Arnold Schwarzenegger became a star between “Terminator” (1984) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991).

So director James Cameron shrewdly turned his killing machine character into an antihero.

Director Gerard Johnstone did something similar with “M3GAN.” The 2023 smash followed a creepy A.I robot who turns on humanity. Chaos ensued, AKA a glorious crush of horror-comedy thrills.

“M3GAN 2.0” recasts the killer ‘bot as humanity’s best defense against an even more lethal threat. The big difference between the franchises?

“Terminator 2” remains one of the best sequels ever made. “M3GAN 2.0” works best as a cautionary tale. Some movies don’t require a second chapter.

The film’s frenetic opening gets us up to speed on the main characters. Gemma (Allison Williams) is publicly tapping the breaks on A.I. advancements. She speaks from experience, naturally.

Her adopted daughter Cady (Violet McGraw) is growing up but misses the initial version of M3GAN who always had her back. We know the feeling.

Heck, the memes alone were priceless.

A nasty prologue reveals a new robot, comandeered by the U.S. Army, that makes drones look primitive by comparison. That’s Amelia (Ivanna Sakhno), a hard-charging bot that quickly goes rogue.

Gemma reluctantly brings M3GAN back to “life,” thinking she’s the only one who can eliminate Amelia.

That plot recap may sound simple, but there’s nothing streamlined about this bloated sequel. Nearly every step of the story is too complicated by half. That forces the main characters to talk out what’s happening and what they hope to do in order to stop Amelia.

If you saw this summer’s “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” you’ll recognize this misguided technique.

Show, don’t tell. This isn’t hard, folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by M3GAN 2.0 (@m3gan)

Johnstone, the underrated artist behind “Housebound,” forgets much of what made the first film sparkle. We’ve left horror behind to embrace an action adventure with a dash of sci-fi satire.

Big mistake.

Newer characters make a splash but are quickly diminished. Why lure the great Jemaine Clement to your project, cast as an arrogant Tech Bro, and not give him more to do?

The writer/director has an ear for funny quips, and Williams is a fine foil when the jokes land. A sequence where M3GAN bursts into song goes on too long, but watching Williams play against her robotic scene partner is a hoot.

The original film became a camp touchstone, particularly in LGBTQ+ circles. It’s hard to see the new film repeating that cultural trick. A little camp might have done the sequel good.

At least it wouldn’t require dialogue to explain every last detail to the audience.

“M3GAN 2.0” enters the marketplace at a curious moment. A.I. technology was unsettling two years ago, but it wasn’t ubiquitous. Just try to avoid A.I. today. 

Good luck.

The sequel could have leaned into that fear, doubling down on its horrific potential. Instead, the evolving tech is treated glibly. The focus remains on busy set pieces and pseudo-musings on A.I.’s potential.

Our M3GAN deserves better. So do audiences.

HiT or Miss: “M3GAN 2.0” proves not every genre delight deserves the franchise treatment.

The post ‘M3GAN 2.0’ Does Not Compute appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Nick Offerman’s Ron Swanson character on “Parks & Recreation” mattered on two levels.

His Libertarian screeds countered Leslie Knope’s wide-eyed liberalism. That gave audiences a rare, positive portrayal of a small-government voice.

And, deep down, Ron cared about his friends and co-workers. Deeply.

Now, imagine if Offerman’s GIF machine leaned so far into his anti-government shtick he couldn’t produce a driver’s license during a traffic stop.

That’s where Offerman lands in “Sovereign,” a depressing tale of a true believer at odds with reality. The tragic part? He’s a loving parent to a teen caught up in dad’s mania.

Jerry Kane (Offerman) is a stern father figure trying to raise his son right. That means indoctrinating Joe (an excellent Jacob Tremblay of “Room” fame) into his anti-government mindset. Offerman doesn’t shy away from his character’s extremist views.

It’s the kind of focused turn that makes awards season voters sit upright. And deservedly so.

Jerry makes a nominal living sharing his “sovereign citizen” beliefs. Is it enough to pay his mortgage? He doesn’t care. He insists he doesn’t have to pay anyone for what is rightfully his.

And he’ll spend 20 agonizing minutes explaining why.

That won’t keep the bill collectors at bay or a roof over their heads, but Jerry is always a step or two ahead of his enemies. Or at least he thinks he is.

Meanwhile, Joe looks longingly at his cute neighbor and dreams of attending high school. “Sovereign” is the worst possible advertisement for home schooling.

A secondary story follows a local police chief (Dennis Quaid) welcoming his son (Thomas Mann) onto the force. This father-son connection couldn’t be more different than the main story.

Or is it?

First-time director Christian Swegal leans into Jerry’s fanaticism but refuses to lecture audiences beyond that distorted worldview. Swegal avoids political tells or monologues meant to connect the action – set in the early 2010s – to modern times.

Last year’s Oscar-bait entry “The Order” showed similar restraint until the film’s final seconds.

Martha Plimpton shines as Jerry’s quasi-girlfriend, but the actress needed a bigger presence in the story. We’d also like to learn how Jerry became such a true believer. We learn about his personal pain later in the story, but it hardly explains his fevered approach to the world.

He’s a fully formed monster by the time we first meet him. 

New movie “Sovereign” seeks to humanize the sovereign citizen movement: https://t.co/OaiK3Q13XO

— Dr. Christine Sarteschi, LCSW (@DrSarteschi) June 10, 2025

“Sovereign” opens with events that occur at the end of the film and then circles back to the beginning. We know this story won’t have a rosy finish, but telegraphing it so bluntly is a terrible choice. The film’s “coming of age” component also comes up short.

Filmmakers refuse to tell stories that speak to news ignored by Legacy Media outlets. Imagine movies spun from the “Summer of Love” riots or Antifa, for example.

Inconceivable!

This tale is catnip to Hollywood types. It aligns with their worldview, suggesting fringe players (Qanon! MAGA Gone Wild!) loom large over society. They don’t.

