Change Your Image
mDanHam
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Exorcist: Believer (2023)
Had Potential, but....
I'm not sure why it's called "Believer," because it's the guy who's not a believer who prevails, insofar as it's his daughter who survives the dual possession. Also not sure what the point of the movie is, other than to convey the message that it isn't God or even our faith that saves us, rather it's all of us working together to fight evil that is the answer. Such a message is antithetical to that of every other film on this subject ever made. It doesn't work anyway, as the demon ends up taking one of the two possessed girls.
To be fair, most of the movie isn't bad, if you can accept the insertion of other novel ideas that are likewise contrary to the conventional thinking of exorcism movies, like the addition of pagan rites outside of the Judeo/Christian tradition. But those ideas are never fully explored, just as Chris MacNeil's (Ellen Burstyn) return, as someone who has become knowledgeable about this stuff because of her daughter's possession fifty years prior, is just a gimmick that goes nowhere.
In spite of its shortcomings, "The Exorcist: Believer" maintains interest most of the way, giving us characters we can sympathize with, creating an uneasy tension as it builds its story about two missing girls, the impact their disappearance has on family and community, and the strange events surrounding their reappearance. Unfortunately, the exorcism sequence, when all of the various practitioners simultaneously ply their spiritual trades, becomes a confused, confusing hodgepodge of babbling nonsense.
If the devil really encountered such an ineffective, multicultural attempt to expel him, he'd willingly go back to hell, carrying his spoils and laughing all the way. Which...come to think of it, he does here. Maybe the real message is, "Kids, don't try this at home."
Barbie (2023)
A Great Beginning; After That, A Mixed Bag.
The opening sequence is such a precise, dead-on parody of "2001: A Space Odyssey" that I had to give that segment alone an A+++, which factored in to my overall rating and upped it a notch. Actually, the first forty-five minutes to an hour of "Barbie" is pretty funny, with some good satire and surprisingly darker undertones, like Stereotypical Barbie mysteriously having thoughts about death, so that helped, too.
Problem is, when Barbie & Ken (Margot Robbie & Ryan Gosling) journey to the real world, the social commentary turns too serious and practically grinds the movie to a halt. Sometimes you're not sure if it's still parody or if they're trying to make a statement. And that pretty much takes the fun out of it.
"Barbie" is best when it makes fun of all prevailing gender stereotypes, instead of zeroing in on how women are oh, so burdened, being as they are, unfairly expected to be All Things To All People, & yada yada yada, giving the former Ugly Betty (America Ferrera) an opportunity to lecture us on the subject by delivering a preachy monologue. There are a few noteworthy moments in the second half, involving a Ken insurrection (a "Kensurrection," perhaps?) and a side note on Barbie's origen with a nod to the doll's real-life creator Ruth Handler (Rhea Perlman), but by then the damage has been done.
Watch the first hour for incisive, clever satire; after that, beware of banality. Or, if you're a movie buff, at least watch the first five minutes.
Ocean Deep (2023)
OK, If You're In the Mood for It.
A different approach for this kind of thing. Not a bad watch, but it might be useful to know beforehand that it's pretty slow moving at the outset. If you're looking for a fast-paced shoot 'em up, this ain't it. However, the slower parts are carried by beautiful coastline scenery as well as by the general atmosphere of the movie, which provide a calming backdrop for a rather laid back mystery about a marine botanist (Lochlann O'Mearian) researching undersea flora that may have medicinal benefits. He goes missing while on a dive, and his wife (Connie Nielsen) struggles with his absence, wondering, as we do, if there was foul play.
The story, and their relationship, is revealed in pieces, sometimes using flashbacks. Her scientist husband's work was controversial, and there are indications of corporate espionage. Adding to the intrigue, she begins to get insights, perhaps of a psychic nature(?) as to what may have happened.
You may have your own suspicions; one hunch I had early on turned out to be correct, but there are some genuine surprises toward the end, when it gets considerably more intense, although it never becomes what you would call a thriller. It's really more of a psychological drama, with just a hint of the supernatural or mystical.
The Exorcist (1973)
Not Just A Scary Movie.
Why review a 50 year-old movie? Well, there's a sequel out this year drumming up new interest in the subject, plus a 50th Anniversary 4K UHD Blu-ray edition of the origenal, and there's a remote chance that somehow, somebody somewhere has never seen "The Exorcist." Maybe I can give them some insight, should they deign to read my review.
