than just subtle hints of these friends or foes?  

Well, the film resonates with epic western vibes, as our heroes stare upwards into cumulus clouds, and the visitors look back at the baking desert (via sweeping drone shots).  It’s a standoff, so you’ll have to see. 

The crucial visual stunners – that deliver straight-up awe – work, but we also have to muddle through odd detours to get there.  During the biggest moments, the camera – sometimes - awkwardly volleys between OJ, Emerald, and Angel and seemingly doesn’t know where to place the focus.  A dash from the Haywood house and a third-act attempt to film the out-of-towners come to mind right away.  The choreography just seems off, and while conjuring a final game plan, our protagonists sort of mutter through the particulars with all the pep and interest of reviewing car insurance premiums.   

OJ usually has trouble finding his voice, but he’s no dummy, and we hope that he follows Otis Sr.’s advice: “Just execute, and we got no more problems.”  

Peele executes big-time during key spots, and fans shouldn’t miss this film.  However, generally speaking, can I recommend “Nope”?  Well, this movie feels like a spectacular maybe.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

'Don't Make Me Go' - interview with Mia Isaac

Mia Isaac graciously arrives for a 'Don't Make Me Go' interview

By Jeff Mitchell

In “Don’t Make Me Go” (2022), Max (John Cho) is a single parent with a grim medical diagnosis.  Max doesn’t tell his teenage daughter, Wally (Mia Isaac), but he takes her on a road trip to meet her mom in this family drama from director Hanna Marks.  

Mia graciously met the Phoenix Film Festival over a Zoom call, and this talented young actress shares Wally’s perspectives, the amusing and stressful learning-how-to-drive scenes, the limited prep time she had with John, and much more!

On Friday, July 15, “Don’t Make Me Go” begins streaming on (Amazon) Prime Video!

PFF:  Mia, it’s great meeting you, and are you ready to talk about driving?

MI:  Yes, I think so!  If you’re ready, I’m ready. 

PFF:  Max teaches Wally how to drive, and the film has amusing and stressful scenes that took me back to my early driving days.  Could you relate to Wally’s stress?

MI:  Oh, 100 percent.  By the time I played Wally, I had my license already.  So I knew how to drive (which) was great because I could recall my experience.  

Okay, I know how to drive, but I’m not great with highways yet.  I’m still learning.  I’m not great with merging, so that’s something me and Wally definitely have in common.  Her struggle with merging felt very real to my struggle.  I learned a little bit from (Wally), too.  I guess we’re not supposed to close our eyes on the road, so I know that now. 

PFF:  (Driving) was a new world that I wasn’t ready for myself, so I totally get it.  (On a different topic), I love that Wally says, “I’d bet on you,” to her dad.  To me, that line is more impactful than (Wally) saying, “I love you.”  Did you see it the same way? 

MI:  Yea, 100 percent.  In a lot of ways, throughout the movie, we see that Max doesn’t really bet on himself.  He’s so used to playing it safe.  It’s brought up that he once had a passion for singing and never pursued it because he didn’t believe in himself.  I think it’s really special that Wally believes in him wholeheartedly.  She loves him so much and wants what’s best for him. 

PFF:  The audience knows Max’s secret.  Wally doesn’t, but do you think, deep down, she knows that something is going on (because her dad is acting strangely), or is she thinking that her dad is just being Dad? 

MI:  Wally knows her dad well enough to know that he’s acting a little strange and that things are different, but she also gets mixed up in (the) idea of (her dad) wanting to introduce her to her mom.  Maybe that’s why he is feeling nervous.  She’s always felt a certain way about meeting her mom, so that meddles with (her) a little bit.  (Wally’s) not sure why Max is - all of sudden - acting different, but she relates a lot of that back to (her) mom. 

PFF:  Max doesn’t tell Wally about his (medical diagnosis).  For (big news) like that, would you want to know right away?

MI:  I think it’s different for me because I come from a two-parent household which is so very different than growing up with one parent.  Of course, I’d want to know, but when (my parents) are given news, (they) go to each other first.  

They’d say, “How are we going to present this to our kids, or how are we going to move (on) this?”

That’s something that they’d go through together, but what’s special about Max and Wally is it’s always just the two of them.  They depend on each other.  They count on each other.  A kid and a parent probably wouldn’t do that in a two-person household, but Wally really would’ve wanted to know because they went through something together, and that something was losing her mom.  

(Max and Wally) survived that together.  There was no hiding anything.  (They) have this shared grief together, so why can’t (they) share this news.   

PFF:  Wally gets into trouble on this trip, but she really is a good kid.  She has a strong moral center, and I think that’s a good choice for (this character), because it gives (the audience more) time to know Max and Wally.  What do you think?

