The Fantastic Four: First Steps (Movie Review)

Phase Six of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is officially underway, except you'd be forgiven for not even realizing that transition, given how all over the place the prior two phases of its so-called Multiverse Saga have been. But with the promise of two new Avengers movies on the horizon, the time is nigh, nigh I say, for all that chaos to finally coalesce into something meaningful. So does The Fantastic Four: First Steps signal that nexus point, or is the Multiverse Saga well past salvaging?

Set in a parallel universe, the film centers upon the titular Fantastic Four, the primary protectors of Earth-828, whose members include The Thing (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), Human Torch (Joseph Quinn), Invisible Woman (Vanessa Kirby), and Mr. Fantastic himself (Pedro Pascal). It's been four years since they were first exposed to the cosmic radiation that imbued them with their abilities, and they have since grown to attain celebrity status for their heroic deeds. But when the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) arrives on their Earth with news of its impending doom at the hands of Galactus (Ralph Ineson), the First Family will have to find a way to save all of humanity or watch everything and everyone they love get devoured.

As the MCU steamrolls its way towards the next big Avengers team-up, it is clear that the days of an intricately-plotted overarching narrative spanning several movies are well behind us. Nowhere is that more evident than in its latest entry, because of all the movies we've gotten in the franchise recently, The Fantastic Four: First Steps feels like the most self-contained. This itself is not an inherently bad thing, as it allows newcomers to jump in without the fear of needing to do some catching up first, while the rest of us can look forward to how it eventually ties into what came before. 

But when we are this late in the cinematic universe-building game, it feels somewhat odd to be introducing new characters and teams rather than fleshing out existing ones, especially considering all the dangling plot threads that are yet to be addressed. In any case, the First Family aren't exactly newcomers to the comic book movie scene. So after four prior attempts to adapt the Fantastic Four into live-action, I am pleased to say that this latest one is easily the best one yet. I know the bar for quality within the series isn't particularly high, but bear with me here.

The first thing that sets this adaptation apart from the others is its retro-futuristic aesthetic. Matt Shakman proves once again that he can handle period-specific settings like the one he brought to life in WandaVision. I loved the 1960s-inspired look of his film, with the various sets and costumes going a long way to sell that vision. This extends to the visual effects seen throughout the movie, as it makes use of a wide array of practical effects, which further help ground its action scenes in reality. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the rousing score by Michael Giacchino. The music in the film slowly grew on me as the movie progressed, twisting and morphing to fit the tone and mood of the onscreen action when needed.

But what I loved about the movie the most was the Fantastic Four themselves. There was definitely a lot of great chemistry between the cast members. I really enjoyed the playful banter between Johnny and Ben, and even though I had some reservations about Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, especially since we just had John Krasinski in the role, he ultimately won me over with his performance. Each member of the team also gets to showcase their abilities in the movie's various action setpieces, especially Sue, who one might argue was the actual lead. And depending on who you ask, that could either be considered a pro or a con.

Speaking of cons, the biggest one I had walking out of the movie has to do with its connection to the wider MCU. Because aside from a post-credits scene that promises the return of the Fantastic Four in Avengers: Doomsday, the movie doesn't offer much in the way of connective tissue to that film, or its follow-up, Avengers: Secret Wars. Even worse, it doesn't shed light on the end-credits scene from Thunderbolts either, despite both stingers being directed by the directors of those forthcoming Avengers films, the Russo Brothers. 

This tells me that the script for the film was finalized well before the pivot away from Kang's Dynasty, and that these recent post-credits scenes were basically tacked on to their respective movies after the fact, without any real consideration for anything that came before them, and the most tenuous of connections with what is to come next. This is a shame and particularly frustrating for anyone who has been following along with the hope that the scattered events of the last two phases would receive any kind of payoff.

As such, we are still none the wiser about Robert Downey Jr.'s Doctor Doom, nor do we know how he is going to fit into the overall narrative. Yes, I realize these questions would most likely get answered during Avengers: Doomsday, but it still feels rather odd to have little in the way of a proper primer, heading into that film. By this same point in Phase Three, we'd already been introduced to Thanos and given a taste of the threat he posed. But right now, there is barely enough to get us excited for Doomsday and Secret Wars, the way we were all excited heading into Avengers: Infinity War, beyond the prospect of seeing RDJ back in the MCU.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is another step in the right direction. But where it stumbles is in its inability or downright unwillingness to pave the way for Avengers: Doomsday. The little tease we got here felt superficial at best and somewhat predictable and ultimately inconsequential at worst. I guess time will tell just how much it is going to factor into the events of that film. Taken as a standalone, though, the movie offers the kind of joyous wonder the superhero genre is known for, and that the MCU definitely needs more of. 

Superman (Movie Review)

Comic book movies have come a long way since Richard Donner's Superman first wowed moviegoers in 1978. But ask any long-time superhero film fan today, and they would most likely decry the lack of that same wow factor in recent films. Still, if there's one director who has consistently delivered spectacular superhero movies, then it is surely James Gunn, with Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad being regarded among the genre's upper echelon. So does his take on Superman breathe new life into the superhero genre, or are we truly within the cold, hard grasp of superhero fatigue?

Shortly after single-handedly stopping an invasion between two warring nations, the titular Superman (David Corenswet) is forced to deal with the consequences of his actions as the US government begins to question his ability to act with impunity. Meanwhile, his archnemesis, Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), devises a plan to further hurt his reputation, which involves infiltrating his base at the Fortress of Solitude in a bid to gather some dirt. And with his hands already full trying to keep the city of Metropolis safe, Superman would need all the help he can get before he gets grounded for good. 

From the moment it was announced that the DC Extended Universe had come to an unceremonious end, many had wondered what the new vision for its specific pantheon of comic book heroes and villains would look like. After all, we were just coming off several years' worth of movies that made up the DCEU, including the three that comprise what is colloquially known as the Snyderverse. And as a self-proclaimed Zack Snyder fan myself, it was a bit sad to see that director's plans for the DCEU peter out the way they did. I guess his more somber take on the superhero mythos didn't resonate with enough people to make its continued pursuit commercially viable.

So enter James Gunn, with his quirky sensibilities and affinity for needle drops, and the first thing that immediately leaps off the screen in the first film of his newly-minted DC Universe, Superman, are the vibrant colors. Gone are the dull, muted tones of the Snyderverse, replaced instead with a full rainbow's worth of reds, greens, and blues. That vibrancy extends beyond just the color palette, as it also permeates the feel of the movie. There is no other way to say this, but the humor in it is quite goofy, so those looking for something more serious might find the jokes a bit grating.

Thankfully, I was onboard for all of it, especially the meta humor, of which there was plenty, and I had a smile on my face for most of the movie's 130-minute runtime. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who enjoyed James Gunn's work on the Guardians of the Galaxy films, though, as he once again proves that he can deftly balance between the gags and the heavier subject matters his stories demand. And while the movie does have some political undercurrents like some have feared, it never truly approaches the realm of full-on political commentary and I didn't find it particularly preachy or one-sided. 

As for the new Superman himself, David Corenswet, he definitely gave a performance that channels the charm and overall campiness of those Christopher Reeve Superman films, although I can definitely see how some might take issue with his perceived ineptitude in the film. The other actors also successfully imbue their characters with that same energy, but the true standouts were Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor; the former's dry humor often had me in stitches while Lex was just gloriously over-the-top. 

The area where Superman truly excels, though, is in its action sequences. Each setpiece in the movie was appropriately grand and wildly kinetic, showcasing the full gamut of superpowers at our heroes' disposal. Not since Zack Snyder's own work on films like 300 and Watchmen have the panels of a comic book been so faithfully brought to life on the big screen, calling to mind the sense of scale and excesses of the Silver Age era of comic books it is clearly drawing inspiration from. I say all that to implore you to watch this film in a theater with a screen big enough to soak it all in.

In terms of how well the movie sets up the new DC Universe, I'd say it does an admirable job. I appreciated the decision to start the story right dab in the middle with a world already populated by metahumans and Superman himself already three years into his tenure as Protector of Metropolis. This negates the need to spend time setting up the universe, and we instead get to learn about the characters as we go. And while some of those characters didn't get nearly enough screen time or character development, I still look forward to seeing them wherever they pop up next. This is doubly so for Krypto, who was the real MVP in my opinion.

Superman is precisely what every comic book movie should aspire to be. It delivers all the thrills and spectacle the genre is known for, but never at the expense of a story filled with hope and smile-inducing moments of tenderness. With this, James Gunn has shown that DC Studios is in more than capable hands and that the DCU is certainly off to a rock-solid start. So my hope going forward is that his movie finds all the success it deserves, to the disappointment of those who would want to see it do otherwise, and that he continues to steer the ship in a worthwhile direction.