That doesn’t rob “Sovereign” of its haunting power or the tractor pull of Offerman’s performance. He’s a man obsessed and a devoted father all in one.

That duality is more than enough to make “Sovereign” worth a look.

HiT or Miss: “Sovereign” takes Ron Swanson to the woodshed in a harrowing tale of a disturbed dad pushing his son to the edge.

The post ‘Sovereign’ – ‘Parks & Rec’s’ Ron Swanson Gone Wild appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Horror movies slice and dice a good portion of their casts. Audiences expect nothing less.

Some victims are so annoying, childish or arrogant that crowds cheer on their fate. It’s not cruel, just cathartic. Heck, it’s just a movie.

“Wake Up” leans into that trope, and then some. Like “The Green Inferno” before it, the victims here are rock-ribbed progressives who are far from sympathetic.

It’s hard to know who to root for in this intermittently sharp horror satire, and that’s part of the fun.

Six self-important radicals infiltrate an IKEA-style superstore at closing time. They wear animal masks and hope to damage as much property as possible before dawn.

The chain exploits animals, the rainforest and probably much more, they claim. Their rhetoric is far from streamlined. It’s more about Fighting the Man than a coherent strategy.

And if their antics go viral, even better!

They’re immature but savvy, but they never expected one of the store’s security guards to be on the edge of madness. That’s Kevin (Turlough Convery), whose volatile nature nearly gets him fired as the story opens. Now, he and his older brother Jack (Aidan O’Hare) are all that stand between the store and millions of dollars in damages.

Things could get ugly. And when a confrontation takes a deadly turn, it does. 

Anouk Whissell and Yoann-Karl Whissell, part of the collective known as RKSS, make the most of the unusual setting. The chain store offers fascinating backdrops, impromptu weapons and enough space for Kevin to lurk virtually unnoticed.

And, to the delight of the Mystery Machine’s Fred, there will be traps.

The six radicals are far from heroic, and some are downright cruel. Yet a food fight sequence shows they’re just kids cosplaying activism.

It’s the closest the film comes to humanizing them, and it’s a necessary addition.

“Wake Up” never fleshes out the six radicals, but we get a better sense of Jack and Kevin. That gives the kills a whiff of authenticity. That’s more than enough to push the story forward.

The film’s midsection delivers all the B-movie goods. RKSS stage the kills with precision, and there’s little in the way of storytelling fat to get in the way. Convery’s intense performance elevates the material. He’s relentless, and while he might have been a reasonable soul in another setting he’s lost all sense of decency once the action kicks in.

That’s just how genre fans like it.

162_Wake up•RKSS
(2023) pic.twitter.com/6W1VdEmRq5

— TFAB (@toy_1O) November 24, 2024

The film’s third act isn’t as strong, even though the sense of desperation becomes palpable for the remaining activists.

The screenplay doesn’t go wobbly on either side of the battle. The radicals cling to their beliefs while Kevin’s lust for revenge remains white hot.

The subject matter suggests either a heavy-handed takedown of activists or Capitalism 101. For all the gore and thrills RKSS never takes the bait. That discipline makes “Wake Up” a cut above your average slasher film.

HiT or Miss: “Wake Up” takes a stab at Antifa-like radicals but refuses to lecture horror hounds.

The post ‘Wake Up’ (Literally) Skewers Antifa-like Radicals appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It’s hard to believe zombies were all but dead before Danny Boyle shocked them back to life.

The director’s “28 Days Later” may have used a “rage virus” to do the trick in 2002, but it was enough to remind us why these ghouls matter.

And boy were those flesh-eating creeps fast.

Now, nearly two decades after that film’s sequel, Boyle is back with “28 Years Later.” The math may be fuzzy, but there’s nothing bland about this gut-wrenching update.

“28 Years Later” is a coming-of-age film about life, death and survival. Oh, and you’ll spend an inordinate amount of time on the edge of your seat.

The film’s prologue pushes the boundaries of horror, even in our “Terrifier” age. You’ve been warned.

From there, we flash forward you-know-how-many-years later. We meet a family living on an island that appears safe from the zombie hordes that decimated England in the first film.

It’s where young Spike (Alfie Williams), his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his sickly ma Isla (Jodie Comer) call home.

Island dwellers still depend on the mainland for supplies, and it’s become a rite of passage for teen boys to visit in order to make their first “kill” (and, hopefully, stay alive). “28 Years Later” is aggressively unwoke in that area. The men do the hunting while the women folk stay back and prepare the meals.

Triggering!

RELATED: 7 BEST ZOMBIE MOVIES POST ’28 DAYS LATER’

Spike may be 12, but his Pappy thinks he’s ready to prove his bow hunting prowess. Is anyone prepared to face a horde of rage-filled ghouls, particularly the Alphas who could fend off a small army? That nightmarish tweak to the zombie genre works beautifully under Boyle’s inspired direction.

The dysfunctional family dynamic powers the movie, in between crisply edited battles with the undead. Williams delivers a stellar performance, capturing the fear of youth and a growing sense of responsibility. 

The lad is desperate to find a doctor for his sickly Ma, and when he learns about a mysterious medic on the mainland he becomes obsessed with finding him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Sony Wicaksana (@sonywicaksana)

“28 Years Later” is sublime and, later, rock solid. The film’s first half captures the culture of post-pandemic living, from the precautions of everyday life to the shift back to a pre-digital age.

Locals live as if it were medieval times, eschewing modernity in the process. Is there another choice? It’s still fascinating to watch, granting the sequel a power we didn’t see coming.

That’s where Spike’s family fits into the narrative. Jamie is a dutiful Dad, but his biological needs confuse and horrify young Spike. Isla appears to have a form of the rage virus, but her bouts of clarity suggest she could be saved before the end credits roll.