MI:  Yea, Wally’s a teenager.  She can be very annoying, and I think it’d be very easy for audiences to dislike her.  But, at the end of the day, Wally is really lovable.  She really cares about her dad, and she really, really genuinely loves him.  That’s important to show because we’ve all seen teenagers (be) teenagers, but I think what sets Wally apart is how much she loves her dad. 

PFF:  Wally is also distracted because of Glenn, who we don’t like.  We don’t like Glenn at all. (Haha.)  Wally gets emotionally stuck at times because (Glenn) could be (her) first love.  What are your thoughts about Wally dealing with Glenn?

MI:  I learned a lot about playing Wally, and we’re both coming of age at the same time.  While Wally was discovering boys, I was learning through playing her.  Over the course of the movie, Wally learns that she deserves more than a boy who doesn’t want her back.  I learned that sometimes you shouldn’t have to settle, and you deserve a boy who will be kind to you. 

PFF:  How did you and John Cho prepare for the film, and did you have a lot of time?

MI:  We met in person about a week before we started shooting.  It was very, very quick because I just got into the country, so I did a two-week quarantine.  The day I got out of quarantine (was the day) we met in person.  In any other situation with any other person, it probably would’ve been very hard to create that chemistry and that bond right away.  But, because it was John, it was just so easy.  I got so lucky.  We fell into that father-daughter dynamic really naturally, and we spent a lot of time together on set.  I couldn’t have asked for a better scene partner.  

---

Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down – Movie Review

Directed by:  Julie Cohen and Betsy West

Starring:  Gabrielle Giffords, Mark Kelly, and Barack Obama

Runtime:  95 minutes

Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down, but your emotional walls probably will.

“So many people hurt.  A lot of people died.  Always connected to them.  Grateful to survive.  I’m alive.” – Gabrielle Dee Giffords

On Jan. 8, 2011 in front of a Tucson, Ariz. Safeway grocery store, a lone shooter wreaked havoc on a Congress on Your Corner event and killed six people and injured 13 others.  U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Giffords was one of the wounded, shot in the head and then rushed to a hospital.  

While watching directors Julie Cohen and Betsy West’s revealing documentary about the former United States congresswoman, this critic regularly repeated to himself, “My God, it’s a miracle that she survived.”

About six minutes into the movie, neurosurgeon Dr. Dong Kim describes the bullet’s trajectory with frank composure, but simultaneously, Cohen and West present a computer model of Ms. Giffords’ skull and the projectile’s path that tears right through it.  The result for the audience is utter despair at that moment because this destructive collision between a metal slug and a human brain surely would be fatal…except – somehow, someway - it wasn’t. 

Cohen and West teamed up to make 2018’s “RBG”, an insightful doc about the Supreme Court Justice, and this dynamic directing duo has strung together other enlightening films that feature strong, influential American women, including “My Name is Pauli Murray” (2021), “Julia” (2021), and now “Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down”.  

Although Gabby has lived thousands of notable days, that fateful January 2011 morning is the 52-year-old’s most consequential.  Our filmmakers candidly approach it with Gabby and her husband, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, which translates into - seemingly - equal parts of heartbreak and inspiration.  

Let’s look at the heartbreak first.  

After Gabby and Mark reach the hospital, he frequently filmed her recovery as a document, and 10-plus years later, the couple shares their troubling days on video with Cohen and West.  Gabby is seen in her most vulnerable state, and she attempts to process her immediate situation with hospital staff, doctors, speech and physical therapists, and family members concentrating on her care.  

Meanwhile, Gabby suffers from aphasia.  

Its official definition, according to Google, is “a language disorder caused by damage in a specific area of the brain that controls language and expression.  Aphasia leaves a person unable to communicate effectively with others.”

By featuring many hospital scenes with Gabby donning a shaved head and ragged scars, coping with limited mobility, and grappling with her speech, these moments act as a double-whammy on our senses.  These struggles rip into our feelings, but the film volleys between Gabby’s 2011-to-present-day existence and her carefree, physically-healthy pre-2011 years.  Viewing the contrast between her past and present is profoundly affecting, but Ms. Giffords has made extraordinary strides over the last 11 years.  She’s a fighter, and so is Mark.

Through top-notch remembrance devices like precious B-roll and past photos of this energetic go-getting Tucsonan, Cohen and West offer an upbeat portrait of Ms. Giffords before 2011, a whirlwind of charisma and vitality who became an Arizona House Representative at age 30, an Arizona Senator at 32, and a U.S. Congresswoman at 36.  

So, we sympathize with Gabby when she says, “I love to talk, and I’m so quiet now.”

Brutal. 

The film’s first 55 minutes primarily focus on Gabby’s journey, which includes her falling in love with an astronaut.  Gabby and Mark’s inspiring devotion to each other shines through every on-screen second, and the remaining 40 minutes feature the couple moving forward together, attempting to instill change in the country with new gun safety proposals and Mark’s U.S. Senate career.  