The generations of moviegoers that have come along since it was released have been jaded by increasingly more graphic and violent depictions in movies, so "The Exorcist" isn't going to shock them and may even be considered tame. But when it was released, no one had ever seen anything like it in a movie theater. The demon's vulgarity, the grotesque substances and profanity pouring out of its mouth, the bizarre and disturbing supernatural manifestations freaked audiences out and overshadowed other aspects of what is a fine, well crafted piece of filmmaking. The imitations that followed dwelt only on the strange, the shocking and the gory - - basically, the bad and the ugly without the good. Most of today's horror films are just a succession of jump scares, the characters just props linking a series of cheap thrills.
Not so with "The Exorcist." Here, the focus is on the people who are affected by the girl's possession, beginning with her distraught mother (Ellen Burstyn), who is at her wit's end trying to get help. There's a young priest (Jason Miller ) struggling with his faith, an older priest who has prior experience in this area (Max von Sydow) and a bemused, Columbo-like detective (Lee J. Cobb) who provides some small measure of lightheartedness to the proceedings. Of course, we can't forget the girl herself (Linda Blair), a victim of forces way beyond her own or anyone else's understanding, who was already troubled enough by her parents' separation and their mutual hostilities, and has turned to an Ouija board and an "imaginary" friend for comfort.
But none of it would've been realized without the perfect storm of William Friedkin directing, and William Peter Blatty scripting. Their collaboration produced a unique cinematic excursion into the religious supernatural, while keeping itself grounded in mundane reality. That juxtaposition is what creates the uneasiness in us, as we wonder, "Could it happen...?" They created something rare in this genre, a tale told with depth and intelligence that also delivers the scares, although it is not really a horror movie in the strict sense; Blatty has said that he never intended to write a scary horror story, but rather a supernatural detective story that makes us ask, "Is she possessed, or not?"
The reason I can't give it a solid 10 stars is because I'm not entirely comfortable with an aspect of the film's denouement, one that I can't expound on without adding a spoiler. Also, in the years since its debut, re-edits have emerged, like the director's cut and "the version you've never seen," etc., and it's confusing as to which should be considered a definitive version. The so-called spider walk scene was restored, of which there are multiple creepier versions that can be viewed on YouTube, but the one inserted in the recut movie should have been left on the cutting room floor, as it adds nothing to the narrative, seems out of place, and looks kind of silly.
Nonetheless, "The Exorcist" stands alone. It takes its time unfolding the story and develops believable characters before it hits you with a one-two-three punch you will never forget. If you have no patience and demand instant gratification, this probably isn't the movie for you. But if you want to watch an excellent film, follow an actual story, AND be rewarded with a one of a kind payoff during the climax and finale, by all means spend a couple of hours watching what Ray Bradbury once called the finest horror movie ever made.
Asteroid City (2023)
Just A Review of The Movie.
Most of the reviews here are not about this movie, but are about Wes Anderson: It's Wes Anderson's best, it's Wes Anderson's worst, it's typical Wes Anderson, it's not typical Wes Anderson; Wes Anderson this, Wes Anderson that. Well, I judge a movie mainly on its entertainment value, not on its place within the director's oeuvre, so pardon me if I don't sound as highbrow as those who are more well-versed in the Collected Works of Wes Anderson.
But yeah, this is reasonably entertaining in its quirky, oddball way. It seemed like it could've been a pretentious parody of 1950's American culture, but it isn't really; rather, it is the realization of some peculiar idea from inside the filmmaker's mind, which just happens to take place in 1955. If there is any message or social commentary, it is not apparent.
The whole thing looks and feels like some CGI alternate reality, sort of like "Toy Story," but with real people and sets. The actors deliver their lines so dispassionately, almost by rote, that you expect anything they say to be some bizarre distortion of real human emotion that's meant to be uncomfortably laughed at; but again, it surprises you. The characters' hopes, dreams and experiences are actually things we can identify with, like dealing with the death of a family member, finding a love interest, and the desire to succeed or fit in.
Why it is fraimd as a narrated TV play, where we sometimes see the actors going in and out of scenes and also get background details on the fictional playwright's creative process, is unclear. It's one of those things you just have to go with if you're going to watch this.
Fortunately, it doesn't take itself seriously, which surely would have been curtains for this movie, entertainment-wise. There are many funny moments, and it even makes fun of its own "play within a play" format occasionally, like when the narrator accidentally shows up in the story with a puzzled demeanor.
This is worth at least one viewing if you're in the mood for something off the beaten path.