Boyle and “28 Days Later” writer Alex Garland find a near-perfect balance between horror and humanity in the first half. Later, the story shifts its focus and loses some of what was expertly established earlier on. It’s still engrossing and, occasionally, terrifying.

The arrival of Ralph Fiennes later in the story lets Spike learn even more hard lessons about adolescence in his nightmarish reality.

Director George A. Romero kickstarted the modern zombie genre, but his films viewed humans as more monstrous than the undead. Boyle and Garland offer something more hopeful without skimping on scares.

That matters.

“28 Years Later” isn’t a cash-grab sequel but an exhilarating extension of a genre-defining original.

Note: The final sequence is jarring, but hardly in a good way. It’s an obvious nod to the next film in the saga, a move as cynical as peak MCU theatrics.

HiT or Miss: “28 Years Later” shows director Danny Boyle still knows how to make us squirm without leaving humanity on the cutting room floor.

The post Why ’28 Years Later’ Is Unlike Most Sequels appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It’s hard to believe “The Blair Witch Project” stormed Hollywood 26 years ago.

The indie film rode the early Internet wave and became one of the most profitable films in modern times. The movie fueled endless “found footage” copycats, allowing directors to bring their visions to the screen at an uber-low price point.

That’s what the lead character has in mind in “Found Footage: The Making of the Patterson Project.” The low-budget satire pokes gentle fun at wannabe Spielbergs, mining yuks from the indie film ranks.

It’s frothy and fun until supernatural events swamp the story.

Young, ambitious Chase Bradner (Brennan Keel Cook) wants to make a “found footage” Bigfoot movie, and he’ll do anything to make it happen. That means cutting every corner and engaging in some light subterfuge. The latter comes courtesy of his hard-nosed producer (Dean Cameron of “Summer School” and “Hollywood Palms” fame).

Chase, along with his girlfriend/Assistant Director Natalie (Erika Vetter), find a home in the woods where they can shoot their film.

Naturally, everything that can go wrong does. A major casting coup blows up in their faces. A donor’s bizarre request forces the crew to get creative at the last minute. And the house they’ve chosen to set up shop keeps making weird, ominous sounds.

Hmmm.

“Found Footage” works best as a loving homage to the never-say-die spirit of indie filmmakers. Yes, Chase is deluded about his project and, possibly, his abilities. That won’t stop him from getting the project started. His underlings know little about filmmaking, but their eagerness goes a very long way.

The story lacks belly laughs but the jokes are steady and infectious. Writer/director Max Tzannes has clearly spent time in the indie trenches and hasn’t been burned so badly that he can’t see the comical side to storytelling.

https://t.co/tcBQTV3bry

Maybe pre-order Found Footage: The Patterson Project today and count the days until June 24!

— deancameron (@deancameron) June 13, 2025

Cook anchors the film with his knack for twisting reality to his liking. His scenes with Vetter’s Natalie click because we’ve seen this couple before. Her budding frustration adds texture to the comedic trappings along with a compelling subplot involving a separate crew member.

Cameron plays his producer role as straight as an arrow, an ideal take given the silliness seen elsewhere.

We won’t spoil some of the gags but just know fans of the late, great Alan Rickman are in for an absurdist treat.

FAST FACT: “Found Footage” plays homage to “The Blair Witch Project” with its own faux news site.

“Found Footage” doesn’t overstay its welcome, but a tonal shift in the third act is both effective and a tad disappointing. We want more laughs, at least of the kind served up in the first hour. In their place, the story takes a turn that’s more chilling than expected.

Tzannes never extends the story’s gimmick beyond its humble roots. That leaves an indie film with heart, brains and a well-earned grin from start to finish.

HiT or Miss: “Found Footage: The Making of the Patterson Project” mocks the horror genre, indie filmmaking and anyone who refuses to quit on their dreams.

The post ‘Found Footage’ Takes Affectionate Look at Micro-Indie Filmmaking appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

You’d think Hollywood studios would have rushed to clone “Top Gun: Maverick” after it crushed the competition in 2022.

Wrong.

It took that film’s director, Joseph Kosinski, to do the honors.

Once again we get an older, battle-tested soul locking horns with a Gen Z rival. He once stood atop his profession, but now he’s desperate for one last chance at redemption.

There’s even a love interest who might just make our hero a better man.

Brad Pitt’s “F1®” echoes the 2022 smash in ways large and small. It’s a shame it comes up short, but what’s left is an example of Hollywood storytelling at its summer movie peak. 

Pitt stars as Sonny Hayes, a veteran racer lured back to the Formula 1 circuit by his pal, Ruben (Javier Barden). Sonny is old school to the core and doesn’t play by the rules.

Shocking, we know.

He also clashes with his new team’s wunderkind (Damson Idris). Joshua Pearce has no time for the old man, though, and Sonny cares more about adrenaline than being part of a team.

You might say he feels the need for speed.

Sonny and Joshua bump heads and egos, and their team struggles to make its mark in the circuit. Ruben could lose his investment as a result, another weight dropped on Sonny’s shoulders.

The racers’ dueling styles slowly fall into a rhythm, and suddenly their team is a threat to the competition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by FORMULA 1® (@f1)

“F1®” doesn’t offer up a mustache-twirling rival driver, but otherwise it hews close to the Hollywood formula. Lessons will be learned. Races will be won. And Sonny will turn the head of the team’s brainy tech guru (Kerry Condon).

Their courtship gives the film a welcome spark, but at a certain point, the film pushes it to the background. Bad move.

Kosinsky’s flare for crowd-pleasing bits is second to none, and his technical prowess falls into the same category. The film’s editing is as slick as the cars, even during exchanges in the pit. That boosts both the racing scenes and the agreeable blasts of comic relief.

Hans Zimmer’s propulsive score makes everything go down smoothly.

And that’s good because “F1®” has no business being north of two and a half hours long. The story arcs don’t demand all that screen time, and the agreeable screenplay quickly falls back on sports movie cliches.

“F1®” is never dull, though, and there’s always another race to pick up the pace.

