Hollywood has spent the last decade attacking Donald Trump from every possible angle.

Save one.

What if a dyed-in-the-wool liberal met a handsome MAGA man and, gasp, felt butterflies with every glance?

“The Elephant in the Room” dares to address that question, and it’s a minefield in more ways than one. Kudos to writer/director Erik Bork for not only navigating what could have been a calamitous premise but bringing balance to the story.

Not “The View’s” four Leftists versus one GOP RINO brand of balance, mind you.

And, yeah, it’s both charming and romantic. Now, will it change those unwilling to break bread with someone on the opposite side of the political fence?

Heck, it’s only a movie… but you never know.

Leah (a sparky Alyssa Limperis) is nursing a broken heart and trying to connect with her dour gay roommate Martin (Dominic Burgess).

We’re already in uncharted territory, given Martin’s unusual mien. Hollywood’s de facto stereotyping would have Martin cracking wise and dropping hot takes.

“I’m not sassy and I won’t call you ‘girlfriend,'” he warns her in his Eeyore drawl.

Her malaise lifts, courtesy of a Grub Hub-style delivery man.

Vincent (Sean Kleier) got her order wrong, but she has a hard time getting mad at him. He’s easy on the eyes, gracious and funny, and there’s instant chemistry at play.

They flirt via text and finally meet, but the story is set in early 2021, so politics can’t help but invade the date:

• Stolen election!
• Rigged voting booths!
• A planned Jan. 6 rally will install Trump as our forever president!

When Vincent admits he voted for Trump … twice, Leah is crestfallen. She’s a Rachel Maddow fan and can’t date a man who doesn’t click on every HuffPo update.

So why does she keep seeing him?

“Elephant” would feel heavy in almost any period save our current one. The issues in play are real, not imaginary, and Bork’s script treats them with the respect they deserve. 

If anything, Leah comes off as judgmental, but there’s a kindness to her that cuts through that pose. Credit a savvy script and Limperis’s winning performance. The character requires both to thrive.

Erik Bork Talks About his New Red vs Blue Rom-Com, ‘The Elephant in the Room’ – Interview #erikbork #romcom #redstate #bluestate #interview #fanboynationhttps://t.co/myEWw1Ss55

— FanboyNation (@FanboyNation) August 14, 2025

Movies that tackle political debates routinely short-change conservatives. The liberal will uncork a smart, well-organized defense while the Republican spits out stale talking points.

It’s rarely, if ever, a fair fight.

“The Elephant in the Room” is different. Vincent defends his positions well. He’s neither a conspiracy monger nor ill-informed. And, in a reflection of many Left/Right debates, he’s more liberal in the traditional sense when dealing with people who don’t hold his views.

The screenplay softens Vincent’s MAGA bona fides, a sop to audiences who wouldn’t accept an “election denier” as a leading man. That’s fine.

And, to be fair, Leah isn’t the kind to post a screechy TikTok selfie that gains traction on the Right. She’s still too smug by half, but no one’s perfect.

“Elephant” could be funnier, but it never strains for a laugh or sets the characters up for a cheap fall. It’s respectful, but not dull, and even the final moments avoid bow-tying conveniences.

Vincent’s Trumpy grandma (Sandra Ellis Lafferty) comes close to the crude MAGA stereotype we expect from a feature film. She’s granted some humanity and texture, and Lafferty plays the part with a delicate touch. Her bond with Vincent is natural and sweet, even during a subplot that could alienate some viewers.

Rom-coms have suffered in recent years, partly due to extreme artifice. “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days,” anyone?

“The Elephant in the Room” is real. Too real, to be honest, but sometimes that’s where the best love connections begin.

HiT or Miss: “The Elephant in the Room” is a minor miracle, a politically-charged rom-com with brains and balance.

The post ‘Elephant in the Room’ Is the Perfect Rom-Com for Trump Era appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Samuel Van Grinsven’s “Went Up the Hill” is a ghost story and psychological drama that meditates on grief.

It works best as the latter and hardly at all as the former.

In a gorgeous, remote location, full of mountains and vast, empty spaces (the stunning setting is in New Zealand), a funeral is taking place. We meet the deceased’s wife, Jill (Vicky Krieps) and Jack (Dacre Montgomery), the son who was left behind and shows up unexpectedly.

After the service, Jack and Jill learn how much they have in common, their lives defined by the one who died. Their relationship becomes emotionally and physically intimate, though with a bizarre step beyond that – whenever they sleep, the soul of the departed possesses them and they’re able to have conversations with the dead.