28 Years Later (Movie Review)

If there ever was a case for why it was important to craft strong, compelling movie trailers, then surely it was made by the one for 28 Years Later. Easily one of the best trailers I've seen in years, it masterfully struck that delicate balance between showing just enough to entice prospective viewers without giving too much away. It evoked in me a sense of dread and tension that immediately had me on the edge of my seat, effectively taking a film that I was mildly interested in at best and making it one of my most anticipated of the year. But does the movie itself live up to that promise, or was it perhaps oversold by that trailer?

As the movie's title suggests, the film is set 28 years after the outbreak of the Rage virus, a zombielike infection that has since been confined to Great Britain. It follows the coming-of-age story of a young boy named Spike (Alfie Williams), who lives with his father (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and mother (Jodie Comer) on the secluded island of Lindisfarne. As a rite of passage, he must accompany his father to the mainland in an effort to hone his hunting skills. But as they quickly grow to discover, the infected have taken on a few new skills of their own. Now they must both struggle to survive against increasingly stacked odds.

Ask any fan of zombie films, and they would most likely cite 28 Days Later as one of the most influential movies of that specific horror subgenre. Not only did the movie introduce concepts like fast, agile zombies, but it also managed to elevate the genre and post-apocalyptic fiction in general, with a story that focused more on character development than cheap kills or jump scares. And while its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, had opted to take things in a more action-oriented direction, with effects-laden setpieces and no shortage of gory kills, many still consider it a worthwhile follow-up.

So heading into 28 Years Later, I was hoping for something that landed somewhere between those two extremes. And to an extent, that is precisely what the movie delivers. Both Alex Garland and Danny Boyle return to write and direct the film, respectively, so one would expect a certain level of gravitas to the screenplay and direction from filmmakers of their caliber, except the amount of suspension of disbelief required to make sense of certain developments within the story is off the charts. I unfortunately can't get into specifics without going into spoilers, but suffice it to say that this is the one area of the film I felt they kinda dropped the ball.

Thankfully, nearly everything else about the movie is several notches above the standard horror fare or very nearly flawless. The movie is often striking to look at, with the beautiful scenery of its lush, green countryside setting often juxtaposed against the horrors of the infected inhabiting it. Danny Boyle often makes use of surrealist imagery in the movie, creating a dreamscape of light and color that is always mesmerizing, regardless of what is being depicted. One shot in particular that had our two leads being chased by the infected as the aurora borealis blares in the night sky remains seared in my memory even now.

Speaking of the infected, they are as much the stars of this particular enterprise as our would-be heroes, and we get to see just how much they've evolved since the early days of the outbreak. We now have several variants, none of which I would spoil here, and each is as deadly as ever. Gorehounds will be pleased to learn that the film never shies away from showing all the gory details. Ever wondered what it would be like to watch a bunch of soldiers get beaten to death with the severed head of one of their comrades? Well, now you know, because that is just one example of the kind of extreme violence on display. 

Admittedly, the herky-jerky editing employed by the film to show that violence did take some getting used to. It calls to mind Danny Boyle's earlier movies like Trainspotting, so fans of that specific style of adrenaline-fueled storytelling will have plenty to love about this one. The film also employed some rather cool tricks with its cinematography, using a grid of smartphone cameras to capture certain shots in an effect akin to the one employed in The Matrix to create its bullet time sequences. The overall result is a movie that demands to be seen on the big screen, assuming you have the stomach for it.

28 Years Later is a glorious gorefest that is just as bloody as it is visually stunning. Its ending does pull a bit of a fast one on viewers, though, which many might find cheap or unsatisfying. I mean, it is one thing for a film to end with a last-minute stinger, like 28 Weeks Later did, but another thing entirely to end on a full-on cliffhanger. I guess we will just have to wait till next year for its sequel, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, to find out what all that is about. But for now, the film we got certainly lived up to all my expectations, and it managed to leave a big smile on this often-jaded moviegoer's face.

Predator: Killer of Killers (Movie Review)

Despite a string of entries and crossovers of varying or downright questionable quality, the Predator franchise has remained quite resilient over the years. But for many fans, it didn't really enjoy the resurgence it deserved until its brilliant 2022 entry, Prey. So when it was revealed that we would be getting two new Predator movies in 2025, the hope was that those movies wouldn't end up squandering that goodwill. But is the first of those two movies, Predator: Killer of Killers, a worthy follow-up to Prey, or is it merely a stopgap before the main event that is Predator: Badlands?

The film has Dan Trachtenberg returning to direct what is effectively an animated anthology. Set across three distinct time periods, each story introduces a new protagonist and their experiences as they come face to face with the Hunters of the Yautja (or Predators as they are more popularly known). But like any good anthology, there is an overarching narrative that ties all three stories together, all while also tying into the world and narrative as already established in the prior films of the larger Predator franchise.

The first thing that stood out about Predator: Killer of Killers is its unique animation style. Reminiscent of Arcane, it occupies that same space between CG and hand-painted, giving the characters an expressive quality and their actions a cinematic flair. The reduced framerate did lend the animation a choppy feel, though, except I quickly became accustomed to this, and it ultimately never got in the way of my enjoyment of the movie.

This is because I was immediately invested in each character and engrossed by the narrative of their story. My favorite by far is the one with two brothers with a score to settle. It delivers all the beats and spectacle one would expect from a Predator film, set against the backdrop of feudal Japan, during the age of ninjas and samurai. And as I would imagine, it should satisfy the hunger of all those fans that have been clamoring for just such a setting following the one seen in Prey. 

One of the advantages of animation over live action is how it allows the filmmakers to truly push the boundaries, and Predator: Killer of Killers definitely made good use of that fact. The action scenes were spectacularly staged, with over-the-top stunts that strictly adhere to the rule of cool and nothing else, from the copious amounts of blood and gore to the implausible setpieces themselves. Thankfully, none of it felt too gratuitous, despite what the trailers had led me to believe.  

The only truly critical thing I can point out about Predator: Killer of Killers is its relative brevity. The film is about an hour and thirty minutes long, which is pretty standard for a film of this kind and the franchise in general. But considering it explores three stories that felt like they could've been fleshed out into full movies in their own right, that time doesn't seem nearly long enough to spend with the characters and their worlds. But I guess this itself is a testament to just how great the stories were, the fact that I didn't want them to end so soon. 

Predator: Killer of Killers is all shades of awesome. The movie lives up to the high bar set by Prey, even managing to surpass it in certain regards. It is clear, now more than ever, that Dan Trachtenberg understands the appeal of these Predator movies, and his take on the IP continues to breathe new life into it. So while it remains to be seen whether or not Predator: Badlands would be able to keep the momentum going, I can at least say that I am now even more excited for that movie than I was heading into this one.

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (Movie Review)

It's been nearly three decades since Tom Cruise first donned the mask of IMF agent, Ethan Hunt. And if, for some reason, you'd forgotten about most of his past exploits, you can rest assured that Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning would remind you of them at every given opportunity. It is not only the eighth entry in the long-running series, but the conclusion to the two-part story arc introduced in Dead Reckoning - Part One. But is the film the culmination of the entire franchise as it was marketed, or is it merely leaning on nostalgia to help sell some tickets? 

Set after the events of Dead Reckoning, the movie has Ethan (Tom Cruise) and the rest of his band of IMF agents once again on the trail of the rogue AI known as the Entity. Ever since their failure to contain it in the last film, the world has fallen into chaos and is on the verge of full-scale nuclear war. In order to stop this, they must seek the help of friend and foe alike. But with the odds stacked against them like never before, they will have to live up to the name of their unit as they struggle to complete their most impossible mission yet.

When it was first revealed that the seventh Mission: Impossible movie was the first of two parts, many were undoubtedly skeptical about having to wait an additional year or two before they would get the complete story. And following the muted box office reception of the first of those two parts, the fate of that second one seemed all but sealed. But if there's any actor who has earned enough goodwill to forgive an occasional underperformer, then it is certainly Tom Cruise.

And so the second part had gone ahead as planned, with only a minor changing of its title to The Final Reckoning being the clear concession to that original vision. This was no doubt done to make the movie pass itself off as a standalone feature. But don't be fooled into thinking that knowledge of the previous film isn't required to make sense of this one. I'd even go a step further and say that basic knowledge of all the movies in the franchise is a requirement. 

Thankfully, the filmmakers themselves seemed to know this, which is why they'd included numerous flashbacks to help give context to what was happening and how it related to what came before. This was particularly necessary because of how intricately connected the various plot threads and characters were, weaving a complex web of a story that stretched all the way back to the 1996 original. But for all of its complexities and various twists and turns, I was still able to follow along without too much hassle, and I imagine most others would as well.