Those unfamiliar with Formula One racing will get a partial education in between Pitt’s star-wattage display. The pit crew and racing announcers fill in as many gaps as possible, but some will still scratch their heads.

The early scenes take us into the rarified air of the sport. You can practically smell the burned tires and gasoline. That behind-the-scenes aura fades as the story progresses, another unforced error.

The opening sequence puts us in the car with Pitt, and the visuals stun (especially in the IMAX format). We’re treated to so many competitions, though, that they start to lose their luster.

Less is almost always more.

The same holds true for “F1®.” Trim it down to a tight two hours and you’ve got a near-perfect blast of forgettable summer movie fun. As is, it’s a reminder that “Maverick” blueprint worked for a very good reason in our post-pandemic world.

HiT or Miss: “F1®” offers Brad Pitt at his movie-star peak and a story that takes too long to reach the finish line.

The post Pitt’s ‘F1®’ Goes the Full ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Jean-Luc Godard’s “King Lear” (1987) has been rescued by The Criterion Collection.

The home video distribution company cleaned up the out-of-print art film and returned it to the public in an ideal new edition. Of the many Godard works, it’s easily one of his weirdest. The adaptation has an extraordinary backstory as fascinating as the film itself.

The short version: Godard famously signed a contract on a napkin at the Cannes Film Festival with Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus to make a film based on William Shakespeare’s “King Lear” for Cannon Films. Coming from Godard, one of the fathers of French Neo-realism and a director who never made a conventional, predictable or indifferent work of art in his life, it was clear that his “King Lear” would be different from all others.

Yet, no one could have imagined it would result in a work this baffling.

Godard cast author Norman Mailer and his daughter in key roles, which they abandoned after a day of filming. Then Molly Ringwald was brought on board to play Cordelia, along with Burgess Meredith as “Don Learo,” and a character named William Shakespeare Jr. the Fifth, played by celebrated director Peter Sellars (not to be confused with the other Peter Sellers, “The Pink Panther” stalwart).

Sellars’ character carries the very loose plot, about a world post-Chernobyl in need of language to be collected, nurtured and rediscovered. Following a prologue with still photos of great directors (including Fritz Lang and Francois Truffaut), we have scenes containing whimsical, pontificating dialog intermingling with the words of Shakespeare.

There’s also Godard himself, cast as Professor Pluggy. The decidedly non-Shakespearean character holds the secrets of the world, sports dreadlocks made of electrical cords, and speaks in a low growl (thankfully, there is an option for subtitles).

The whole thing is overseen by an omniscient film editor, Mr. Alien, played by Woody Allen. Many scenes are punctuated by the sounds of seagulls screeching. Did I mention how bonkers this is?

The first time I ever viewed it was with my Lost Films course that I taught decades ago in Colorado Springs. The class was a film appreciation and history course, and the syllabus was made up from titles of films that were out of print and largely unavailable at the time.

I spent a year finding copies that could be viewed in the screening room provided.

Among the titles on my syllabus were Stanley Donen’s “Movie Movie” (1978), Johnny Depp’s “The Brave” (1997) and Wim Wenders’ five-hour cut of “Until the End of the World” (1991), as well as cult films that were, at that point, near-impossible to find, like Joseph Ruben’s “The Stepfather” (1987) and even Willard Huyck’s “Howard the Duck” (1986).

My class covered a wide range of films, all of which proved new to the students. Most had never heard of the titles in question.

By far, the one that generated the most curiosity from the syllabus was “King Lear.” I mean, who wouldn’t want to see a notorious art movie with Molly Ringwald, Burgess Meredith and Woody Allen, from the director of “Breathless” (1960)?

After a lecture on the film’s tortured history and laying some groundwork on Godard, Shakespeare and what to expect, I played the film on a VCR. The class was baffled, laughing uncomfortably at times, audibly delighted at others.

Once it ended, there was a collective laugh and a lively discussion on how most of the class hated the film but still found it fascinating.

Films like “King Lear” were made for a Lost Films class, as well as cinephiles who think they’ve seen everything.

Godard’s film is, like much of his film art, part directorial act of rebellion, part exploration of his creative process in an improvisational environment. The film says little about Shakespeare and everything about the process of adapting his work and allowing personal and collective creativity to shape the art.

Jean-Luc Godard’s contract for King Lear was signed in a bar on a table napkin pic.twitter.com/dUijCgj7iU

— Eyes On Cinema (@RealEOC) January 7, 2020

If you’ve read this far and are intrigued (as opposed to yelling “Retreat!” and fleeing), I highly recommend watching the film, then viewing the wonderful Bonus Features on the Criterion disc, chief of which is an essential recollection by Ringwald of her experience.

Ringwald is blunt and vivid in her recollections but clearly remains in awe of Godard and the uniqueness of the experience. Sellars leads the other looking-back discussion, and his take is more about the shared artistic process and less critical of the messiness of the project.

Both are worth watching but seeing and hearing Ringwald reflect on one of her wildest films (made right after “Pretty in Pink” in 1986 and her appearance on the cover of Time Magazine as a voice of her generation) is a must.

“King Lear” remains a weird one for me, as I can’t always get on Godard’s wavelength. Is he trying to engage my concept of adaptation or simply making fun of me for watching this? Is this one of his most challenging masterpieces or is it his “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

I still don’t know.

Godard’s highly controversial “Hail Mary” (1985), which was protested by Catholics for its post-modern take on the Virgin Birth, is actually far more coherent.

If you only watch one Godard film in your life, see “Contempt” (1963). It’s one of my favorite movies about filmmaking; it stars Brigette Bardot and a young Jack Palance and depicts Fritz Lang, playing himself, as he struggles to helm a film adaptation of “The Odyssey” (I’ll inevitably write about that film once Christopher Nolan’s remake of “The Odyssey” nears release).