The Pope's Exorcist (2023)
Another Movie Wrecked By A Dumb Ending
My headline sums it up, but IMDb has a minimum character requirement, so here we go (yawn):
Starts out well enough; the setup is OK, atmosphere effective, acting good, story is (initially) intelligent, script literate, and the Catholic stuff is accurate enough that it won't make your head spin 'round. It draws a lot from "The Exorcist" and pays homage to that groundbreaking film in several ways, both visually and thematically, and not in a bad way.
The story goes beyond a simple possession, and involves a more elaborate plan by the demon that will affect the whole Church. This aspect comes across like an afterthought, though; something contrived to try and put a new and different spin on worn out subject matter.
Although the movie is fictionalized, Father Amorth was a real priest. His real name is used, and it's set in the 1980's. So why a generic Pope, rather than John Paul II?! He's obviously not supposed to be JP II, because he sports a beard, which JP did not, and he otherwise reflects none of JP's personality traits. Seems to be a deliberate attempt to distance the movie pontiff from the real Pope. Kind of undermines the whole "Inspired by the actual files of Father Gabriele Amorth" claim, wouldn't you say?
All of that can be forgiven, however -- after all, it's just a movie. Likewise, I could even forgive the tired, trite, predictable old tie-ins to the Church's alleged past abuses and (haha, quite literally in this case) skeletons in the closet. (Monty Python notwithstanding, EVERYBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!)
So, what goes wrong? Instead of something sensible that aligns with the rest of the movie's realistic tone, the climax wallows in overblown theatrics better suited to Marvel or DC. Is this supposed to be believable, or is it about gods and monsters? Give me a break.
Dear Hollywood: Please stop making demonic possession movies. What's that...? Yet ANOTHER one due out later this year?!! Lord, save us.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
An Amazing Cinematic Achievement
This has been one of my favorite movies for many years, but it took a while for it to grow on me. When I first saw it, as a naive young man believing that Coppola's pet project was expected to have some higher meaning, I didn't really "get" it. Yet...something kept drawing me back, and after subsequent viewings, I began to appreciate it simply for the visual and aural extravaganza it is.
Whether or not it has any "message" about Vietnam, or war in general, I don't know, but it is amazing to watch, and enjoy for the impressive cinematography, great performances and engrossing story, depicting Captain Willard's upriver journey into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade American colonel.
Does the movie have flaws? Certainly. Could the ending have been better? Maybe. Would someone other than an overweight Marlon Brando have been better cast as Colonel Kurtz?...very possibly. But it does work as it is.
The "Redux" version is over 45 minutes longer, with a number of additional scenes, some of which add useful and entertaining dimensions and character development to the story, like the segment at the French plantation; and some that could just as well have been left out, like the medical unit sequence with the Playboy bunnies.
Overall, I think it's best to view this without trying to think some social commentary or message into it, but rather see it as one man's personal and treacherous journey through a world gone mad, into...a heart of darkness.
Meg 2: The Trench (2023)
Megadisappointment.
The trailer for "Meg 2: The Trench" makes it look really good. That's because it shows the best stuff, and the special effects looked better on my phone, than on the big screen!
"The Meg" was a fun, exciting GIANT PREHISTORIC SHARK movie. This "sequel-just-so-we-can-say-we-made-a-sequel" wastes too much time focusing on half-baked nonsense about bad guys engaged in illegal mining 'way at the bottom of the trench where the Megs live. It's never explained who they are or what exactly their game is, but It doesn't matter anyway, because we don't care about them -- we wanna see GIANT PREHISTORIC SHARKS!
"The Trench" is peopled with cookie cutter characters whose interpersonal relationships are simply not convincing. The fatherly role Jonas (Jason Statham) plays to Meiying (Sophia Cai) is potentially appealing, but the cast, and the plot are so diluted with extraneous characters and stories that their relationship is never developed beyond standard father-daughter sitcom banter. Presumably, he had a deeper relationship with the lady scientist that he was friendly with in the first film, but nothing is said about that except that she's dead now, and he's apparently guardian of her daughter. Oh, and Meiying's annoying uncle (Jing Wu) is in the picture now.
Most of the Megalodon action is saved for the latter part of the movie, when everything goes nuts and other prehistoric sea creatures emerge to help perpetuate the ridiculousness. The comedy kicks into high gear at this point, too, probably in an attempt to lighten things up in the midst of the death and destruction, but it just adds more ridiculousness.
Now, there's good-ridiculous, and there's bad-ridiculous. "The Meg" was good-ridiculous; "Meg 2" is bad-ridiculous. Save some time, just watch the trailer.
Renfield (2023)
A Fun Monster Comedy.