One downside of that complex plot is how exposition-heavy it made the dialogue. So expect to hear more than a few characters launch into paragraphs worth of background information. The story itself is also what I would consider far-fetched and over-the-top, especially how we are meant to believe that entire nations could be so easily played like pawns by AI. Yes, I realize the irony of that statement considering how social media algorithms currently shape the beliefs and values of people in societies today, but seeing it on this scale, as depicted in this movie, just felt too far from reality in my opinion.

But aside from a story filled with twists and turns, the things these Mission: Impossible movies are perhaps best known for are the various action setpieces. And I think that The Final Reckoning delivers some of the more creative ones seen in the franchise thus far. The knowledge that Tom Cruise usually performs as much of these stunt sequences as is physically possible only adds to the thrill. So I found myself holding my breath while watching him dangling precariously from the flimsy frame of a biplane.

The one stunt that held me on the edge of my seat the longest, though, was a prolonged setpiece set in the bowels of a sunken submarine. Everything from the way the scene was lit, to the shifting orientations, to the ratcheting stakes as everything that could go wrong did, just had me in awe, as I wondered what was accomplished practically and what was done using CG. The sequence is certainly up there with the HALO jump from Fallout as one of the most awe-inspiring scenes in the franchise, and is another benchmark for action setpieces in general.

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning is a thrilling conclusion to Dead Reckoning - Part One that also works as a potential coda to the Tom Cruise era of the franchise. It is hard to say what the future holds for the IP but I imagine a lot of that hinges on how well this current movie does at the box office. And while there is no denying that the movie lays it thick with the member berries, with frequent flashbacks and callbacks to previous movies, it at least does so with the requisite amount of care and respect for those older films. 

Thunderbolts* (Movie Review)

The MCU is back, baby! Or at least that's what you'd be led to believe, going off of the buzz from those early Thunderbolts screenings. But being the skeptic that I am, I still had doubts the film could possibly right the ship for a franchise that seems to keep careening off course with every other entry. And it was with that same skepticism that I ultimately went into Thunderbolts, cautiously optimistic and hoping to be won over. So, is the MCU truly back on track, or is this merely another sign of greater things to come?

The film features a ragtag team of antiheroes, some of whom might be recognizable if you've been keeping up with the MCU over the years. But in the quite likely scenario that you haven't, the team is comprised of Bucky (Sebastian Stan), Yelena (Florence Pugh), Red Guardian (David Harbour), John Walker (Wyatt Russell), Taskmaster (Olga Kurylenko), and Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen). Each one is a secret operative working for the director of the CIA, Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus). But when her shady operations give rise to a new threat, the eponymous Thunderbolts are forced to work together for a shot at redemption.

As Phase 5 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe winds to a close, concerns for what is to come next are understandably high. After all, we've been promised two new Avengers movies in the form of Doomsday and Secret Wars, and we've gotten very little indication of what those films could be about within the MCU itself. So it is indeed high time we start to see the results of all those behind-the-scenes shakeups following the pivot away from Kang's Dynasty and the announced return of Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom.

This is why I felt that Thunderbolts had its work cut out for it. But coming out of the movie, my initial reaction was perhaps more muted than I would have anticipated. This is not to say that the movie was not entertaining in its own right, or that it didn't deliver on the promise of its trailers. Far from it. In fact, it is easy to see why those early reactions were as gassed up as they were and how many would consider this a return to the glory days of the MCU. So while I did come out of it pleased overall, I still felt like it didn't hit as hard as I wanted. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In terms of the things that I liked, I really appreciated the fact that the film does what those early MCU films managed to do so well, namely, building off of what came before while also building towards what's to come next. Gone are the frustrations from disconnected events like the ones that made up a large part of Phase 4. This film, by contrast, feels like a logical follow-up to the events of Captain America: Brave New World, with more than a few references to that other movie, while also laying the groundwork for what we can expect in Phase 6.

I also like that the stupid asterisk at the end of the film's name is finally explained, although you'll have to wait till the very end of the movie for that explanation. But how you feel about that revelation probably hinges on how much faith you have in Marvel Studios and their ability to honor any drastic changes to the direction of the franchise beyond the confines of this particular movie. The skeptic in me suspects they wouldn't, at least not for very long, and a huge reset is probably already planned to bring things back to status quo.

I know I'm being a bit cagey with details here, but trust me, you'll know what I mean once you see the film. One thing I can reveal, though, is my thoughts on the story. The plot was fairly predictable, especially if you're the type who watches every single trailer. Some of it was also a bit too heavy-handed for my tastes, especially when characters act in contrived and uncharacteristic ways. It did offer a good blend between the usual MCU humor and some deeper adult themes, exploring mental health and how to overcome past traumas in ways you typically don't see in a superhero movie.

The problem is, I was quickly turned off by how overly sentimental and on-the-nose the handling of those themes got. It felt like something out of a Pixar animated movie, and I don't mean that in a good way. But your mileage may very well vary, and I still have to give the writers kudos for eschewing the typical third-act superhero slugfest for something more emotionally resonant, although how much of that was purely out of necessity, given the power discrepancies between our heroes and the threat at hand, is anyone's guess.

But perhaps my biggest issue with Thunderbolts was just how safe the whole thing felt. A part of me can't help but wonder what a movie like this would've looked like in the hands of a writer or director like James Gunn, with his knack for fleshing out and elevating B and C-tier characters, as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad. But in the absence of a James Gunn, it falls to reason that this is perhaps the next best thing, given the dire state of the overall MCU in recent years. And when I view things through that particular lens, the more I grow to appreciate the movie we got for the things it got right.

Thunderbolts is the soft reboot that the MCU desperately needs. The movie doesn't so much act as a course correction as it does a full-on retooling, and for the first time in a long time, it actually looks like the franchise is building up to something worthwhile. It remains to be seen how great that destination will turn out to be, but in the here and now, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't just a little more excited for what the future holds than I was before seeing the movie. So even though I still feel we are far away from Avengers: Endgame levels of hype, this is certainly another pivotal step in the right direction.

Sinners (Movie Review)

We are barely four months into 2025 and we are already getting phrases like "best movie of the year" thrown around. I am of course referring to the new Ryan Coogler horror film, Sinners, which initially landed on Rotten Tomatoes with a perfect 100% score and has since sparked early discussion about the film's Oscar prospects. So despite no prior plans to watch this one in theaters, I knew I had to see for myself what the hype was about. But is the film as good as that score might suggest, or is this another case of overinflated praise?

The film stars Michael B. Jordan in the dual role of twin gangsters, Smoke and Stack. The year is 1932 and the two brothers have just returned to their hometown in Mississippi, where they intend to open a juke joint with some of their accumulated wealth and loot. But on the opening night of their new establishment, their lives and those of their patrons become threatened when the place attracts the attention of a trio of vampires. Now they must fight to survive until sunrise or risk getting turned into vampires themselves.

If the above synopsis sounds familiar, it is probably because you've seen the 1996 film, From Dusk till Dawn. At least that was the first movie that came to mind as I watched the events in Sinners unfold. After all, both films feature a pair of criminals struggling to fight off a group of vampires in a bar of sorts. But for a movie that appears to ape a large portion of its premise, I was still impressed by what this one was able to accomplish within the confines of that framework.

The first thing that stood out to me about Sinners was just how great the cinematography looks. The movie is beautifully shot, showcasing the striking scenery that makes up most of its Jim Crow-era American South, with its sweeping vistas of cotton fields and old, dusty roads. Equally deserving of praise is the production and costume design on display, both of which were uniformly excellent and serve to immerse you in its surrealist vision.

Music also plays a huge role in the film, with a soaring soundtrack and score by Ludwig Göransson that used everything from banjos to electric guitars. And the way the music blended with the visuals further helped sell that surreal, otherworldly quality the filmmaker was clearly going for. Each song in the movie was a standout performance that wouldn't have been out of place in a full-blown musical, so you'll definitely want to see it on the biggest screen possible and hear those songs booming in full surround sound speakers.

On the acting front, the decision to have Michael B. Jordan in dual roles thankfully never got in the way of either performance. I never had trouble telling which twin brother was which, as each one was distinct enough in look and mannerism that I quickly forgot there weren't, in fact, two distinct actors playing the parts. But I do have to say that I had issues with the dialogue.

I initially had trouble picking up some words or phrases, owing to the thick southern accents the actors adopted for their roles. The biggest offender by far was Delroy Lindo, who was incidentally my favorite character, as he supplied most of the comic relief in the movie, which only further exacerbated my frustrations with the lack of subtitles. But the strength of his performance and those of the other actors still managed to shine through.