At this point, the doc takes a tonal shift into more mechanical spaces.  The material turns political into broader messages about gun safety, which will turn off a portion of the audience.  Still, life dragged Gabby and Mark through the wringer, so the movie’s direction feels like a natural progression.  Gabby and Mark have a viewpoint on the never-ending waves of U.S. gun violence, and the movie expands from Tucson to Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, and so on.  

Key Democrat lawmakers speak to Cohen and West, including former U.S. President Barack Obama. 

(In a March 22, 2022 The Hollywood Reporter interview with Mia Galuppo, Cohen says, “We actually have asked Obama for interviews previously, but this was the one he said “yes” to.  I think really largely as a function of his admiration and affection for Gabby Giffords.”)

In the film, President Obama says, “Tucson was the first mass shooting during my presidency,” and he adds, “And sadly, it is then repeated over and over and over and over and over again.” 

For any moviegoer – especially Arizona residents, including me - it’s challenging to relive Gabby’s darkest hour over 95 minutes, but she, Mark, their family, friends, and colleagues persevere to stay in lighted and enlightened spaces for the foreseeable future.  

No, Gabby won’t back down, but your emotional walls probably will.  Mine did.  Bring tissues. 

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris – Movie Review

Directed by:  Anthony Fabian

Written by:  Anthony Fabian, Carroll Cartwright, Keith Thompson, and Olivia Hetreed, based on Paul Gallico’s novel

Starring:  Lesley Manville, Isabelle Huppert, Jason Isaacs, Ellen Thomas, Alba Baptista, Lucas Bravo, and Lambert Wilson

Runtime:  110 minutes

“Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris” is a pleasant trip

“You dare to follow your dreams, Mrs. Harris.  Bravo.” – Natasha (Alba Baptista)

Ada Harris (Lesley Manville), a London cleaning lady, hasn’t contemplated her dreams in years, except for wishing that her husband Eddie would walk through the front door of her basement apartment.  

The year is 1957, and Eddie still hasn’t returned from the war.  So, Ada spends her days traveling on the London Town bus lines to her clients, tidying up their opulent flats and homes during the daylight hours, and sleeping alone on one side of her bed at night.  Thankfully, she frequently visits her best friend Vi (Ellen Thomas) for laughs and camaraderie, and another pal, Archie (Jason Isaacs), is also a jolly sort.  

Otherwise, each ordinary day runs into the other until she spots a dazzling Christian Dior dress at one of the aforementioned apartments.

The sight of this intricate, flowery costume – with the power of a shiny red bike sitting under a Christmas tree, a gregarious puppy in a pet shop window, or a million dollars wrapped in cellophane bricks - transports her to a dizzying state of delight.  Ada’s in love, and when she discovers that the sparkly gown cost 500 quid, this determined 50 or 60-something realizes her dream: to travel to Paris and buy her own Christian Dior.  

How much is 500 pounds in today’s money?  According to Google, it’s 5,272.44, give or take a pence.  Doesn’t matter.  To her, a Dior is priceless.  

Now, director/co-writer Anthony Fabian’s picture – based on Paul Gallico’s 1958 novel - is a throwback to old-fashioned 1950s flicks, like “Roman Holiday” (1953) or “Summertime” (1955) and with similar art direction and cinematography as Todd Haynes’ “Far From Heaven”, a 1950s drama released in 2002.  “Mrs. Harris” isn’t as strong or exactly like these all-time classics.  Still, it’s a competent movie, and Manville and her co-star Isabelle Huppert offer spirited performances and on-screen appeal.

The Oscar-nominated Manville has turned in great work for years, including supporting roles in several Mike Leigh pictures, and for the record, she’s fabulous in “Another Year” (2010).

Here, Lesley plays the lead, and even though Ada has a not-always-easy, working-class life, this is a refreshing light role for Manville.  She effectively carries Ada’s hardship and her character’s new willingness, due to her pursuit of an exclusive dress, to stand up for herself.  Ada transforms from swallowing her words to speaking her mind, even though she creates confrontation with her Cockney accent and suddenly strident behavior. 

Yes, she does get to Paris, and Fabian and cinematographer Felix Wiedemann capture some of the city’s most iconic sights, like the Eiffel Tower (from a distance), the Sacre-Coeur, and the Seine.  If you look closely during a flower garden scene, you’ll see Notre-Dame.  Fabian does check the sightseeing boxes for French aficionados, but the 110-minute movie doesn’t overflow with constant Parisian delights.  One might hope for more, but it’s difficult to make a film set in 1957 and then take the cameras to a madhouse of 2022 individuals surrounding the Eiffel Tower.  We get it, and no, Ada doesn’t take an elevator to the top of the Tower.