Most would say Godard’s masterpiece is “Breathless” (1960) which is terrific, but I prefer “Contempt” (1963), another richly layered but far more accessible work about filmmaking, and the creative process as an act of rebellion.

There’s also the classic “Bands of Outsiders” (1964), the deconstructed musical of “A Woman is a Woman” (1961), the Jane Fonda hostage drama “Tout va Bien!” (1972) and the cool, delightful film noir “Detective” (1985).

Godard’s finest films explore the possibilities of cinema and his newfound ways of expressing film art. Of course, only Godard’s “King Lear” has Godard croaking, “Mr. Alien!” and cuts to Allen piecing together film reels with needle and thread.

The post ‘King Lear’ – The Shakespeare Adapation Unlike Any Other appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

There’s always room for rom-coms that don’t insult our intelligence.

“Materialists” leans on the dramatic side, but there are enough laughs to merit its inclusion. It’s also smart, sharp and sophisticated in the realities of romance.

Director Celine Song’s follow-up to the terrific “Past Lives” is burdened by a seriously rushed sequence and an ending that feels too much like the formula deconstructed by the rest of the story.

A never better Dakota Johnson stars as Lucy, a seasoned matchmaker who knows all the boxes that must be checked before love can bloom.

Looks. Height. Income. Fitness.

Her love life, alas, is a work-in-progress. She still pines for John (Chris Evans), a struggling actor who couldn’t make enough money to sustain their relationship. 

That isn’t a problem for the new man in her life. Harry (Pedro Pascal) is absurdly rich, handsome, charismatic and did we mention absurdly rich? Lucy thinks he’s out of her league, but he’s smitten all the same. 

Is this love, or will memories of John short-circuit this love connection?

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by A24 (@a24)

That spare plotting belies the richer themes throughout “Materialists.” (An awful title, by the way, and one that may ding its box office fortunes). Director Celine Song (“Past Lives”) drills into modern dating without blinders.

Song’s script mocks men who demand mates be impossibly young and fit while skewering women for their wild expectations. That provides a steady stream of laughs, but the love triangle in play is a straightforward affair.

Bittersweet flashbacks of the Lucy/John relationship fill in some necessary gaps, and Pascal is perfect as the charmer who seems to have it all.

Lucy dubs him a “unicorn.” He’s almost too perfect.

Seasoned rom-com fans may predict where things are headed, but the journey is richer than expected. The screenplay proves relentlessly insightful. Song won’t sugarcoat the maddening nature of modern dating. 

Or the dangers.

It’s a shame the story is set in, wait for it, The Big Apple. The themes are universal, but that backdrop is so exhausted virtually any other metropolis would have added something extra.

Johnson’s range remains limited, but she stretches here in ways that the story demands. She’s vulnerable but self-assured, driven yet suddenly doubtful of her skill set.

A provocative subplot highlights that duality, giving the film a hint of menace.

Evans and Pascal nail their key moments. The “Last of Us” star behaves as if he watched every episode of “Sex and the City” and channeled the Perfect Man for our amusement.

Evans is more interesting, only because his character is relatably flawed. Try not to wince as he bickers with his roommates.

Brutal.

A key sequence, one that sets the third act in motion, is hurried in a frustrating manner. Even the charming leads can’t make the moment click, and the film suffers as a result. The romantic resolution similarly won’t be compared to “When Harry Met Sally” now or in the future.

It’s still sturdy enough not to damage what came before it.

Relationships are hard. Dating can be worse. We deserve movies that capture those realities, many warts and all. It’s why “Materialists,” despite minor flaws, is a welcome reprieve from the Kate Hudson-ization of rom-coms.

HiT or Miss: “Materialists” proves that pretty movie stars, fueled by wit and wisdom, can make the rom-com breathe again.

The post ‘Materialists’ Gets to Ugly Heart of Romance appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

“Seinfeld” wasn’t “Seinfeld” out of the gate.

The iconic sitcom, which began as “The Seinfeld Chronicles,” needed a few episodes before the show’s ensemble clicked into place. “Modern Family” found its stellar groove in episode two.

The ribald Netflix comedy “Tires” labored through six installments last year, proving fitfully funny but little more.

Season two is different. Better. Sharper. Must-see territory. You’ll even catch a major movie star “crashing” one episode.

And it starts with the “Saturday Night Live” castoff who is becoming far more than a rebel comic for hire.

Valley Forge Automotive Center is basking in something unfamiliar to the shop. Success.

Will (show co-creator Steve Gerben) slashed prices on tires at the end of season one, and the move has paid off. He’s even offered to make Shane the mechanic (Gillis) a manager. But Shane is busy flirting with a comely customer (Veronika Slowikowska, sharp) and keeping his wayward Pa (Thomas Haden Church, perennially great) at arm’s length.

Season one proved interesting on a few levels. The show wasn’t following the sitcom template, and Gillis’ comic rhythms made some sections pop. Still, it wasn’t as insightful as needed and the stories didn’t grab you by the collar.

The new episodes fix both problems.

“Tires” is alternately sweet and hard-R rated funny, the latter making the show a poor choice for clean comedy fans. Those who relish Apatow-style yuks will savor the bawdy bits.

Best of all?

The raunchy gags rarely feel forced or desperate. It’s just part of the thick tapestry of humor that coats each of the show’s 12 new episodes. “Airplane!” set the benchmark for rat-a-tat comedy, a technique that barely gives one time to breathe.

“Tires” isn’t in that grand tradition, but it’s rare to find a moment that lacks a farcical bent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Netflix US (@netflix)

Gillis’ creative partner John McKeever (“Gilly & Keeves”) keeps the show on steady ground, allowing the humor to develop organically. The writers may change from episode to episode, but McKeever knows exactly the tone he longs to project.

The show also packs a bittersweet punch that gives it an underdog appeal. Will is trying to prove to his father that he’s an entrepreneur in his own right, and he’s constantly bullied by Shane in the workplace. It’s good-natured, but it still leaves a mark.