The true star of the show, though, was Ryan Coogler. Ever since his work on Fruitvale Station, he has continued to showcase his growing talents as a director. And while I still think he didn't exactly put his best foot forward in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, he is certainly firing on all cylinders here, making this a pretty solid return to form. I wouldn't go as far as to call it his magnum opus, like some might, but it is certainly up there with the first Black Panther movie.

One area of Sinners that I think some viewers might take issue with is its pacing. It takes a while before the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan, with the first half of the movie's two-hours-and-seventeen-minutes runtime being spent introducing the characters and setting the stage for that bloodletting. Some of the CGI used for the blood and gore effects also seemed too cartoonish, marring what is an otherwise well-put-together package.

I also found the ending a tad too over-the-top for my liking, veering into full-on torture porn territory for the sake of garnering some cheap cheers. But if you are someone who enjoys a good revenge story, then perhaps there's plenty of satisfaction to be had there. Either way, you'll definitely want to stick around for the credits because there's a hefty mid-credit scene that effectively serves as the film's epilogue, so don't say you weren't warned.

Sinners delivers on its promise of a bloody good time. But even more than that, it manages to transcend the trappings of the horror genre by offering a unique take within its familiar sandbox. Most of that is driven by Ryan Coogler's singular vision, which shines through with a kind of clarity seldom seen in Hollywood today. So even though it might not be his best work, it is still a must-see for any horror fans looking to satisfy their bloodlust.

Mickey 17 (Movie Review)

Heading into 2025, the film at the top of my most anticipated movies list was Mickey 17, the latest flick from acclaimed South Korean filmmaker, Bong Joon-ho. This was primarily because the director has consistently delivered some of my favorite movies over the course of the past decade. So coming off his Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture wins at the Oscars for his 2019 film, Parasite, a lot of us fans were eager to see what he was cooking up next. But does his newest film live up to expectations or is it a rare stinker in an otherwise impeccable filmography?

Set in the distant future, the movie follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattison), a down-on-his-luck man who enlists to join a group of interplanetary colonizers as an expendable. As the job title suggests, he is basically considered fodder for all of the colony's dangerous missions and experiments. The catch is that each time he dies, a clone of his gets reprinted with all of his memories intact. But when they prematurely print out an extra clone, the titular Mickey 17 must contend with his new, more aggressive self, as well as the chaos surrounding the development.

At first glance, Mickey 17 appears to be nothing more than a rethread of the brilliant 2009 science fiction movie, Moon. After all, both movies feature a setup where a man is engaged in dangerous work off-world, and what happens to that man when he inadvertently meets a carbon copy of himself. But in truth, that is where the similarities end because Mickey 17 grapples with even more themes beyond the questionable ethics of human cloning.

Fans of Bong Joon-ho's other works would no doubt spot recurring motifs like a rebuke of the mistreatment of animals (Okja) or the widening divide between the haves and the have-nots (Snowpiercer). There were likewise allusions made to the modern-day political landscape, which served as an overall critique of the politicians themselves as well as the role the media plays in helping peddle their propaganda. But it is ultimately left to the viewer to draw out whatever message they happen to find most resonant, so I wouldn't be surprised if others picked up on even more themes.

Speaking of politicians, it wouldn't be a Bong Joon-ho production if we didn't get a cast filled with oddball characters. We of course had Tilda Swinton's Minister Mason in Snowpiercer, as well as Jake Gyllenhaal's Johnny Wilcox in Okja. And here, the one that would no doubt have people buzzing is Mark Ruffallo's turn as Kenneth Marshall, a performance that is so shamelessly derivative of Donald Trump, specifically his speech and mannerisms, that it might as well have been an SNL sketch. 

To be clear, I have no issue with parody in films, nor do I particularly care which politicians a filmmaker or actor chooses to ridicule in their movies. But when those jokes are this on-the-nose or heavy-handed, it is hard to find them to be anything other than distasteful. One joke in particular that took shots at Kenneth Marshall's failed attempts at getting elected didn't particularly age well, given the outcome of the last US elections, so you've got to wonder why it wasn't simply taken out of the film in light of that.

Thankfully, most of the other jokes and gags in the movie managed to land just fine without resorting to cheap, below-the-belt theatrics. Similarly, the other actors gave adequate performances, including Robert Pattison who showcased his broad range and great comedic timing as the various Mickeys. It also helps that the film looks great and is competently shot and edited, allowing for a relatively smooth viewing experience that never started to drag or overstay its welcome.

Mickey 17 is a funny and thought-provoking take on a well-worn science fiction trope. It could also be considered a political satire, although how much enjoyment you glean out of its gags probably hinges on what side of the political aisle you happen to fall. Bong Joon-ho has already shown that he has a deft handling of how to craft strong, resonant social commentary and there's certainly plenty of that to be had here. So while it might not be his strongest outing, Mickey 17 is nonetheless another essential watch for fans of his previous work.

Captain America: Brave New World (Movie Review)

After scaling things back in 2024, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is back with full force this year. I mean, you only need to take a look at its packed slate to see just how much content will be coming out of its production pipeline. And out of all those movies and TV shows, Captain America: Brave New World is among the most hotly anticipated by fans. But is the movie the return to form the franchise desperately needs, or is it yet another misstep in a long string of false starts?

Set 3 years after the events of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, the film finds Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) well into his tenure as Captain America. But more notably, it picks up with Thaddeus Ross (now played by Harrison Ford) after his first hundred days as President of the United States. The president tasks Cap with rebuilding the Avengers, except those plans are put on hold following an assassination attempt. Both men are soon embroiled in a brewing global conflict, the outcome of which could very well shape the future of the world at large.

As a diehard MCU fan, I must admit that it was hard for me to muster any kind of excitement heading into Captain America: Brave New World. This was of course due to just how many times I'd been burnt already by the near-total slop Marvel Studios has been serving up of late. Because for every Deadpool & Wolverine or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, there seemed to be no shortage of Secret Invasions or She-Hulks. 

Then there was of course the news of the film having to be rejigged well into production, resulting in extensive reshoots. Such things are never a good sign, even though they don't necessarily spell doom for the film's critical and financial prospects either. So even though my expectations were as low as they could get, I still mustered enough cautious optimism to drag myself to the nearest movie theater, hoping for something at least half-decent. And in some respects, the movie delivers just that. 

Starting off with the positives, I was really happy to see some of the story threads introduced in movies like Eternals finally starting to pay off, with one of that movie's celestials serving as a central plot device in this one. In other words, the MCU is starting to feel like the MCU again, with what some might consider a good showing of some of the interconnected storylines fans have come to expect from the franchise.

Then there were the action scenes and the visuals that helped bring them to life. I was especially enamored by the climax, which had all the pyrotechnics one could hope for in the third act of a superhero movie. A lot of it was pure eye candy, for sure, and eagled-eyed viewers might even spot a few instances of egregious green effects here and there. But overall, I was pleased and appropriately thrilled by what was on display.

What I found less thrilling though was the film's hodgepodge storyline which was filled with plot contrivances and driven by yet another lackluster villain. I won't spoil who it was but I doubt anyone other than the film's writers would find the villain in question compelling. The same could be said about most of the supporting cast, who range from your stereotypical girl boss to the overexcited sidekick. These are archetypes we've seen a lot in the MCU already, and these ones bring nothing new to the table.

But I think perhaps my biggest grievance with the movie is just how criminally underutilized Giancarlo Esposito was. He barely got enough screen time to showcase his talents and the little time that he did get was let down by the cobbled-together storyline. The actor has already proven himself more than capable of portraying iconic villains in shows like Breaking Bad so I was disappointed that he didn't get to tap into any of that here. His inclusion felt like an afterthought or like a product of those extensive reshoots.

Captain America: Brave New World is another middle-of-the-road entry into the MCU that would have you pining for the good old days. Sure, its story might alternate between implausible and just plain dumb, but at least it is the fun kind of dumb, not the sludge that has been passing for entertainment with alarming frequency of late. And sometimes, that's all it takes to set itself apart or earn a reluctant recommendation.

Gladiator 2 (Movie Review)

After what has felt like a lifetime in development hell, we finally have a sequel to the largely beloved historical epic, Gladiator. Released in 2000, that film had wowed critics and general audiences alike, effectively raising the bar for all subsequent sword-and-sandal movies from that era. This might help explain the degree of skepticism I had heading into Gladiator 2, especially considering how long it has been since I first heard Russell Crowe's Maximus ask us, "Are you not entertained?" But is the new film worth the wait or has it come 20-odd years too late?