The screenplay – written by Fabian and three others – does involve cultural clashes between the English and French, which crystalize into a combat of words between Ada and Claudine (Huppert).  Claudine manages the Dior operation, and her posh, snobbish air regularly collides with Ada’s naive, sometimes clumsy posture.  This Brit rolls in with cash rolls and isn’t afraid to hold them out and essentially say, “My money is good too.”  The English and French have stepped into verbal and actual confrontations for centuries, and Manville and Huppert have fun with their characters’ grievances and differences throughout the film in broad and nuanced ways.  

For instance, even sharing a drink carries a “Cheers” from Claudine and “Bottoms up” from Ada.  

Ironically, Huppert essentially plays Manville’s role in Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Phantom Thread” (2017), so enjoy witnessing this role reversal.  Fabian includes a couple of subplots involving a potential romance between two Dior coworkers, Andre (Lucas Bravo) and Natasha, and a cash flow issue at the dress manufacturer.  Both storylines, however, feel forced, even though Bravo and Baptista give warm performances.  It just seems there isn’t enough screen time devoted to the pair to stir enough chemistry, although, sure, we’re rooting for them.  (Baptista may remind you of a young, French Audrey Hepburn.) 

Ada looks for romance too, and her emotional journey connects with this critic and is a productive use of time.  Of course, Fabian devotes on-screen minutes to fashion, including countless ballroom walks with models donning flawless fabrics and even staging a twirl or two.  

Attempting to find your footing while experiencing Paris would be a dream for millions, and this is Ada’s pursuit.  Perhaps “Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris” will inspire the masses to make similar trips.  Hey, give it a go if you have 5,000-plus pounds in your pocket!

Well, either way, Manville and Huppert are inspiring…always. 

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

Marcel the Shell with Shoes On – Movie Review

Directed by:  Dean Fleischer-Camp

Written by:  Dean Fleischer-Camp, Jenny Slate, and Nick Paley

Starring:  Dean Fleischer-Camp, Jenny Slate, and Isabella Rossellini

Runtime:  90 minutes

Grab your track sneakers and run to ‘Marcel the Shell with Shoes On’

“So, I’m making, like, a little documentary.” – Dean (Dean Fleischer-Camp)

“Oh, it’s like a movie, but nobody has any lines, and nobody even knows what it is while we’re making it.” – Marcel (Jenny Slate)

Director/co-writer Dean Fleischer-Camp and co-writer Jenny Slate star as the primary somebodies in “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On”, a thoroughly engaging PG-rated story.  It’s a live-action feature that includes stop-motion characters.  With its intimate documentary style, the movie purposely and beautifully wanders into adorable, eccentric spaces throughout a roomy suburban home but also emotionally beyond its four walls.  

“Marcel” is the most endearing film this critic has seen this year, and I find it laborious to think up a comparable counterpart.  

Fleischer-Camp’s picture could be described as a “Garfield” comic strip and “Fantastic Mr. Fox” (2009) combination that gently rolls around and splashes in pools of honey, marmalade, and frank, observational discourse.  

However, my best attempt doesn’t do justice to this beautiful, wholly-unique 90-minute experience, as it will entice audiences to embrace multiple “Marcel” viewings.

Consider yourself warned. 

Dean, a congenial 30-something introvert, is coping with a recent breakup and moves into an Airbnb while searching for a new place.  With lots of idle time, he films and interviews Marcel (Slate), his unexpected new housemate.  And why not, because Marcel is a walking, talking mollusk, about a one-inch tall and with one bulging eye sitting on the right side of his face/shell.  Oh yes, as stated in the film’s title, he wears a pair of shoes.  He claims they are pink, but they look orangish to my aging eyesight. 

Marcel is a kid.  He speaks like one with a squeaky, high-pitched voice that flows with both innocence and unintentional comedy.  Marcel’s altruistic thoughts may spark “kids say the darndest things” memories, but a whip-smart script - written by Fleischer-Camp, Slate, and Nick Paley - orchestrates his quips and comebacks.  He’s taken up residence here for years and lives with his grandmother Connie (Isabella Rossellini), and they look after each other with love and purpose.  

Connie gets ample screen time, but Marcel is the star.  He enthusiastically offers Dean scores of examples of his daily life with oddball demonstrations of show-and-tell.  For instance, Marcel jumps into a tennis ball and races around the non-carpeted floors.  He sticks honey on the bottom of his shoes and walks on walls like Spider-Man or Adam West’s Batman.  Our hero leaves footprints too.   And who knew that houseplants love Brahms? 

Marcel effectively communicates his naïve worldview and inventive tendencies, which drum up constant feelings of lovely sentiment and wonder.  It also doesn’t hurt that Slate’s impeccable comedic timing and her warbled character’s cadence bring massive personality to our physically vulnerable chaperone.  