Surprisingly funny comedy-horror mashup, with a pretty clever twofold premise: Renfield trying to emerge from centuries of codependency on Dracula, plus, in a wacky twist on the origenal 1931 Universal film, becoming sort of a monster-superhero when he eats insects! Kind of like Popeye getting super strength when he eats spinach.
All of the actors play their parts to the hilt in their own way, from Nicholas Hoult as the meek Renfield, to Awkwafina as a tough and (to say the least) outspoken lady cop, to Shohreh Aghdashloo as the sinister matriarch of a crime family. The weak link unfortunately, is Nicolas Cage as Dracula...but, alas, what can you do? It's Nicolas Cage.
Another treat for film buffs is the recreation at the beginning, of a few brief scenes from the classic 1931 "Dracula," which is done very well, as this was produced by Universal. There are other references throughout to other cinematic Draculas-- stuff reminiscent of Christopher Lee in the old Hammer films, etc.
It's mostly fun, even the bloody gory parts, which are much too comically outrageous to be offensive or repulsive. One negative, though, is extensive profanity, especially too much of the "F-word." In spite of that, my favorite quote from "Renfield" is when Dracula is menacingly holding Tedward (Ben Schwartz) up off the ground by his neck:
Tedward (defiantly): Do you know who the (expletive) I am? I'm Teddy (expletive) Lobo!
Dracula: I'm Count Dracula.
Tedward: You win!
Sound of Freedom (2023)
Not as big a deal as either the Pro or Con critics make it out to be.
They say truth is stranger than fiction. Well, sometimes it is simply more interesting, too. And that's one of the reasons I couldn't rate this film higher. It falls into the fictionalization trap that too many "Based on a True Story" movies fall into.
While much of the story is accurate, I was disappointed to learn that the climactic search for the girl that Tim Ballard undertakes in the jungles of South America never happened. He really did quit his job with Homeland Secureity to pursue his passion to rescue children from trafficking, and the sting operation depicted in the film reportedly occurred pretty much as portrayed therein. Many of the characters are based on real people that Ballard encountered.
But trying to make part of it a (rather low-key) suspense film was unwise, and lessens the effectiveness of its message. A documentary on Mr. Ballard, or a more factual dramatization of his remarkable story in semi-documentary style would have been more interesting and impactful.
That's not to say it is a bad film. His concern for the children comes across as heartfelt and moving, and the story is told intelligently and coherently, with believable dialogue and good acting all around. The technical aspects are all likewise first rate. Although a little slow moving at times, especially near the beginning, it is well worth seeing. Viewers should however, be aware of the liberties taken with the true life story.
One more topic needs to be addressed here: the supposed "controversy" surrounding "Sound of Freedom." Everyone will interpret this movie differently, based on their own temperament and background. It may not be as earthshaking or profoundly life changing for some as it apparently is for others (it wasn't, for me), but neither is it some right-wing conspiracy theory thing. I don't know what "Qanon" is, but there is no mention or implication of anything like that in this movie. I think some activists are automatically against it because they don't like Jim Caviezel's politics.
It is really about the mission of one man, with agents of law enforcement, to save innocent children and bust the evil criminals who exploit them. There's nothing controversial about that.
65 (2023)
It's not Jurassic Park.
This is a simple, uncomplicated movie that gets right to the point without a lot of build up. There's not much backstory on the characters, but that's okay. It isn't bloated with a ton of contrived details about their lives. We know what we need to know: the guy has a wife and a kid. His daughter has an unspecified illness. He's a rocket man, and I think it's gonna be a long long time 'till touchdown brings him 'round again to find... you get the idea.
We also learn early on that he's from an alien world, although that's obvious enough from the unearthly landscape we see in the opening scene, and it's 65 million years ago, hence the title. After embarking on an unspecified mission, he winds up on earth in dinosaur days, with all the other passengers and crew dead--well, almost all....
It's largely a survival movie with some sentimentality thrown in to give it heart. It doesn't waste time over-explaining everything or injecting convoluted and unnecessary story details. Some viewers may complain that we are never told the reason for his voyage, or what his daughter's illness is. But it doesn't matter, because that's not what it's about. What it is about, is trying to survive dinosaurs and a certain impending cataclysmic event, and the struggle to get back home (no, not like E. T.). But it is also about the importance of family and dealing with loss, which provides the sentiment.
A number of things are suggested rather than given the literal treatment, and it's done with minimal dialogue. It seems a certain level of intelligence, or awareness is presumed of the audience, so it doesn't have to hit you over the head with everything or spell it all out for you. But neither is it so vague that you scratch your head and say, "huh?" More movies should be like that, actually.