The film begins with a stylized opening credit sequence that recaps the events of the first movie. And much like that film, it quickly segues into a large-scale battle showing the Roman army amidst their latest conquest. Except here the invasion takes place over the sea and they are led by Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), a seasoned general that has grown weary of the Roman empire's endless expansion. On the receiving end of the crushing defeat is a grown-up Lucius (Paul Mescal), who like his father, Maximus, quickly finds himself enslaved and forced to fight as a gladiator. But as his reputation grows as he works his way through the ranks of the Colosseum, so also does his bloodlust and his overriding quest for vengeance.

Despite being one of the most respected Hollywood directors out there, Ridley Scott has had more misses than hits of late. And while he would like to blame the shortened attention spans of today's youth for that, one could say it has more to do with the limited appeal of his most recent movies than anything else. Gone are the days when simply having the name of an A-list director or actor attached to a movie was enough to get butts in seats. Nowadays, the movie has to offer something more or somehow manage to tap into the cultural zeitgeist ala Top Gun: Maverick.

Speaking of Top Gun, if there's one thing that 1986 movie and its 2022 sequel have proven, it is that it is never too late to follow up a beloved classic with another entry. But like most recent sequels, prequels and reboots, Gladiator 2 is more of a rehash than a continuation of the story introduced in the first film. The movie hits a lot of the same story beats as the first one, even if it did manage to throw a few curveballs along the way. Notwithstanding, it falls into the very safe category of "more of the same," which depending on who you ask could be considered a good thing.

And like any good sequel of its ilk, the movie tries to one-up the original in one key area: the spectacle. And for the most part it succeeds, with the opening battle scene and another nautical-themed battle inside the Colosseum being the clear highlights. The production team definitely did a great job in replicating the sets from the original film, with the Colosseum looking nearly identical. There is a lot more CGI at play this time around though, especially with the animals used in the gladiatorial games, which sometimes felt like a step backward and nothing quite like the real tigers in the first film. Those tigers did receive a brief callback though, so there's that.

In terms of the story, I found the plot to be a little too contrived and convoluted in places, especially towards the end when things become almost borderline video-gamey. I can't get into specifics for fear of spoilers but suffice it to say that some character actions were too unbelievable for my liking. I understand that the characters needed to arrive at certain decisions for the narrative to work, but some of the ways in which they get there felt so heavy-handed that it frequently took me out of the movie. I am also starting to feel some serious Pedro Pascal fatigue so perhaps it had something to do with that as well.

It is also worth noting that I felt the movie lacked most of the emotional resonance that made the first one so great. There's just something about Russell Crowe's performance as Maximus, and the journey he went on, that immediately endeared him to viewers. I never felt anything remotely on that level with Lucius or any of the other characters here, and it wasn't for a lack of trying because quite some time is invested in setting up those characters. And while it was nice to see both Connie Nielsen and Derek Jacobi reprise their roles from the first film, it was still a bit jarring to see how little the characters themselves had evolved since then, effectively serving the very same functions as before.

The one character I did find somewhat intriguing was of course the villain, Macrinus. Denzel Washington gives a praiseworthy performance that was both understated and over-the-top, proving once again why he is one of the very best in the business. I only wish we had gotten to see him ham it up more, and sooner too, but the little glimpses at the extremes of his character were satisfactory enough. I won't go as far as say he deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination at next year's Oscars but I wouldn't be surprised to hear his name get called out as one of the nominees when that time comes either.

Gladiator 2 is a spectacular but ultimately inessential film that skirts by on the goodwill of its predecessor. It is clearly the weaker of the two Ridley Scott Gladiator movies so I don't imagine it enjoying anywhere near the impact and success that the original film did. That said, in this day and age of frequently botched sequels, sometimes the best we can hope for is one that recaptures at least some of the magic of what came before and Gladiator 2 certainly manages to do that much.

Joker: Folie à Deux (Movie Review)

Back in 2019, during what was arguably the pinnacle of comic book movies, Joker had helped further propel that specific subgenre of films to greater heights. Originally intended to be a one-off feature, the film would not only secure an unprecedented 11 nominations at the Academy Awards but also go on to earn more than a billion dollars at the global box office. And all of that pretty much ensured that Warner Bros. would be revisiting the Joker well before long. But does Joker: Folie à Deux manage to recapture what made the first movie a big hit or is it merely another cash-grab attempt by greedy corporate executives?

The new movie once again centers upon Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), the titular Joker who is now awaiting trial for the string of murders he had committed in the first film. Two years have passed since the events of the 2019 movie, and Arthur has spent most of that time being held behind bars. But when he meets and falls in love with a fellow inmate named Lee (Lady Gaga), it ignites a deadly passion in him as they both succumb to the effects of their shared psychosis.

From the moment I first heard that a Joker sequel was in the works, I was immediately skeptical. After all, the first movie had felt like a complete story unto itself, one that far exceeded its ambitions and could be considered a resounding success by every conceivable metric. But when I'd heard what route director Todd Philips was planning to take for that sequel, I became somewhat intrigued. I've always held a soft spot for musicals and their larger-than-life productions so I was at least interested enough to see how one would fit within the gritty, grounded reality of the first Joker film.

So regarding the musical element of the film, the filmmakers definitely made good on their claim that it was going to be a musical thriller. There were several musical numbers sprinkled throughout the movie, with more than a few recognizable classics as well as some original compositions. The songs themselves were decent enough, allowing Lady Gaga to once again flex her singing chops, while Joaquin Phoenix gave what I can only assume were his best vocal renditions. But none of those performances really stand out or stick with you after watching the film, or at least not like the way the songs from Chicago or Moulin Rouge did.

And at about halfway through the movie, a courtroom drama element is also introduced, which is where one would think the film would finally get to knock things out of the park, except this never rises to a level I can consider great courtroom drama, or even decent for that matter. Instead, what we get is some long-winded recaps of things that took place in the first movie, interspersed with glimpses at Arthur's warped version of reality.

My biggest grievance with the movie, however, was its overriding lack of excitement. The film meanders in a way that I quickly found tedious, with scenes that seemed to barely add anything to the overall story. To be clear, I have no problem with slow-burn movies or ones that favor mood and texture over plot or characters, provided they eventually arrive at a meaningful climax. But we spend so much time watching Arthur move through the motions of prison life that the whole thing couldn't help but feel drawn-out and overlong.

A knock-on effect of that slower pacing is it makes the narrative harder to follow. I mean, we already have to contend with having to piece together what is real and only a figment of our lead characters' imagination, so having long stretches where nothing of importance seems to happen only further complicates this. And speaking of climax, this is the one area of the story that I feel will leave viewers most divided and/or disappointed. I won't spoil how the movie ends except to say that I don't think that it had the intended effect the filmmakers had been aiming for, whatever that may be.

Joker: Folie à Deux succeeds as a half-decent musical but fails at nearly everything else. The story is a slog to get through, lacking all of the tension that helped propel the narrative of the first film. Which is a shame because I had high hopes for the movie, along with the legion of fans that felt it could be something truly special. But on the bright side, I guess the movie can serve as yet another example of why it is sometimes best to stay away from making cash-grab sequels without the requisite creative spark needed to make them work.

Alien: Romulus (Movie Review)

In this current age of streaming services and the often-predicted demise of movie theaters, it is not uncommon for movies originally slated for one to end up making their debut on the other. So when Alien: Romulus was first announced to be making the jump from a streaming to theatrical release, I knew that meant the film had far more to offer than the average Netflix Original. But is the final product worthy of the moviegoing experience or is it better suited for the streaming sludge pile for which it was initially destined?

The film takes place between the events of the first two movies in the Alien franchise, Alien and Aliens. It follows a group of young space colonists whose search for a better life offworld leads them to scavenge what looks like an abandoned space station. But unbeknownst to them, the station is home to the deadliest alien species in the known universe, the xenomorph. Now the group must fight for their very lives as they work to unravel the true nature of this most formidable foe.

After Dan Trachtenberg had successfully infused the Predator franchise with new life in his 2022 film, Prey, it was only a matter of time before the Alien franchise received a similar treatment. And Alien: Romulus is that much-needed shot in the arm that fans had hoped for, having already been disappointed over the years by several less-than-stellar sequels and prequels, not to mention those questionable crossovers with the aforementioned Predator series. And the way that director Fede Álvarez has been able to achieve this is by taking the series back to its horror roots.

Much like the 1979 classic that started it all, the new movie is all about building tension through the use of its rich atmosphere. The film is visually stunning, adhering to that same iconic design language created by H. R. Giger for the first film, even going as far as to mimic some of the technological limitations that helped define its look. So we get a nice blend of practical and digital effects that really help to ground the movie in its otherworldly reality. This extends to its sound design and score which perfectly captures the mood and overall soundscape of those earlier movies.