He’s emotionally vulnerable, too, because his family is missing.  Grandma Connie and Marcel weren’t the only mollusks living in this spacious homestead, so finding his family, his community becomes the film’s primary driver, and mild-mannered, kind-hearted Dean shepherds the improbable task of hopefully locating them in this big world.  

Dean, Jenny, and Nick shepherd keen narrative decisions too. 

First of all, the audience doesn’t witness Dean’s first encounter with Marcel.  Instead, we’re introduced matter-of-factly to both of them.  This odd couple throws us into their current friendship.  We end up playing catch-up when witnessing their surreal circumstances, which adds to a consuming sense of fascination and head-scratching disbelief from the get-go. 

The narrative also presents Marcel with two emotionally daunting hurdles to overcome, so we quickly become invested in hoping for his happiness.  Locating his community is one obstacle, and the other won’t be revealed in this review.  

Additionally, we don’t see Master Shell’s family during the first act, so the anticipation of meeting them becomes paramount, especially when he says, “It’s pretty much common knowledge that it takes at least 20 shells to have a community.” 

At least 20!

Since Marcel needs to attempt steep climbs, the film avoids bogging down as a one-trick pony of only sight gags for 90 minutes.  Instead, the visual amusements accompany a ton of depth here that touch on spirituality, nature, and personal connections.  Add Disasterpeace’s score, that sometimes resembles mystical beats from a harmonious yoga practice, and this concoction strikes deep-seated feelings, warm smiles, and tears. 

The “Marcel” team must have shed tears of joy by convincing a certain world-renowned television celebrity to make a key appearance.  The aforementioned personality wonderfully plays it straight, like Carol Burnett or Rita Moreno conversing with Gonzo, Fozzie Bear, or Kermit the Frog.  

Now, Marcel received celebrity accolades years ago, as Dean and Jenny created three short videos of the famous little guy beginning in 2010.  Altogether, Dean and Jenny’s films garnered 47 million YouTube views, so this tiny invertebrate darling has found a following.  This full-length feature has something to say about Internet behaviors.  Some are not so hot, but others are infinitely helpful.  

Slate helped extend Marcel’s stardom on “Conan” with Conan O’Brien about seven years ago when she sang “Landslide” in her alter-ego’s voice.  Jenny/Marcel croons another song during this cinematic charmer, and the moment strikes the right notes.  

Oh, Dean might be making a little documentary, but this film has a humongous heart.  My advice?  Grab your track sneakers and run to “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On”.

Jeff’s ranking

4/4 stars

---

‘Thirteen Lives’ Press Conference with Ron Howard and the cast

In 1995, Ron Howard commanded “Apollo 13”, a harrowing drama about the real-life 1970 lunar mission where (NASA and) three astronauts had to think out of the box - in outer space - after an unexpected explosion damaged the ship.  

Twenty-seven years later, Howard recreates another actual rescue attempt for the big screen.  This time, the tight spot lands on Earth, an elaborate Thailand cave system, and 13 people – 12 kids and their soccer coach – are trapped.  In “Thirteen Lives”, rescue teams search through the caverns. 

The “Thirteen Lives” team invited the Phoenix Film Festival and other outlets to their Zoom Press Conference, and Jacqueline Coley, a Rotten Tomatoes editor, hosted the event, which included Howard, Viggo Mortensen, Colin Farrell, Joel Edgerton, Two Popetorn, James Teeradon, and other actors and producers.  

“Thirteen Lives” arrives in theatres on July 29 and streams on Prime Video on August 5!

JACQUELINE COLEY:  Ron, what made you want to tell this story?

RON HOWARD:  Well, like a lot of people, I was aware of (this news story).  My wife Cheryl was really paying attention.  When I had a chance to read William Nicholson’s script, it not only delivered on everything I had recalled but (also) suggested so much more.  There were more levels and dimensions to the heroics, to the people involved, especially the Thai people.  There were surprises, (and) I felt like I could make something visceral and immediate.  So, it was a really exciting, creative opportunity, and I knew I would learn a lot about the Thai culture.  

This story is very, very important to Thai culture. 

JC:  Viggo, you play a real-life person (here), (and) the guy you’re playing was on set.  Is (this) the first time you’ve had the real-life counterpart on set with you? 

VIGGO MORTENSEN:  No, but in this case, it was crucial, especially for what we had to do underwater.  Rick (Stanton) was there during rehearsals.  Jason (Mallinson), one of the real-life rescuers, came too.  They helped us to not only swim like them and move like them but to be safe.  We worked together above water as much as underwater.  And underwater, I would say it was maybe even more important because even though you’re shooting a movie, and it’s somewhat a controlled situation, whenever you’re underwater and in caves, it’s dangerous.  