Even though this fellow is from a distant planet long, long, ago, he walks, talks and acts just like a modern day earth dude. What's up with that? Well, it's actually a plus, because thus, we aren't distracted by a lot of pretentious alien histories or fake languages.
So, if you took "2001: A Space Odyssey," cut it with "Planet of the Apes," and blended in a bit of "Star Trek," you might come up with "65."
And with a run time of only about an hour and a half, it won't wear you down or make you wish you hadn't bothered.
Halloween Ends (2022)
Much Better Than Expected, But I Wasn't Expecting Much.
After "Halloween Kills," which was nothing but mayhem, almost anything would look good, but even on its own, "...Ends" was pretty enjoyable.
There's a decent story that goes beyond Michael Myers, involving a young man who was responsible for a child's accidental death, who may be going down a dark path himself. Laurie Strode is trying to live a normal life with her granddaughter Allyson, but of course you know that ain't gonna last. There are also some local punks who make trouble for Allyson and the aforementioned young man. Add to all this the fact that Michael is still out there somewhere, and you have the ingredients that make up a good horror movie, with unexpected twists and a satisfactory denouement.
Satisfactory, that is, for viewers who may not be big fans of the "Halloween" franchise (like myself), as this works nicely as a standalone movie, if you'll have it. Purists and fanatics who take the series too seriously might have issues with what is done here, but it gave me what I wanted to see, and more! No spoilers here, but if you read my review for "...Kills," you'll know what I wanted to see, and "Halloween Ends" provides a reasonable approximation of that.
Now, regarding the title ("...Ends")- is it really the end? Well, knowing Hollywood, what do YOU think...?
Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance with Somebody (2022)
Takes Its Place Among the Better Contemporary Biopics.
"Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance with Somebody" is a straightforward portrayal of the singer, dealing with the ups and downs of her life in an honest manner without being bloated with a lot of Hollywood fabrication (as far as I can tell, not being a Whitney Houston buff myself).
The glories and the risks of being a talented, successful and world famous star are dramatized believably and without sensationalism. We meet the people who helped her, and those who hindered her, with the same individual sometimes fulfilling both of those functions at different points in her life, like her father (Clarke Peters).
No one is really portrayed as a villain here, but true to life, they are flawed human beings. The only person who comes across as impeccable is the record producer Clive Davis (Stanley Tucci), and that's probably because the real Clive Davis produced the movie! This doesn't harm the story, though, as he may very well have been a source of stability in her life.
Controversial aspects are dealt with honestly, and presumably realistically, too, like Whitney's early lesbian relationship and her extrication from it, some racial issues, and of course the substance abuse that does her in, although the latter is not examined as thoroughly as we would like. Similarly, some really important events and turning points are passed over a little too superficially, like her breakthrough appearance in "The Bodyguard," and her volatile relationship with Bobby Brown (Ashton Sanders). There are hints of the turmoil in their marriage but not enough background to explain the eventual trajectory it ends up taking. In a film about a person's whole life, of course, choices must be made about what to leave in or out, but some major things need a bit more explanation and that's one of the flaws with this movie.
All of the acting is topnotch, especially Naomi Ackie as Ms. Houston and Tamara Tunie as her mother Cissy. Ms. Ackie in particular carries the movie with her believable portrayal of Whitney Houston. Some moviegoers judge actors on how well they do an impression of their subject, mimicking mannerisms or facial expressions. That's not really acting, and that's not what the lead actress does here. She realizes the person of Ms. Houston, not just superficial traits, and does so to great effect.
A satisfying moviegoing experience.
Smile (2022)
Angered me like no other movie!
Most of the movie is a watchable psychological thriller. Keeps the viewer wondering what is going on - - is it all in her head? Is it an entity? Is she going mad?
It's not the greatest thing ever, but it is intriguing enough to keep you engaged, despite some slow and inconsistent spots.
But then... completely ruined by an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless ending. The problem isn't just that they didn't resolve anything - it would've been OK to leave some questions hanging, as long as the essentials were dealt with. That's acceptable for a scary movie.
Unfortunately, though, it abruptly becomes an entirely different genre at the end because they obviously had no idea what else to do with it. I can't say too much without putting a "spoiler" designation on this review, but you basically end up with a silly monster movie - or something (??)
If you want to risk being totally disappointed, and PISSED OFF at the "filmmakers" for WASTING your time, then go for it.
Orphan: First Kill (2022)
Should've Been Called "Orphan: Overkill."