FIRST LOOK: Vince Vaughn, Ron White, Thomas Haden Church, Jon Lovitz, Veronika Slowikowska, and Steph Tolev will guest star in Season 2 of Tires, starring Shane Gillis #NextOnNetflix pic.twitter.com/QHZ5nlOfAj

— Netflix Is A Joke (@NetflixIsAJoke) January 30, 2025

Shane wallows in his slacker identity, but when an old friend gets the job offered to him he softens. It helps that his replacement powers a killer installment, one of many episodes that can’t be missed.

Slowikowska’s emergence mid-season also finds Shane trying to be a better human being. It’s a tall task, but he might just be up for it.

Or not. The journey is the point.

“Tires” started as an obligation of sorts. Someday saw Gillis’ stand-up fame and gave him his obligatory sitcom shot. It’s grown into something more, a series with purpose and plenty of laughs.

The post Raunchy ‘Tires’ Finds the Funny in Season 2 appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

George A. Romero’s “The Amusement Park” (1974) is the real deal, the kind of horror film that hits hard and not merely because it’s violent.

In fact, by Romero’s standards, it’s fairly tame. The presentation is everything.

Here is a film that barely clocks in at an hour but would easily have been referred to by Malcolm McDowell’s “A Clockwork Orange” character as a “super horror show.” Aside from “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), it remains Romero’s most devastating film.

Incredibly, the film was lost for decades and only resurfaced a few years ago.

“The Amusement Park” begins like a public service announcement because that’s exactly what it is. Made as a short film for the Lutheran Services to raise awareness for their Meal on Wheels program, Romero took the opportunity and ran with it.

Specifically, he made a harsh, nerve-shattering film that begins conventionally, and then becomes a surreal depiction of the struggles the elderly face.

Lincoln Maazel (a Pittsburgh theater actor) stars as an old man in a plain white suit who buys a ticket and enters an amusement park, which initially seems welcoming and merry. Ominous signs (literally and figuratively) give him and us a warning of something uneasy ahead.

The film immerses our protagonist and the viewing audience in a dread-inducing reminder of mortality. It’s also a meditation on how the elderly often lack an advocate, let alone sympathy and support, in a world that moves fast and rushes by them.

The denizens of the amusement park are cruel and monstrous, which initially comes across as darkly humorous but descends into one disheartening encounter after another. Some of Romero’s prior and subsequent work could be referred to satiric or dark comedies but not this one.

RED ALERT! George A. Romero’s long-lost 1973 film THE AMUSEMENT PARK, said to be a terrifying meditation on aging and ageism, has been acquired by @Shudder. Next to Jerry Lewis’ THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED, this has been my most sought-after holy grail of unreleased cinema! pic.twitter.com/fPHMzVdRgt

— Dustin Putman (@DustinPutman) February 25, 2021

Made as a PSA but coming across like an especially punishing episode of “The Twilight Zone,” Romero puts us through the ringer to illuminate how hard, then and now, the world is for those who lose agency, support, health care and compassionate people around them.

Written by Wally Cook and filmed in 1973, “The Amusement Park” was completed, then shelved indefinitely after the Lutheran Services organization was horrified by what Romero delivered.

I like to imagine that first showing being akin to the Baptists getting their first look at what Edward D. Wood Jr. made of “Plan 9 from Outer Space” (1957), which they funded, and he shot in movie turkey infamy.

Of course, whereas “Plan 9 from Outer Space” is delightfully terrible, “The Amusement Park” succeeds by being far more effective than anyone involved could have expected. Imagine a religious foundation giving someone funding to create an anti-drug ad, and the filmmaker returning with “Requiem for a Dream” (2000)!

Romero was 33 years old when he made “The Amusement Park,” which is approximately 54 minutes long and was intended for TV airings, which never occurred. Marking his first collaboration with producer Richard Rubinstein, Romero went on to make “Dawn of the Dead,” “Martin” (both in 1978) and “Creepshow” (1981), among others, with Rubinstein over the ensuing years.

After a reported screening taking place in 2001, a 16mm print was discovered and sent to Romero, reportedly before his passing in 2017, where it was restored and made available to the public in 2021.

There are a lot of reasons to subscribe to the Shudder channel and this is a big one.

Shudder is the only channel that carries “The Amusement Park,” though they also offer subscribers films that are exclusives, as well as hard-to-find and out-of-print titles. It’s truly a shame that Romero wasn’t alive to see the audience and fanbase respond to the restored print that was brought back to the public.

RELATED: GEORGE A. ROMERO’S ‘CREEPSHOW’ PAVED WAY FOR COMIC-CON NATION 

Because of the abbreviated running time, most will view this as a curiosity item and more of an addition to Romero’s body of work than a true entry. That’s not correct.

“The Amusement Park” functions as barbed social commentary (as most of Romero’s works are, particularly the zombie films) and is among the director’s strongest visual and personal statements.

I’m a lifelong fan of “Night of the Living Dead,” adored “Land of the Dead” (2005) and even hold a candle for Romero’s underrated Stephen King adaptation, “The Dark Half” (1993).

Yet, seeing “The Amusement Park” presents the opportunity to familiarize longtime fans with how Romero shaped his best films – movies can be about something and be presented in the genre of horror films while still rattling those brave enough to buy a ticket.

For everyone who knows of Romero but has never been to “The Amusement Park,” it’s time to step up to the red line, buckle yourself in and try to keep your eyes open for the entire ride.

The post Is ‘Amusement Park’ George A. Romero’s Creepiest Film? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Kevin Smith’s “Dogma” (1999) was the fourth film from the breakthrough New Jersey indie filmmaker and easily his most controversial.

In fact, “Dogma” was, with little competition, the most controversial film of its year. The news building up to its release was impossible to miss.

Its original distributor, Miramax dropped it (they already encountered more controversy than they could handle with “Priest”) and people were picketing and protesting, long before anyone had even seen it.