So it felt, at times, very real.  Sometimes too real.

JC:  Colin, was there something about this role that changed your approach because “Thirteen Lives” is an action movie and a biopic in one? 

COLIN FARRELL:  Yeah, they say (you) don’t work with children or animals.  Throw water into that mix as well.  I can’t really swim.  (With) scuba diving, you accept the process of submerging.  So it’s a different world beneath the surface of the water. 

I felt like I was one spoke of many in a story that was so multi-faceted.  It wasn’t about us coming in as actors playing British divers who were there to save the day.  It was really about us being led by our Thai brothers and sisters, and the people we were playing, the divers, and how they guided us through the actual events.  In a time (when) the world seems to be living under greater and greater division, (it) was really about people from different nationalities (and) different cultural backgrounds coming together for a common purpose.  It was a great gift.

JC: Two, how did you approach this experience?

POPETORN SOONTHORNYANAKIJ (TWO POPETORN):  Well, to start, this has been a great experience for all of us Thai actors.  (It’s an) honor to tell our story through Ron’s film, and it feels like we have (a) responsibility to do a really good job for all of us Thai people.  It's just been a great ride, and we enjoyed every moment.

JC:  James, (you play the soccer coach), and (much) of your time was spent with (the) young actors.  How was that for you, guiding them through this process? 

TEERADON SUPAPUNPINYO (JAMES TEERADON):  It (was) quite hard for me because I’m not (really a) kid person, but I really respect the (young actors).  They (are) passionate.  Every time I worked a scene with them, they showed me something (inspiring) to make (it) better, better, and better.   

JC:  Joel, what was the most surprising thing you learned about this story?

JOEL EDGERTON:  I thought I knew a lot about (it).  And then, once I got involved in the project, there were (aspects of the rescue) that were very surprising.  But the thing that surprised me about Harry (Harris), and I have played real people before, is it's rare that I've been that humbled and, therefore, a little nervous about taking on (this) role because he's such an impressive person and a national hero in Australia.  

I found it incredibly emotional hearing some of Harry’s stories and reading his book.  As a side note, I became a father during the shoot, and (the movie) became even more (about the) care of (the) children.   

JC:  Tom, I have to imagine signing up for (this) film has to feel like a dream come true with just everyone they assembled (for) it.

TOM BATEMAN:  The divers were (generous) with their time.  Chris Jewell gave me hours and hours and hours of Facetimes to talk me through what he went through, and what (he) went through was pretty intense.  I've dived before, but I never with a roof on my head.  It was quite amazing.  I'm hugely claustrophobic, so I struggled pretty much every day.  The last stunt dive was one of my last days, and I loved this experience (and) Ron very, very much, but my God, I was happy to get out of that.  When we (went) into those caves, there (was) something haunting and truly desperate and dangerous in everything.

The design was incredible.  There's constantly water coming in, and we spent the whole shoot wet, cold, and underwater.  I cannot believe what (the divers) did, and to be a small part of telling their story is a real honor.  But, my God, I was happy to be finished, yeah.

RH:  I have to jump in.  First of all, Tom, I notice you didn’t mention claustrophobia in your audition.

TB:  Yeah, because I wanted the job, Ron. 

RH:  But I have to add that the real Rick Stanton and Jason Mallinson came in, and their job was to work with the actors, so the angles that would feature them would have an authentic feel.  But it was even more important to train the doubles, the photo doubles, so that in the wider shots and the other shots with a lot of intense water volume and pressure and the unbelievably tight squeezes, that the stunt people actually knew how to dive.

But the actors started working with Rick and Jason, and Viggo led the group and basically said we don't want anybody else to double us.  We are learning this, and we’ll do it.  We’ll work on the weekends.  Whatever it takes.  And (that) is what they all did.  It enabled me to make the photography so fluent and so immediate because they were doing every one of those squeezes and pressurized situations where the water volumes were dumping on them and with the kids and all of it.

I just didn’t want to let this moment go.  That’s why they are great artists.

---

Apples - Movie Review

Directed by: Christos Nikou

Written by:  Christos Nikou and Stavros Raptis

Starring:  Aris Servetalis, Sofia Georgovassili, Anna Kalaitzidou, Argyris Bakirtzis, and Kostas Laskos

Runtime:  86 minutes

Pick ‘Apples’. This eccentric, minimalist dramedy is one of the year's best films.

It’s a pandemic!  

No, not COVID-19, but without warning, various Greek citizens succumb to mysterious cases of amnesia.  Medical experts can’t pinpoint the transmission methods or the underlying reasons why someone suddenly cannot recall their name, spouse, or home address.  

Worse yet, a discernable cure isn’t anywhere in sight, and the condition appears permanent.