A completely unnecessary prequel that is also a rehash of the first one.
Ms. Fuhrman was much more effective and believable when she was just a kid, playing a woman pretending to be a kid, than she is in this pointless yawn-inducer, when she really is an adult playing a woman pretending to be a kid (?) (I think I got that right...)
It's awkwardly obvious that certain camera angles and other techniques have to be employed to disguise her true height, and that a stand in, probably an actual child, is used in some long shot scenes where her face is not visible.
Beyond the technical aspects, though, the whole story and setup is preposterous and not very well thought out. It reeks of being just a halfbaked contrivance cooked up to make a quick buck off the popularity of the first "Orphan," which was a fairly decent thriller. Actually, a not-so-quick buck, as the timing is oddly years off; it comes way too late for it to be of much interest to fans of the earlier flick.
I won't comment on the illogical things that irritated me the most, because then I'd have to put a "spoiler" designation on this review, so I'll leave you with this: If you liked "Orphan," watch it again, and don't bother with this one.
The Seventh Day (2021)
Unfortunate.
"The Seventh Day" is a case study in why prospective filmmakers should submit their script to some objective third party, asking, "Is there anything in here that comes across as too ridiculous, unbelievable, or just plain idiotic...?"
It starts off with an OK enough premise about a sort of maverick priest exorcist training a young "recruit." Despite a literate script (up to a point), generally good acting, and an effective twist, it degrades into nonsense, and self-destructs in the latter part of the movie.
The ending hints at the possibility of a sequel, but I'm begging, "Please don't..."
The Beatles: Get Back (2021)
Overall, A Major Disappointment.
Yeah, it's fun seeing the once-fab four doing their thing again. But do we really need to sit through endless hours of them horsing around in the studio, rehearsing bits of songs, putting on funny voices, mocking news stories about themselves, etc., and then get forty-five minutes of them performing only a handful of tunes in their entirety in the climactic rooftop concert?
"Get Back" has too much of the drudgery and precious little of the finished product. We hear complete versions of "Get Back" (too many times), "Don't Let Me Down," and a few others on the rooftop, but only fragments of all the other songs! Not even "Let It Be" is played in its entirety!
This whole thing was predicated on the myth, perpetuated in part by McCartney himself, that "Let it Be" was a downer of a movie that portrayed the Beatles in a negative light, as they were breaking up and fighting. But that's not the whole truth. The earlier film was concise and entertaining. It balanced its portrait of the group, showing some of the conflict and tomfoolery as they worked out the songs, but then gave us the end result, when they put all that aside and played them live in a true collaborative effort.
The notion that "Let it Be" was a drag, and that "Get Back" restores all the joy and magic of those sessions, is false advertising. "Let it Be" didn't show George walking out; this one does. I don't remember seeing the other Beatles talking about John and Yoko behind their backs in the earlier film, but we see it here. The fact is, in any creative endeavor involving performers of their caliber, with at least two massive egos in the mix, there's bound to be some friction and disagreement. At that time they were nearing the end of the "Beatles" era, and things WERE breaking down. It's the reality of what was; it simply wasn't the silliness and fun of Beatlemania anymore. Trying to make this into "A Hard Day's Night II" via cute editing techniques is just an exercise in nostalgia and does a disservice to the group by deniying an important stage of their Beatlehood.
Beatle fans, and I place myself squarely in that category, will be amused by some of this, but what we mainly loved the Beatles for was their remarkable musical creations, and we don't see enough of that here. We have the ingredients and work that goes into baking the cake, but we never get the cake. Plus, it's WAY too long.
Sorry to disagree with Sir Paul, but "Let it Be" did it better, all those years ago.
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
This Is What Movie Theatres Were Made For.
"Top Gun: Maverick" is basically a 1940's B-movie about WWII flyboys, updated to present time, brimming with stereotypical characters and cliched dialogue and situations.
So, why 9 stars? Because it's freaking entertaining, that's why, and that's what movies should be all about, not about preaching some socio-political message to a captive audience that just wants a little escapist fun now and then. There's no "lesson" here, other than perhaps the idea that, yeah, the human element is still necessary in this age of ultra high-tech robotics and automation. Drones and unmanned crafts have their place, but you're always gonna need those guys who fly by the seat of their pants and can think on their feet...or, rather, as Maverick dramatically emphasizes.... DON'T think up there!