Van Grinsven gives us a brooding, quiet start that never lets up, giving us the kind of pin-drop chamber piece that feels like the works of Ingmar Bergman. Yet, Bergman pulled us in with character insights, shocking moments of physical/verbal violence and human connections, in addition to the dream-like atmosphere.

Here, the setting is the most compelling component.

Another likely inspiration is Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” (1940), but minus Hitchcock’s visual wit and verisimilitude as a film artist. To put it another way – here is another movie about grieving and struggling to reconcile who you are, your identity, while trying to comprehend someone who seems just as present after death.

As a meditation on grief, “Went Up a Hill” is sincere but not insightful or novel. Taken as a supernatural drama, it’s slow and obvious.

The exquisite cinematography is by Tyson Perkins, who captures otherworldly vistas and creates striking, beautiful compositions. There is a painterly precision to the filmmaking. The visual beauty is the film’s greatest asset, particularly during all the exterior shots.

On the other hand, Hanan Tonwnsend’s ambient soundtrack is the kind of score that sounds like either a death wail or whale songs. Far more effective is the sound design, with crackling ice under the surface sounds of the chilly wilderness.

Why Dacre Montgomery Returned to Acting 3 Years After Stranger Things: New Movie ‘Changed My Life’ (Exclusive) https://t.co/OUinQDC16a

— People (@people) August 13, 2025

“Went Up the Hill” is intended as an exploration of what death does to the living and those who feel left behind when the departed leaves us with agonizing, unresolved questions.

This is basically a two-hander, with two excellent performances carrying this morose, slow-building drama. The result is interesting to think about afterwards, but it never pulled me in. It’s the kind of film where I’d prefer to hear why the director made it more than sitting through it again.

Van Grinsven’s film leaves such a frosty impression, I couldn’t even connect with its very-belated attempts at uplift. The ending works better as a metaphor than a proper climax, though the film as a whole functions the same way.

For a story with the tenacity to portray the invisible presence of ghosts and their ability to possess the living, what I’ll remember most are scenes of mental anguish and surviving a frozen lake over anything else.

There is poetry in the visuals and an admirable attempt to explore the pain left behind by someone who is somehow more present in death. I admire how the film is a chamber piece, but despite those strong qualities, I was all too aware of the methodical approach, and never lost myself in the film or felt anything beyond mild fascination while watching it.

The film’s classy look and presentation are impressive, though they are ultimately stronger than the film’s goals of facing mortality by accepting who we are.

Actually, if this is what catharsis looks like, the movie is enough to sway anyone from ever attending a funeral again.

Two Stars

The post ‘Went Up the Hill’ Looks Death Square in the Eye appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Spike Lee has seen too many movies.

How else to explain “Highest 2 Lowest,” a farcical thriller where nearly every twist feels like it was cribbed from a lesser film. Shouldn’t Lee know better?

Even worse, he doesn’t know what to do with one of our greatest living actors. Yes, Lee and Denzel Washington made magic in the past, but the actor’s role here never makes sense.

Not in the beginning, middle or end of the film. That’s movie magic in reverse.

Washington stars as David King, a music mogul struggling through a professional crisis. Should he sell his company and cash out after some lean years? Or could he reinvest in Stackin’ Hits Records and prove he’s not a one-career wonder?

That decision gets shelved when his teenage son Trey (Aubrey Joseph) is kidnapped. The crooks want some of Daddy’s millions to set him free. A lot of his millions, to be precise.

David will do anything to save his son, but what happens when the kidnapping crisis changes, and it’s no longer his son who needs saving? The film’s moral compass starts to spin, and now the father in crisis is David’s chauffeur and longtime friend Paul (Jeffrey Wright). 

The screenplay, credited to Alan Fox but bearing all the hallmarks of Lee’s worldview, drops plenty of exposition in the first half hour. What it doesn’t offer is psychological depth, the kind a movie like this demands.

Washington makes David King both arrogant and conflicted, his mannerisms suggesting a rough and tumble past smoothed over by decades of extreme wealth. But who is this David King? The screenplay isn’t sure, leaving Washington to occasionally overact to sell the performance.

It’s one of his weaker efforts, full stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by A24 (@a24)

“Highest 2 Lowest” is a Spike Lee Joint through and through. The film peddles black empowerment at a near-constant clip, from a fawning image of Kamala Harris prominently featured in one scene to lingering close-ups of black art decorating David’s home.

It doesn’t end there, and when Lee isn’t selling cultural cues, he’s admiring the Big Apple.