Add the star-studded cast, months of building curiosity, surprisingly good word of mouth from a Cannes Film Festival screening and a trailer that showcased how different it was from every other ’99 release. Once audiences finally got a look at it, the biggest shock it offered was that, for all the off-color humor, Smith’s film was a love letter to his Catholic faith.

Smith’s plot gives us a lot to ingest, even in the early going: Two fallen angels, Loki and Bartleby (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) figure out a way to counter their tortured existence, after residing in Wisconsin as a form of purgatory. Their plans coincide with a New Jersey Cardinal (George Carlin) announcing a radical new look for the son of God to the public (if this bit offends you, you might want to abandon ship early).

There’s also Bethany (Linda Fiorentino), who works in an abortion clinic and finds her unsatisfied life suddenly full of possibilities after she encounters Metatron (Alan Rickman), who acts as the voice of God. There’s also Jay and Silent Bob (played as always by Jason Mewes and Smith), the bumbling stoners who are now prophets.

Add Rufus, the 13th apostle (Chris Rock) and a monster that originates from a strip club toilet.

RELATED: HOW KEVIN SMITH CHANGED FILM WITH ‘TUSK’

“Dogma” is overloaded with ideas and subplots. Imagine “Wings of Desire” (1987) crossed with “South Park.” Watching it is like eavesdropping on a group of rowdy theology students having a passionate and extremely crude conversation about theological possibilities.

Smith’s film is sometimes silly, sometimes heartfelt and also quite wonderful. “Dogma,” at its core, is sincere and touching, with enough huge laughs to balance out the bits that either should have been shortened or better developed.

For a low-budget indie, there’s a lot of movie here.

Smith’s justifiably praised but extremely crude “Clerks” (1994) was the obvious breakthrough, while the unloved sophomore slump turned cult film “Mallrats” (1995) was the growth spurt into commercial filmmaking. His third, possibly best film, “Chasing Amy” (1997), demonstrated that he could make a gripping love story consisting of characters who were an emotional mess.

As crass and juvenile as “Dogma” often is, it is also daring, ambitious and even passionate in its many discussions of religion. Those conversations (this is a dialog-driven film) are always a pleasure to listen to.

In the buildup to the release, the protesters repeatedly accused the film of blasphemy. The controversy around the film was immediately determined to be hypocritical: whereas little to no complaining was made towards the openly anti-Catholic “Stigma” and “End of Days,” both late 1999 horror films about Catholic conspiracies and evil cabals within the church, “Dogma” was made an example of immediately.

In fact, since it was originally being distributed by Miramax, the movie everyone compared it to at first was the aforementioned “Priest” (1995), which garnered controversy but generated little interest, as the box office and critics’ reactions were dismissive.

The rowdy audience I saw “Dogma” with at a preview screening, roughly a week before the wide release, was full of Smith fans and the curious who were not swayed by the reports of mass protests and condemnation.
“Dogma” is as similarly thoughtful and infantile as “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” (1979) and it would make an interesting double feature with Smith’s “Red State” (2011).

The latter also celebrates faith and religious beliefs but is critical of hypocrisy and those who weaponize the trust of believers.

Smith overloads his story with so many incidents and supporting characters, I always forget that Bud Cort is even in this (after a striking introduction, the actor is absent for most of the film).

“Dogma” goes with a “Wizard of Oz”-structure of the story building on each new character acquired. All of the scenes with Affleck and Damon are funny and sharply written; their performances get richer as the story progresses.

Jay and Silent Bob remain Smith’s secret weapons, though Rickman and Rock steal all of their scenes.

I’ve never been a fan of Fiorentino’s morose, functional performance here, but she has an admittedly compelling scene she shares with Affleck on a train that unquestionably elevates the movie. The ending is as ambitious as it is emotionally satisfying, and Smith earns the film’s darker moments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Rich Eisen (@richeisen)

Howard Shore’s great score does the heavy lifting during the fight scenes and Alanis Morrissette’s “Still” remains one of the best songs written for a film that didn’t get an Oscar nomination. The special effects are surprisingly good and, like the best of Smith’s films, it’s extremely quotable.

“Dogma” is overlong, needed to be condensed and not everything in it works. In fact, I’d argue that Smith’s subsequent “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” (2001) is not only better but remains Smith’s funniest film.

Nevertheless, even though “Dogma” didn’t live up to all the prerelease infamy and, at the end of the day, is a raunchy but clever comedy, the best scenes demonstrate Smith as a gifted social commentator, satirist and artist.

Now that “Dogma” is back in theaters, after being out of print and not on streaming, it’s an opportunity to discover how well it holds up. I recommend seeing it with a group of friends and be prepared for some potent post-screening discussions…or a chance to pepper casual conversation with “snootchie boochies.”

The post Why Kevin Smith’s ‘Dogma’ Remains Deeply Misunderstood appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Sean Byrne’s “Dangerous Animals” wastes no time setting up its diabolical premise.

We see a nice couple on vacation who are unlucky enough to meet a wily boat captain named Bruce Tucker (Jai Courtney). A few minutes into the privately chartered boat trip and the promise of allowing the couple to submerge in a cage and get really close to sharks, the trip takes a dark turn.

Tucker doesn’t just want these saucer-eyed tourists to see the sharks up close but wants to chum the water with them. After a few minutes of this and the title card appearing, we meet a new couple unfortunate enough to run into Tucker at exactly the wrong moment.

Presented at such an over-the-top pitch, it almost counters how savage it is. “Dangerous Animals” is completely ridiculous, but the approach to the story, as comparably inelegant as this is, actually mimics the structure of “The Vanishing” (1988).

Of course, whereas “The Vanishing” is a model of restraint and unbearable suspense, “Dangerous Animals” dares its audience not to look away while victims are devoured alive.

For anyone who thought “Wolf Creek” (2005) was too subtle and needed sharks, here’s your movie.