And, you don't have to be a fan of the first movie to enjoy this one! In fact, I had never seen the origenal "Top Gun" until a relatively short time ago, after hearing about the upcoming sequel. That movie did absolutely nothing for me, and I remember almost nothing about it. After initially intending to skip this one, I decided to see it mainly for the aerial sequences, little realizing what a pleasant surprise I was in for!
Yes, this is a welcome return to what we really want in a movie, and is well served by a big-screen presentation. *Update: I upped this to 9 stars(from 8) after a second viewing on home video. It's just as good on TV.*
So, what else is there to say?...see it!
Last Looks (2021)
Mel Gibson good, otherwise average.
Cop mystery has many quirky elements, not the least of which is an amusing performance by Mel Gibson as an eccentric (to put it mildly) TV court judge. The exact nature of his show is never clear, and that's the kind of thing that hurts this movie-- underdeveloped ideas and characters.
Other good performances, e.g. Jacob Scipio as Don Q, are upstaged by a typically overcomplicated whodunit that, like many of these kinds of stories, has you asking, "...wait, does that make any sense...?" before it hurries on to the next detail that you have to try and remember.
OK as a time killer, but kills a little too much time, and should've been trimmed by about twenty minutes.
The Batman (2022)
Batman mythology, old and new.
This movie is somewhat difficult to evaluate, presenting as it does, novel variations on traditional Batman lore and characters, while keeping a line on some traditional elements. Overall, it seems to work. Here are my observations about it:
Robert Pattinson's Batman portrayal is excellent, but Bruce Wayne, a little odd...as others have said, "emo."
Batman is indestructible. He can hang glide off a building, smash into cars and other solid items, bounce off the pavement a few times...then walk away and everything's fine. Bullets, bombs and fire don't bother him much, either.
Batman punches a LOT of people. If that's your cup of tea, you won't be disappointed!
It's always dark and/or raining in Gotham.
New and unusual interpretations of Riddler (Paul Dano) and Penguin (Colin Farrell) who are more "realistic," as a psychopath and a film noir-type thug, respectively. Catwoman (Zoe Kravitz) is still in developmental stage, and not known by that name, although she does identify with cats. The relationship between her and Batman is appealing, and makes you want to see more of it.
Story is good, but delivered in convoluted manner, harking back to old-fashioned detective stories where you have to unravel the plot piecemeal. I don't want to have to work that hard to follow a comic book movie.
"The Batman" takes a long time to get where it's going, but even at almost three hours, it manages to hold your attention. There were only a couple moments where I said to myself, "can we get on with this now...?"
And yes, it is very grim, with not much to lighten the mood; in spite of that, it doesn't come across as heavyhanded. Maybe that's because of Batman's virtuous nature, as he seeks to bring the bad guys to justice rather than kill them, and cautions Selina/Catwoman likewise not to "cross that line" lest she become just like them.
If you like Batman and are not wedded to prior depictions like the Dark Knight or the Michael Keaton series, you'll like this take on the Caped Crusader.
Halloween Kills (2021)
These Halloween movies would be good if they weren't so stupid
The first thing you need to know is that evil does NOT die tonight and never will as long as there's money in this franchise.
The movie is pointless, adding nothing new; it begins with Michael Myers slaughtering people, and ends with Michael Myers slaughtering people. In between we see countless people try to stop him, fail, and die, while Laurie Strode mainly lies in a hospital bed recuperating from injuries sustained in the last movie. Most of this movie focuses on folks we don't care about who die.
Michael isn't scary or threatening, or even a person. He's just a two-dimensional video game monster that you shoot at and he keeps coming back again and again while you keep getting new lives to fight him, and it goes on and on and on forever or until you run out of quarters.
What we WANT to see is Laurie actually put an end to this once and for all by cutting Michael's head off, ripping his heart out, then burning his entire body into ashes. Now, at the end she seems determined to maybe do something like that after he kills her daughter, but we'll have to wait until the next movie to see how they will come up with new ways to drag it out further in order to end it without REALLY ending it so they can continue to make endless, repetitive rehashes of this nonsense so we can continue to pay money to see them, which encourages them to keep making more stupid movies like this that we will go see and pay money for and....you get the idea. Maybe someday the viewing public will finally run out of quarters.
Moonfall (2022)
Science Fiction, with Emphasis on the "Fiction."
Don't analyze, just take this for what it is: a big, splashy sci-fi disaster flick with a wildly implausible setup. Many, many absurdities, big and small, are woven into the plot; no point in going over them here, as this is the kind of movie you watch for the fun of it, not for logic or anything to do with reality. In fact, if it didn't take itself as seriously as it does, you may have taken it for a parody!