The movie itself is well-paced for the most part, although it takes a while before things truly get going as we spend quite some time getting to know the new characters. But once the required introductions and worldbuilding are out of the way, the tension never lets up as we are thrust from one nerve-wracking setpiece to another. A lot of those setpieces can be considered fan service for sure, with cool callbacks and fun easter eggs that not only pay homage to the two movies it is nestled between but to the entire Alien franchise as a whole.

And this is where I think the movie starts to falter a bit, in its attempt to tie into everything that came before, for better or worse. Because some things are, simply put, better left forgotten and unreferenced. Thankfully, the movie still packs enough new tricks of its own that help to keep things feeling fresh and less like a rehash. But there is no denying that it adheres so closely to the template set by those prior movies that it almost can't help but feel like more of the same.

It is also worth stating that the film falls victim to some pretty egregious horror movie logic, so expect to see characters make head-scratching decisions all in the name of sustaining the thrills or furthering the plot. And if you thought you'd seen the most ridiculous aspects of the franchise show its ugly face in the likes of Prometheus or Alien: Resurrection, then think again because there is some downright laughable stuff in this one.

Alien: Romulus plays like a greatest hits collection of the best and most memorable bits of the Alien franchise, except it also highlights some of the other, less-well-received aspects of the series too. So those hoping for a clean break or soft reboot might be disappointed or left wanting. It doesn't exactly help that its story is often driven by some truly paper-thin logic. But if you are willing to overlook all of that and embrace the movie for what it is and not what it isn't, then you might just be in for one hell of a wild ride.

Deadpool & Wolverine (Movie Review)

After taking what has felt like an extended hiatus since hitting rock bottom with last year's The Marvels, the Marvel Cinematic Universe returns to the big screen in a big way with Deadpool & Wolverine. And if the film's marketing is anything to go by, it is clear that it is being positioned as a much-needed attempt to reenergize the aging superhero franchise. But is this latest entry the franchise Viagra that the MCU desperately needs or is it just another multiverse-hopping adventure filled with cheap fan service and pointless cameos?

The film serves as the third entry in the Fox Deadpool series, as well as a direct sequel to 2017's Logan. And due to the very nature of its story, it is almost impossible to discuss any aspects of its plot without immediately entering into spoiler territory. But the general non-spoiler premise is this: in order to save his world and the people that are dearest to him, Wade Wilson (aka. Deadpool) must journey across the multiverse to find Logan (aka. Wolverine), the one mutant who can help him.

Ever since Disney had finalized its acquisition of Fox back in 2019, many had wondered what would become of the many superhero properties under the 20th Century Fox umbrella. Among the ones that were hanging in intellectual property limbo was of course Deadpool, a character that first made an appearance in the often-maligned X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But unlike that other titular hero who had received a near-perfect sendoff in the film, Logan, it felt like Deadpool still had the potential for several more adventures.

And ever since his first appearance and subsequent revival in two standalone films, his fate it seemed had been tied to Wolverine's. But Hugh Jackman was done playing the role and it didn't look like the family-friendly Disney brand would have any space for the likes of Deadpool within the MCU. So you can imagine my shock and excitement when Ryan Reynolds revealed that he was finally making good on his promise to bring Hugh Jackman back as Wolverine in the next Deadpool film.

Now that I've gotten a chance to see the movie, I must confess that the very first thing I felt afterward was relief. My biggest concern for the film was what looked like the sheer amount of homework required to truly appreciate what it was aiming to accomplish. Not only was it moving the story forward from prior Deadpool films and Logan, but it also had ties to a large swathe of the movies in the X-Men universe, the MCU, and other superhero films I won't spoil here.

Thankfully, the movie doesn't get bogged down in too much exposition trying to explain it all, and it was paced well enough that I never felt like I was being overwhelmed by any of it. The action does tend to test the boundaries of that R rating though, but that should come as no surprise for anyone that has seen the first two films. I was relieved to see that this one not only retained their hard-hitting edge and signature humor filled with fourth-wall breaks, but that it wasn't just more of the same or another rehash.

All that said, I would still personally rank it below the first two films since a lot of their shock value and novelty within the superhero genre is gone at this point. There is a bigger focus on musical moments throughout the movie, including one extended fight scene near the end that was set to Madonna's "Like A Prayer" that continues to live rent-free in my head even as I write this review. Most of it was played for laughs more than anything else but the action, stunts, and cinematography are so heavily stylized that they were never not pleasing to look at. And while not every single one of its jokes might land, the ones that did had me howling.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a blast from start to finish. It infuses the MCU with a strong dose of energy, the kind of lighthearted fun that once defined the superhero genre. And while it often leans too heavily on callbacks and references to older films, it still manages to stand on its own as a thrilling new adventure. Ultimately, your enjoyment of the movie hinges on how much tolerance you have for gratuitous violence as well as Ryan Reynolds' unique flavor of meta-humor, which are two things I don't see myself getting tired of anytime soon.

A Quiet Place: Day One (Movie Review)

From the moment that A Quiet Place had turned into the surprise hit of 2018, it was fated to become yet another horror franchise for studios to exploit. So you can imagine my surprise when its follow-up, A Quiet Place Part II, had somehow managed to replicate its winning formula without feeling like a mere rehash. But does the latest entry in the series, A Quiet Place: Day One, recapture the essence of those first two movies or has the franchise started to succumb to the laws of diminishing returns?

The new film functions as both a prequel and a spinoff, as it shifts its focus from the Abbott family in favor of a pair of new survivors, Sam and Eric (played by Lupita Nyong'o and Joseph Quinn respectively). And as the title alludes, it also focuses on the first days of the arrival of the creatures dubbed death angels by many. Both must navigate the many dangers and horrors that await them in the ravaged streets of an apocalyptic New York City, as they try to survive the onslaught of aliens lurking around every corner.

Prior to watching A Quiet Place: Day One, I must admit that I had developed a healthy dose of skepticism at the mere announcement of the project. Not only were we no longer following the story of the surviving members of the Abbott family, who we've grown to love and care about over the course of two brilliant films, but it was also covering old ground by depicting events that took place on Day 1 of the alien infestation. Then there were the trailers as well which made the film look like a considerable departure from the close-quarter thrills of the first two films.

I say all this to drive home the fact that I was already predisposed to being disappointed by the movie. But I had still done my best to keep an open mind, believing that the movie would at least manage to justify its own existence. And now that I have finally seen the film, I can say that I am equal parts relieved while still being somewhat let down by the story they'd chosen to tell. I was relieved that my concerns following the trailers had been mostly unfounded, as the movie delivered the kind of tense encounters that were worthy of the "A Quiet Place" name.

But my disappointment is due to the fact that the movie simply lacks the same emotional weight I had felt while watching the prior films, and most of that stems from its new leads being nowhere as endearing as those that came before. Lupita does an admirable job as Sam but her performance never quite rises to the same level of brilliance she had shown in a film like Us. The same can be said of Joseph Quinn, who shows none of the charisma and bravado he had shown in the brilliant fourth season of Stranger Things.

I acknowledge that none of these things are a fault of the actors I mentioned, as I'm sure they'd played their characters to perfection as written in the script. The problem is with the characters themselves and the film's inability to make me care about their plight. The first two films gave us protagonists we could immediately care about because of how relatable each member of the Abbott family seemed. The same cannot be said of Sam and Eric, who more often than not felt more like overused Hollywood archetypes rather than living, breathing human beings.

With most of the negative stuff out of the way, I must equally acknowledge all the things I felt the movie manages to get right. Chief among these are the various alien encounters. The death angels felt like an ever-present threat for the most part rather than the glob of CGI creatures the trailers had made them out to be. I was pleased to see most of the action the trailers were filled with take a back seat in favor of actual horror and some effective jump scares.

I also loved the look of the film's New York setting, with its fog-filled streets lending it an otherworldly feel that only helped to heighten the tension. And this is when the film works best, when it has us holding our breaths in anticipation of the next unexpected appearance by its true stars, the hideous aliens that retain their status as nightmare fuel. It's just a shame that that tension never gets dialed up to eleven like in the first two films, held back as it was by a lack of compelling leads and some rather questionable writing choices.

A Quiet Place: Day One is the kind of film a franchise produces once it has started to run out of steam. After all, there are only so many times you can reuse the same basic premise before it starts to feel kind of stale. Add in the fact that the film tends to get heavy-handed with its handling of some of the more sensitive aspects of its subject matter and you start to understand why it might not be for everyone. And while it offers its own share of close-quarter thrills and some very cool highlights, the overall movie lacks the emotional pull that helped elevate prior entries.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (Movie Review)

The Mad Max franchise gets reignited once again as Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga races into cinemas this weekend. And as the title suggests, it is a film that centers upon the one-armed imperator from Mad Max: Fury Road, who many believed had effectively upstaged Max in his own movie. But now that she has a movie all to herself, does it give any additional insight into what makes the character tick or is it merely another excuse to have a bunch of road warriors battle it out across the beautiful desert backdrop of the Wasteland?