Thankfully, Athens isn’t under a lockdown, and doctors don’t wear protective attire or squirt frequent dabs of sanitizer when treating their new forgetful patients, but director/co-writer Christos Nikou and co-writer Stavros Raptis don’t exactly provide the numbers of poor souls infected with memory loss.  

However, we realize a severe public health dilemma is playing out, and Greece isn’t the only country impacted.  This is a worldwide problem. 

Do you have PTSD yet?  “Apples” may spark some unpleasant 2020 and 2021 memories, but COVID wasn’t even a thought in Nikou’s head when making “Apples”.  He began writing the script about a decade ago.

“It was strange.  We did our final test screening of the film that last day before the lockdown in Greece,” Nikou said in a Scott Roxborough’s Sept. 12, 2020 Hollywood Reporter interview. 

Fortunately, his movie does NOT feature ventilators, lengthy vaccination lines, social distancing, and medical masks.  Masks make appearances, but in the form of Batman and Catwoman cowls and a few other costume face coverings during one scene.

Christos – a former assistant director to Yorgos Lanthimos – brings a quirky, off-center vibe to his first feature film.  Rather than address global impacts, the script squarely and eccentrically focuses on Aris’ (Aris Servetalis) story.  “Apples” is a contained narrative, but it bursts with enormous perceptions of the human condition through examples of societal order, individual connections, and grief.  

Actual apples – maybe McIntosh or Red Delicious - figure into the movie, but this review will not reveal the ways.  

As the film opens, we see a 40-something Aris cope with an unknown stressor.  At this point, Aris has all of his faculties and lives in vibrant, modern-day Athens.  He apparently resides near the business district, as concrete and steel cover the urban landscape.  We don’t know the year.  Life looks like the 21st century, but no one carries a cell phone, and we see Aris use a cassette tape recorder, so who knows. 

Early in the first act, Aris suffers the aforementioned recall-inhibited fate and is immediately shipped to a hospital.  The man has no identification (admittedly, a plot convenience) and no recollection of a family, job, or history.  Aris does remember his native tongue and some basic social constructs, but he’s oblivious to pop culture, and two cognitive tests suggest that short-term memory is an issue, too.  

Not good.  

However, an unnamed physician or social worker (Anna Kalaitzidou) recommends that Aris enter the New Identity Program.  

Aris now lives in a comfortable halfway house with state-provided necessities.  He has free will throughout most of his waking hours, but the program’s managers (Kalaitzidou and Argyris Bakirtzis) assign tasks for our tall, thin, bearded 40-something protagonist to follow.  These rote, straightforward chores – designed to trigger memories from his past or provide a new foundation - are easy to complete, but Nikou ensures to include awkward, comedic mechanics and visuals that harken back to Lanthimos’ films, like our hero riding a kid’s bike that is way too small for his lanky frame.  Still, Aris plays ball because he has nothing but time.

Even though Athens’ population is about four million, Aris is frequently featured by himself or only with one or two others in the frame.  This approach helps keep the spotlight – during the 86-minute runtime - on our troubled friend, but it also acts as a metaphor for his struggle.  Aris battles inside his head, but he doesn’t act out his frustration through sharp, kinetic movements (except once during the film’s opening scene, before his current condition).  

Instead, Nikou relies on Servetalis’ performance through the actor’s subtle nuance captured in close-ups.  Servetalis unquestionably succeeds at conveying Aris’ varying degrees of confusion with minimal moments of actual dialogue.  Aris isn’t Marcel Marceau by any means, but he doesn’t feel the burning desire to spout off his problems to anyone who will listen, like 99 percent of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, New Jersey, Atlanta, or pick your city.  

No, he’s struggling in silence.  

However, the script introduces a potential ally, Anna (Sofia Georgovassili), who muddles through the same journey as Aris.  He doesn’t know much about Anna, but with her genuine, agreeable persona, we hope she becomes his lifeline or a possible love interest.  

Aris needs to catch a break.  Everyone could use a little luck during a pandemic.   

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

Mr. Malcolm’s List – Movie Review

Directed by:  Emma Holly Jones

Written by:  Suzanne Allain, based on her novel of the same name

Starring:  Sope Dirisu, Freida Pinto, Zawe Ashton, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Theo James, Ashley Park, Divian Ladwa, and Sianad Gregory

Runtime:  110 minutes

‘Mr. Malcolm’s List’ checks out.  It’s a light, gratifying 19th-century rom-com.

It’s 2022, and dating isn’t easy. 

Millions of single men and women subscribe to dating apps, type their bios in 500 words or less, choose photos, and then attempt to sort through the madness of endless profiles, looking for a date, relationship, or permanent partner.  

Hey, this modern-day courtship process sounds convenient.  A godsend.  

Not exactly.