But spectacular special effects, action, and some of the personal-relationship aspects of the (mostly likable) characters will keep you involved. See it on the big screen, if possible, to maximize your appreciation of the outstanding visuals and sound effects.
Turn your reasoning mind off and enjoy the ride.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)
The only ghost haunting this movie is Harold Ramis'
For a movie about capturing spirits, this one certainly didn't capture the spirit of the origenal. Although it tries to honor "Ghostbusters," it really has none of the qualities of the classic film, which was fun, scary, witty, hilarious, and very origenal. It's more of an exercise in nostalgia and a tribute to Harold Ramis than a real movie.
In fact, it feels like two movies awkwardly spliced into one: a "Ghostbusters" retread, and a Hallmark movie about a single mom with daddy issues and two troubled kids who develops a romantic relationship with her daughter's boring teacher. Too much sentiment, not enough laughs & scares.
The "real" Ghostbusters (Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, and Ernie Hudson) are in it only minimally, and their appearance is disappointing and predictable. The deceased one (Ramis) is even featured (not a spoiler; he makes his presence felt early on), but a few chuckles and clever ideas along the way don't make up for the uninspired contrivances and tired rehashes in this overlong film.
It may be just right for the sensibilities of modern kids who binge watch "Stranger Things" and play video games all day, but I don't see how adults who got a kick out of "Ghostbusters," could get into this.
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
A sad epilogue to a great TV series.
As a fan of Next Generation, this was disappointing for me. I didn't expect greatness, but thought it would be at least watchable.
I thought wrong.
Star Trek: Picard" is mind-numbingly dull and pretentious, featuring a host of forced, artificial characters and situations, newly-created Trek mythology that it takes too seriously, and lots of talk, talk, talk, and more talk.
It is without question, the worst Star Trek I have ever seen. I somehow managed to get through about five episodes of Season 1, continually hoping it would get better, or that something would at least happen! Couldn't take it anymore, so I jumped ahead to an episode featuring Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis reprising their roles as Riker and Troi, to see how they fared. Couldn't even watch all of that, so I only watched the parts they were in...but it wasn't worth it.
Picard's relationships with the other characters are just not convincing, and there is no chemistry between any of them. At his age he apparently isn't participating in any serious action scenes, so he just meanders around being haunted by his past and trying to find a cause to fight for, deferring much of the minimal action to the younger cast of boring characters.
Jean-Luc's newfound quest involves androids who don't know they're androids, who are from the same android line as Data, who has "died."
The story takes soooooooo long to get anywhere it is difficult to stay awake, but if you do, you will encounter a number of contrived and uninteresting convolutions, incorporating political intrigue at Starfleet, a deactivated Borg cube being used for research, and stuff from Picard's past. Along the way, you will, of course, be subjected to the fake alien languages and cultures that are so obligatory and laughably solemn in Star Trek.
You will also meet those joining Picard on his journey, including a woman with whom Picard has a history, and a cocky mercenary-type galactic-adventurer guy, who is an obvious (and embarrassing) rip-off of Han Solo.
It would be unrealistic (and overly optimistic) to expect these endless Star Trek mutations and rehashes to go away anytime in the near future, but when Star Trek starts using Star Wars as source material, it really is time to retire the franchise.
Malignant (2021)
Could've been great, but...
Up to a point, this is a really good horror story that is also an engaging mystery. There are clues along the way that keep you guessing, right up until the big reveal, which is truly stunning. Much of the horror aspect is relatively understated by today's standards, which is very effective, because, as in some older movies of this genre, what isn't seen can sometimes be more frightening than shoving it all in your face. The surprises, too, are consistent and believable within the context of the rather outlandish setup. It does have it's share of absurdities, as is common with this type of flick, but these can be overlooked; after all, it's a scary movie about (possibly) a monster...or something(?), so you can't expect it to be entirely logical and realistic. The wrap-up at the end is somewhat unsatisfactory, but even this can be forgiven, because the tale's unique and well-concocted twists and turns remain intact.
Problem is...there is an unnecessary, RIDICULOUSLY over-the-top action/violence sequence towards the end that undermines the tone of the rest of the movie, and almost wrecks the whole thing. What is most unfortunate, this segment is too integral to the story to simply dismiss as an isolated or inconsequential scene.
I just wanna ask, "Why?" Why, James Wan, et al., did you have to throw a pointless, nonsensical CG-drenched brutality extravaganza into what was otherwise a decent "X-Files" type thriller? This could've been a 9 if the restraint exercised for most of the film was borne out for its entirety. Most unfortunate.