RELATED: 11 INSANE SHARK MOVIES (NOT NAMED ‘SHARKNADO’)

The two leads give star-making performances – I wouldn’t be surprised if Hassie Harrison and Josh Heuston became name actors in a few years. That’s how good they are here.

I liked the characters, cared whether they would survive (unlike the teens of most horror films) and found the actors to have real movie-star charisma.

Courtney’s performance is really something. After not registering in “Die Hard” and “Terminator” sequels, his Bruce Tucker (yes, the first name is a “Jaws” reference) alternates between being a funny and hideous alpha male parody.

If this movie gives Courtney’s acting career a needed redirect and more interesting character roles like this, then we’re in for a treat.

Byrne fashions this in an antsy manner that often matches Courtney’s performance, which almost but not quite distracts from how repetitive the story is.

Towards the end, Tucker resembles Jack Torrance from “The Shining” (1980), but minus any depth or perspective. The lack of a backstory actually becomes a problem in the late going, as Tucker’s crimes are so bizarre and elaborate, that they seriously deserve an explanation, which is never given.

Why?

I’m unsure if it was wise to never provide a case history for the villain and avoid diagnosing his madness, as his modus operandi is so silly and parody ready.

As good as these actors are and as skillfully as Byrne tells this tale, it was never enough to make me believe any of this is possible.

In this age of surveillance and abnormal activity being filmed and constantly uploaded online, it seems implausible, if not impossible, for our killer to be getting away with his demonstrative, elaborate and out-in-the-open crimes.

If this was set in the late 20th century, I’d believe that Tucker could be so brazenly careless and look-at-me crazy out in the open with his sick intentions, but this takes place in a world with cell phones.

There’s just no way any of this is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Dangerous Animals (@dangerousanimalsfilm)

I’d believe the most outsized trap constructed by Jigsaw, but Tucker’s operation is too obviously sketchy. Once we realize how many times he’s committed his crimes, it’s another moment where I couldn’t buy where the story wanted to take me.

Also, wouldn’t the lack of good Yelp reviews keep tourists away?

“Jaws” (1975) is the definitive shark thriller, and “Deep Blue Sea” (1999) deserves its steady cult following. Yet, as far as low-budget shark tales go, “Open Water” (2004) is still king.

If there’s any point to this, it’s simply this: don’t go near sharks. You know what, “Dangerous Animals”? Done.

Two and a Half Stars (out of four)

The post ‘Dangerous Animals’ Takes Shark Horror to New Level appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It takes a good, long while before “Ballerina” realizes it’s part of the “John Wick” franchise.

Yes, the spinoff embraces the saga’s wry details, from those arcane switchboards to hotel lobbies doubling as literal safe spaces. The film lacks that go-for-broke spirit that makes the hyperviolent series such a guilty pleasure.

It’s just another action vehicle … until it isn’t.

The third act could wake the dead. And, yes, there will be fire.

“Ballerina” is an origin story, first and foremost. We meet young Eve Macarro as she watches her father die at the hands of The Chancellor (Gabriel Byrne), the film’s heavy.

She’s an orphan now, and she falls into the hands of a secret society led by the no-nonsense Director (Anjelica Huston, slumming but having fun all the same). Eve grows up, looking an awful lot like former Bond girl Ana de Armas. She’s a quick study in the Ruska Roma tradition of shooting first and not bothering to ask questions later.

Assassination 101 comes naturally to her.

Still, she can’t forget her father’s murder, and when an assignment reveals a thug with the same skin tattoo as her dad’s killer she goes rogue.

She’ll have her vengeance or die trying.

“Ballerina” is an improvement on “John Wick” in one crucial way. John went berserk after someone killed his dog. Eve’s mission is to avenge her saintly Pa.

Upgrade!

The action takes place between the third and fourth “John Wick” installments, for those eager to line up the saga in its proper context. That allows John himself (the ageless Keanu Reeves) to make an appearance in Eve’s evolution.

That matters, and “Ballerina” isn’t shy about the Wick connection. We’ll say no more.

“Ballerina” knows we’re here for the nonstop action, and you don’t have to wait long until the next battle begins. 

Still, the film’s emotional beats almost all fall flat, and it’s not for lack of opportunities. Eve’s family tree should supply some human interest between the gun fights, but a key subplot fizzles.

Another possible connection disappoints when Eve meets a young girl in the Chancellor’s crosshairs. Could “Ballerina” provide Eve with a Newt-like figure to tap her maternal side, a la “Aliens?”

Nah.

RELATED: WHY THE ‘JOHN WICK’ FRANCHISE CAN’T BE STOPPED

The great Norman Reedus shows up mid-film but “Ballerina” isn’t quite sure what to do with him. That holds true on several levels. The spinoff underwent reshoots and took its sweet time reaching theaters.

Occasionally, it shows.

Plus, it’s bittersweet to see Lance Reddick on screen for the last time. The versatile actor died in March of 2023 but remains a welcome part of the “John Wick”-iverse. Or any film, for that matter.

Director Len Wiseman’s choreographs the “Ballerina” fight sequences with aplomb, but they lack the creative handiwork of the best “Wick” moments. That changes after the hour mark passes.

The kills become increasingly gruesome and clever, and the pace picks up considerably. Ah, that’s more like it. That’s why we bought our ticket in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Ballerina (@ballerinamovie)

That also means the story’s rickety structure begins to collapse. Audiences are advised to follow the simple revenge template and not sweat the details. Any details.

There’s no other way to absorb the manic, go-for-broke third act. Just sit back and let it wash over you, knowing de Armas is a snug fit for action heroics. She’s never less than convincing, no small praise when Reeves is sharing the screen with you.

That makes this de Armas-led spinoff worth it for hardcore Wickians.

HiT or Miss: “Ballerina” is second-tier “John Wick” until its glorious, nonsensical finale.

The post Why the Fiery But Not So Peaceful ‘Ballerina’ Rocks appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.