Everyone throwing their hat into this smartphone or laptop pursuit is presented with the same infinite choices of potential connections.  After a while, the search through the electronic memoirs becomes more succinct because, perhaps, our patience wears thin or our preferences narrow.  Through haste, we may inadvertently swipe left when we should’ve swiped right, or by looking for that perfect person, our criteria becomes too specific.  That mythical individual does not exist…at least within a 25-mile radius of home. 

(If you finally connect online, then meeting this someone in-person presents a whole other set of hurdles, but that’s another discussion.)

Dating must have been less complicated back in the day, before the Internet, right?

Probably, but don’t be so sure. 

Let’s introduce the Honorable Jeremiah Malcolm (Sope Dirisu), a wealthy gent from Kent, a county located southeast of London.  It’s 1818, and Mr. Malcolm might feel that a spotlight follows him 24/7 because reporters write about his personal life in the newspapers.  He’s one of the most eligible bachelors around, and he’s picky about finding a companion.  

Jeremiah has a list.  A list of qualities in a wife, and he’s a stickler on the criteria. 

Well, Mr. Malcolm takes Julia Thistlewaite (Zawe Ashton) - a woman in her fourth season in hopes of finding a husband - to the opera, but the electric performance on stage doesn’t mirror the energy between the two.  He doesn’t call on Julia again, but she discovers the existence of Jeremiah’s list through her cousin Lord Cassidy (Oliver Jackson-Cohen in an effectively comedic supporting performance).  Julia’s offended and hopes for some revenge, although not through bloodshed but via old-fashioned manipulation of one’s heart.  

This light-hearted, PG-rated period-piece rom-com won’t change your life, but “Mr. Malcolm’s List” might be a lovely option for friends, a first date, an 18-year-old married couple, or an 81-year-old pairing.  Director Emma Holly Jones’ film might also act as a temporary cure for the looking-for-love blues.  The movie is based on Suzanne Allain’s 2009 novel and Jones’ 2019 11-minute short of the same name.  Dirisu, Jackson-Cohen, Divian Ladwa, Sianad Gregory, and Freida Pinto star in both films! 

This critic hasn’t seen the 11-minute version or read the book, but Julia recruits her school-days BFF Selina Dalton (Pinto) to win over Malcolm in this movie.  When he falls for Selina, the ladies plan that she will cast off him as a lesson for rejecting Julia.

As Julia explains, “That would be a perfect sort of poetic justice.”

How will Selina win him over?  Through Lord Cassidy’s help, they’ve reconstructed Malcolm’s list, so Selina will have the answer key to encourage his interest and affections.  What has Malcolm exactly scribed?  Well, you have to see the movie to discover his marriage prerequisites.  Still, I’m happy to report that the picture succeeds through warm performances, graceful tones, a convincing 19th-century atmosphere, and celebrating the period’s pomp and circumstance. 

Jones fills her film’s 110-minute runtime with British formalities, like polite invitations for tea, a rose garden tour, and a masquerade ball.  Sometimes, the invites occur face-to-face, and other times through hand-delivered letters, which is quite refreshing from today’s communication methods when one grabs 30 seconds to send a text.  Not only do moviegoers witness the requests, but the cozy and grand events too.  One of the highlights is the ball, where Jones and cinematographer Tony Miller capture a gentle moment when Mr. Malcolm’s and Ms. Dalton’s hands almost interlace during a Regency dance. 

Costume designer Pam Downe must have worked heaps of overtime constructing her pieces.  Striking, colorful drapes, bonnets, and jackets don the attractive cast, who successfully depict 19th-century vibes as the actors stroll along gorgeous grounds and posh estates. 

According to Naman Shrestha’s July 1, 2022 The Cinemaholic article, the cast and crew filmed in Ireland, not England.  

Emma and company spent time in Dublin and the revered Killruddery House, in nearby Bray.  As one might expect, lush greens and picturesque countryside match the comfort of the story’s elegant saunter.  Even though Julia has devious intentions, Selina doesn’t share her scheming view.  Malcolm surely could get hurt, but Selina’s altruistic outlook dramatically lessens the tension for the audience during most of the picture.  

Surprisingly, the stakes never feel high, and they probably should.  Those looking for sharp dramatic turns will be disappointed, and the screenplay – also written by Allain – includes another romance that doesn’t feel terribly earned by the characters.  The said actors don’t have much chemistry, at least from my perspective. 

However, Freida and Sope share romantic harmonies, and Selina’s charm and Jeremiah’s sincerity make a coveted combination.  Admittedly, throughout most of the film, Amelia Warner’s score didn’t register with me; however, her composition touches the right beats during the most crucial moments.  

“Mr. Malcolm’s List” offers an enjoyable couple of hours at the movies, and you might trade in your dating app for a quill and stack of stationery paper…for a little while anyway. 

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---

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

---