The film takes place several years before the events of Mad Max: Fury Road, in a post-apocalyptic future where warring factions battle for dwindling resources. It opens with a young Furiosa just before she gets abducted from her home in the Green Place, a place of abundance in an otherwise unforgiving land. But her mother doesn't give her up without a fight, even though it ultimately costs the older woman her life when they cross paths with the evil warlord, Dementus. Furiosa soon finds herself property of Immortan Joe of the Citadel and there she begins the process of working her way up the ranks of his War Boys, fueled by a quest for revenge and a desire to find her way back home.

After getting blown away by the sheer brilliance of Mad Max: Fury Road in 2015, I was pleased to learn that the franchise was going to receive another entry. So you can imagine my disappointment when I also learnt that this next entry would be taking the form of a prequel. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with prequels if done right. But I would have preferred something that moved the overall story forward, and that same sentiment encapsulates my feelings coming out of Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga.

The first thing that caught me off guard while watching the film was its pacing and overall length. The film doesn't remotely match the kinetic pace and energy that made Fury Road so great, nor does it attempt to as it instead focuses on fleshing out the backstory of its title character, as well as the world and lore that her story take place within. In addition to revisiting the Citadel, we actually get to see the other strongholds of Gastown and the Bullet Farm this time around. But in its attempt to show us more of the world the films take place in, the movie loses some of the mystic that made these places and the characters that inhabit them so memorable.

And speaking of characters, we get quite a number of new and returning faces, as well as one specific cameo I won't spoil here. Despite receiving top billing, I was surprised to see that Anya Taylor-Joy didn't actually make an appearance until nearly an hour into the film. And while I was initially skeptical that they had opted to recast the role of Furiosa with someone younger, she effectively channels the same stoic determination and overall badassery that Charlize Theron had brought to the role in Fury Road.

Chris Hemsworth likewise joins the pantheon of great Mad Max villains as Dementus, a man that more than lives up to his name over the course of the film. He was equal parts terrifying and charismatic, and always a joy to see whenever he was on screen. It was also nice seeing characters like Rictus Erectus, the Bullet Farmer, the People Eater, and of course Immortan Joe and his party of War Boys all make a return, although the knowledge of their ultimate fates in Fury Road make the reunion all the more bittersweet.

But I think where Furiosa truly succeeds is in its action sequences. George Miller had already outdone himself with Mad Max: Fury Road, a film that was shot largely using practical stunts with a sprinking of VFX, and a lot of that remains the same here. Just when I thought I'd seen all the cool ways that people could get thrown off motorcycles or chewed up by cars, the film doles out even more vehicular madness to show I ain't seen nothing yet. All of it was beautifully shot and appropriately epic, even if it doesn't quite outshine what came before.

Furiosa can be considered yet another benchmark for post-apocalyptic action movies. But while Fury Road had put nearly all action films before and after its release to shame, this one merely serves as a reminder of why George Miller, at 79 years old, is one of the very best directors still working within that specific subgenre. And even though the film takes a while to get going, and it sometimes struggles to justify its own existence, it ultimately satisfied my hunger for more Mad Max movies, at least until we get that proper sequel that's hopefully still in the works.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (Movie Review)

Between last year's Godzilla Minus One and the Apple TV+ show, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, it sure feels like a great time to be a Godzilla fan. And while I am still yet to watch the former and I wasn't particularly keen on the latter, I was very much eager to see what new tricks the titular kaiju had up its monstrous sleeves in Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. But does the latest entry in Legendary's MonsterVerse bring anything new to the table or is it simply more of the same?

The film serves as a direct sequel to Godzilla vs. Kong, so those who never got around to watching Monarch can rest easy as that show has no real bearing on the film's events. Much of the movie takes place in the Hollow Earth, where Kong now resides with hopes of making a new home for himself. But he soon stumbles across an entire tribe of giant apes and their tyrannical leader, the Scar King, who is hellbent on spreading his tyranny to the surface world. 

Meanwhile, Godzilla has slipped back into his role of sole alpha and protector of mankind as he continues to keep the different categories of kaiju at bay. But when he suddenly starts seeking out sources of radiation to draw power from, it becomes clear that he is preparing for his most powerful adversary yet. Now, the two titular titans must once again set aside their differences and band together in the ultimate monster tag team. 

The MonsterVerse films have never really taken themselves too seriously. And with each subsequent entry, the filmmakers have leaned increasingly harder into each one's inherent campiness. So anyone going into Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire expecting high art only has themselves to blame at this point. That said, I still found myself taken aback by just how nonsensical this new MonsterVerse entry manages to get in its two-hour runtime.

To call the story in the movie convoluted and dumb would be putting it lightly. It often approaches Transformers levels of ridiculousness with just how logic-defying and reliant on plot contrivances it becomes. It is almost as though Adam Wingard and his writers had taken a bet to cram in as much ridiculous action and farfetched storytelling as humanly possible. But depending on who you ask, that could either be considered a good thing or a bad thing. 

Much like prior entries, the new film suffers from a slew of issues that range from inconsistent pacing to human characters that are just nowhere as compelling as their kaiju counterparts. However, the decision to trim the roster of human characters down and to give the kaiju more screen time ultimately helped to keep the film moving along before it turned into a slog. But I still felt we could have gotten to the meat of the action much sooner.

Because Godzilla x Kong shines brightest when it simply lets its two titans loose to cause all manner of chaos and destruction. It never gets old watching entire cities get wrecked in the wake of these monsters and the film delivers plenty of that, especially in its explosive third act. The visual effects bringing all that chaos and destruction to life were adequate for the most part, although I don't see it winning any awards at next year's Oscars.

Godzilla x Kong doesn't quite match the sheer thrills of the last MonsterVerse movie, but it certainly packs enough of a punch that it is sure to satisfy Kaiju fans. The movie lives up to its title by offering the kind of monster mayhem most of us could only ever dream of as kids. And while it does require leaving your brain firmly checked at the door to overlook some of its more egregious shortcomings, the overall package is still worthy enough to earn another recommendation from me.

Dune: Part Two (Movie Review)

The 2024 moviegoing season begins in earnest with the release of Dune: Part Two, the second half of Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of Frank Herbert's seminal sci-fi epic. Originally slated for an October 2023 release, the film was unceremoniously bumped amidst last year's writers and actors strikes. And now that it is finally here for all to see in all its glory, you can bet that many will be doing just that over the course of the next couple of weeks. But does the film itself warrant all the hype surrounding its release or is it merely another tease for greater things to come?

The film picks up exactly where the first part left off, with Paul Atreides and his mother forced to seek sanctuary with the Fremen on the desert planet of Arrakis. Meanwhile, the Harkonnens have regained control of its immensely profitable spice production business. But Paul would soon learn the ways of the Fremen, and prove to be a thorn in the Harkonnen's side through coordinated attacks on their spice harvesters. Except he is also haunted by visions of a holy war that could very well claim the lives of billions across the galaxy. And so he must decide whether or not to accept his fate as the messiah some already see him as.

My biggest complaint coming out of Dune: Part One was that it felt incomplete by design. Having chosen to adapt just one-half of the source material, this meant that director Denis Villeneuve had ended up with a movie that left a good chunk of its story untold, and all the dangling plot threads that came with that decision. But even in its incomplete state, the film had proven itself to be a class above your typical book-to-film adaptation.

Its impressive production design, stellar visual effects, incredible worldbuilding, and excellent characterization were all testaments to both the strengths of its source material and Denis Villeneuve's deft handling of it. And all of that remains true in Dune: Part Two, a film that manages to match the brilliance of the first one's execution while building upon all its groundwork and achievements to create something even grander in its scope and ambition.

To put it in another way, the first film crawled then walked so that this one could take to the skies and soar. For a movie that boasts a runtime of nearly three hours long, I never once felt its length as I was fully engaged from start to finish. Every second of those nearly three hours felt earned and accounted for, mainly due to its excellent pacing. It would have been too easy for a film of this scope to get bogged down in details but it never loses sight of the big picture of its overarching narrative.

That said, if you are the type of moviegoer who didn't care for all the rich lore, worldbuilding, and character development that made up the better part of the first film, then you might also not do so in this one. Because even though there is more action and overall spectacle this time around, none of that is a real focus and you run the risk of finding it just as slow or boring. Although how anyone could find these movies boring remains a mystery to me, but to each their own I suppose.

But if, like me, you thought the first film was brilliant, then you're surely in for a treat because this one is clearly the better half. Everything from the cinematography to the score and visuals has been taken to the next level. And even though it has taken nearly three years for it to get here, it was definitely worth the wait. So taken as a whole, and as a fan of the books themselves, I have to say that this is as perfect an adaptation of the first book as I could've ever hoped for.

I also need to confess that I had my doubts when it was first announced that Timothee Chalamet would be playing Muad'Dib/Paul Atreides, simply because I felt he'd lack the imposing force of the former. But I'm pleased to report that those doubts were unfounded as the actor imbues the character with all the depth I remembered him having in the book while showing an acting range that is simply unrivaled. The new additions to the cast were also great, especially Austin Bulter who gave a stunning villainous turn as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen.

If you're only going to see one film in 2024, then it needs to be Dune: Part Two, a cinematic feast for the eyes and senses that easily surpasses the first film's brilliance, resulting in one of the greatest book-to-film adaptations since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yep. It's that effing epic. And while it remains to be seen if it could ever hope to stand the test of time like that other film, something tells me that it is a movie that will continue to get talked about, among film fans and critics alike, for many years to come.

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (Movie Review)

After a decades-worth of storytelling spread across fifteen movies of varying quality, the DCEU comes to an unceremonious end with the release of Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom. And what a wild ride it has been, boasting its fair share of highs and lows. So it was indeed a bittersweet affair heading into the new Aquaman, even as I wondered how it could possibly wrap up the entire franchise in any meaningful way. But as I quickly discovered while watching the film, those aspirations were never on the table to begin with, as evidenced by its business-as-usual approach to storytelling. So I guess the real question then is whether or not the film is still worth seeing even with the knowledge that we've arrived at the end of the road.

Serving as a direct sequel to 2018's Aquaman, the movie finds its titular hero adjusting to life as the ruler of the underwater kingdom of Atlantis. He must also pull double duty as a new dad, having started a family with love interest Mera since the events of the first film. Meanwhile, his archnemisis Black Manta is still hellbent on getting revenge, a pursuit that would bring him into possession of an ancient artefact that imbues him with superhuman strength. In order to stop him, Aquaman must seek help from unexpected places or risk failing to prevent a global catastrophe that would threaten all surface dwellers and Atlanteans alike.

It didn't take me long into Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom before I could tell that there was something clearly wrong with the movie. Perhaps it was its derivative story that first gave it away, as it borrows quite a number of plot points and story elements from the likes of Lord of the Rings but never quite matches the brilliance of their execution. Or maybe it was the stilted dialogue that often had the cast sounding like actors in an amateur high school play. Or the way the film relies heavily on exposition dumps, with characters even offering running commentary on actions that should be otherwise apparent to the audience, almost in an effort to ensure understanding amidst all the chaos.

And there was indeed a lot of chaos involved, as the film kept piling on setpiece after setpiece. It didn't exactly help that some of the effects bringing those action scenes to life were of the questionable sort, with varying degrees of quality in its creature design and the sea of CGI they inhabit. Even the licensed music that accompanied some of those scenes sometimes felt tacked on, barely serving to elevate what was going on onscreen and instead acting as a distraction. All these things ultimately coalesce to create a movie that often feels sloppy and unfinished. 

But somehow, as though through some ancient magic and wizardry conjured up by director James Wan, the whole thing still manages to work, or at least it never truly collapses under the weight of its hodgepodge storyline and wooden deliveries. This is largely due to the fact that the movie fully embraces its own zaniness, much like the first one did. It also never tilts completely into the realm of silliness either, ala Thor: Love and Thunder. I found myself laughing with the movie as much as I was laughing at it, and it was only then that I had to concede that I was indeed enjoying myself.

It is as though the filmmakers knew all the things that helped propel the first movie to become the DCEU's first and only billion-dollar grosser and they doubled down on all of it. It fully embraces the fantastical side of the DC Comics it is based upon, depicting underwater cities and desert kingdoms populated by all manner of creatures, all of which were pleasing to see brought to life on the big screen. The action was also some of the best I've seen in the DCEU in a long time, stretching the limits of plausibility while giving more than enough eye candy to satisfy action junkies. 

I must of course acknowledge the fact that some of the things I just mentioned could very well be considered turnoffs by some. After all, not everyone I spoke to about that first film appreciated its more lighthearted take on the superhero genre or the little visual flourishes and gags that helped flesh out its underwater kingdom. This is to say that anyone expecting something less campy might be disappointed to see the movie fully lean into the camp. But if you liked what you got in the first film and are content with getting more of the same, then there is plenty to love about Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.

Looking back on the DCEU as a whole, it is clear that the franchise lacked any kind of cohesive vision tying together its cinematic universe, or that whatever grand plans or ideas that fueled early entries like Man of Steel and Batman v Superman were simply never given any room to grow or flourish. And that, in itself, is the true tragedy of the entire endeavor, that sense of loss at the thought of what could have been. But as far as final entries go, Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom at least serves as a worthwhile last hurrah that I can easily recommend to fans of the first film and anyone looking for some effects-heavy entertainment over the holidays.

The Marvels (Movie Review)

As the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues its expansion, one would be forgiven for having lost track of all the various movies and Disney+ shows that feed into its overall narrative. Long gone is the luster that once drove fans to devour each new entry, especially in the wake of the complete dumpster fire that was Secret Invasion. And it is in this environment that we now welcome The Marvels, a movie that serves not only as a sequel to 2019's Captain Marvel but as a follow-up to both WandaVision and Ms. Marvel as well. But does the new film signal a return to simpler times or has the franchise simply grown too big for its own good?

The film has Brie Larson reprising her role as Carol Danvers, aka. Captain Marvel, except this time around, she is joined by WandaVision's Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) and Ms.Marvel herself, Kamala Khan (Iman Vellani). The three women are brought together after a freak accident causes them to switch places whenever they use their powers. Meanwhile, the Kree are trying to restore their home planet, Hala, by siphoning resources from others just like it. And so our three heroes must go up against their leader, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) before she renders those other worlds inhospitable in the process.

Heading into The Marvels, I was forced to keep my expectations about as low as they could realistically get. This was mainly due to news surrounding its release, with the film getting subjected to multiple release date changes as it underwent extensive reshoots amidst what was clearly a troubled production. So I'd hoped that Marvel Studios would be able to salvage something worthwhile out of all of it, or at least something worth the price of admission. But as I quickly found out during the movie, hopes and wishful thinking can only get you so far.

Let me just start by saying that there are definitely things to admire about The Marvels. The film is heavy on action with more than enough set pieces peppered throughout its relatively brisk runtime. So those going into the movie solely for eye candy will get served plenty of it. It also marks the big-screen debut of Ms. Marvel and she was the clear standout amongst our trio of leads, bringing much of the same charm and charisma she was known for in her Disney+ show. Then the film has a very playful tone that some might find endearing especially if you enjoyed the humor in the two most recent Thor movies.

It is just a shame that the narrative tying all of it together comes across as a jumbled mess of ideas. The story felt disjointed in the worst way possible, relying on too many flashbacks and exposition dumps to fill in crucial aspects of its plot. The worst part is a lot of the material that got relegated to those flashbacks could've made for a very compelling narrative in its own right. I can't get into specifics without getting into spoilers but I was ultimately disappointed with how the filmmakers had chosen to present the story. A lot of it is most likely a result of those extensive reshoots as it becomes obvious a lot of the story must have gotten reshaped and dumbed down in an attempt to make the film appeal to the broadest demographic possible.

Tonally, the film was all over the place with some of its more heartfelt moments getting diluted by jokes and visual gags that fail to land. The film is also inconsistent with the way it depicts its heroes switching places, failing to respect its own rules in more than a few instances. The same can be said of the way it handles our heroes' power levels as I simply found it too hard of a pill to swallow that a hero of Captain Marvel's stature couldn't singlehandedly take down the villain. Then there is its jumbled-up script once again, which prevents its characters from getting anywhere near enough character development, especially the main villain, who is as one-note and one-dimensional as they come. All these things ultimately add up to make what could have been fun and decent come across as lame and cringe-inducing.

The fact that The Marvels is not the worst thing to come out of the MCU recently speaks volumes about just how dire a state the entire franchise is in. The movie serves as yet another example of why the current quantity-over-quality approach being employed at Disney and Marvel Studios is neither favorable nor sustainable in the long run. The good news is both Bob Iger and Kevin Feige have acknowledged the need for greater quality control in all current and future projects. So hopefully this is the last of these watered-down, obligatory entries into the MCU that fans would have to endure going forward.