“Highest 2 Lowest” rivals peak Woody Allen in its adoration of all things New York City. Puerto Rican culture. Sparkling skyscrapers. Aaron Judge and the New York Yankees. It plays out as endlessly self-indulgent, more signs of Lee signaling his interests rather than building an airtight story.

(Personal aside: This critic was born in The Bronx, adores the Yankees and grew up on Long Island, and I found it suffocating)

Lee’s film, a loose update on Akira Kurosawa’s “High and Low,” attempts some crude social commentary in between kidnapping updates. Think fears of being “canceled” and brand protection in the digital age, along with a swipe at A.I. None of it is compelling or nuanced, nor does it raise the stakes of the key storylines.

The film’s third act is a mess, including a confrontation that’s as head-slapping dumb as any horror movie cliche. 

Spike Lee reflects on working with Denzel Washington and A$AP Rocky in “Highest 2 Lowest.” pic.twitter.com/ERTqnx7pIK

— E! News (@enews) August 12, 2025

A true bright spot is an extended appearance by rapper A$AP Rocky, playing a musician who admires David King’s rise to fame. Lee channels the rapper’s energy to perfection, giving the film an undeniable pulse. The cinematography is also a plus, including an opening montage of Manhattan visuals that is both obvious and exhilarating.

Lee also stages a key kidnapping sequence with the skills he’s sharpened over the years. What a shame that it makes little sense and is repeatedly interrupted by Lee’s New York fetishizing.

Love New York all you want, but make it organic to the story. Please.

The rest? “Highest 2 Lowest” feels artificial from start to finish, a movie made by someone disconnected from the real world. Fame can do that to an artist, even an Oscar winner like Lee. The proof stains every frame of “Highest 2 Lowest.”

HiT or Miss: Spike Lee movies are never dull. Sadly, they’re often not very good, either. “Highest 2 Lowest” falls into the latter category.

The post Not Even Denzel Can Save ‘Highest 2 Lowest’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Nobody needed a vacation more than Hutch Mansell.

The unlikely hero of 2021’s “Nobody” is back, and this time he’s taking his family to an old-school water park.

Except he can’t help doing a little “work” on the side.

“Nobody 2” understands why the first film defied expectations, even if it lacks that movie’s element of surprise. What’s left? More bone-crunching action, a ripe sense of humor and the feeling that this franchise could overlap the “John Wick” saga without anyone batting an eye.

Bob Odenkirk returns as Hutch, the assassin next door whose double life is an open secret on the home front. That means his frustrated wife Becca (Connie Nielsen) puts up with him being late for dinner – a lot – and his kids know that Daddy has a temper.

Hutch’s work-life balance is more brutal than most parents, so he shleps the family to the water park where he once spent some glorious days as a lad.

Let’s make memories, gang!

Too bad the town in question is under the thumb of a corrupt lawman (Colin Hanks, cast effectively against type) and a shadowy figure known as Lendina (Sharon Stone, gobbling scenery with elan). It doesn’t take long for Hutch to fall back on his pugilistic ways.

There will be blood, and much of it will be Hutch’s.

Can he save the town from Lendina’s clutches while making sure his family gets the vacation memories they deserve? Who knew Hutch had an inner Clark Griswold?

“Nobody 2” brings back Grandpa (the great Christopher Lloyd), though you’ll wish he appeared in more scenes than he does. We also reunite with Hutch’s adopted brother Harry (RZA), adding some context to the main character’s background.

Never mind the plot puzzle pieces. We’re here for tooth-loosening punches, delivered by an Everyman who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “quit,” let alone “stay down.” Odenkirk remains one of Hollywood’s most unlikely action heroes, but he once again pulls off those dual duties with aplomb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Nobody 2 (@nobodymovie)

The story packs plenty of plot holes, but it retains a cartoon-like quality that makes them mostly forgivable. Mostly.

We’re meant to look past the fact that our lovable hero is a paid killer who can’t stop putting his family in harm’s way. And when Becca warns he’s setting a bad example for his teen son Brady (Gage Monroe), Grandpa lets Hutch off the hook far too easily.

Director Timo Tjahjanto takes over for Ilya Naishuller, capturing the latter’s organized sense of mayhem. The visuals pop, and Hutch’s knack for making a weapon out of anything within reach remains a treat.

Tjahjanto can’t match the giddy nihilism of the first film’s bus brawl, but he makes Hutch battle a group of hoodlums in an elevator for good measure.

Take a step back from the carnage.

This is formula storytelling at its most professional. The action sequences pop. The wink-wink lines land. Odenkirk delivers the kind of performance that unites the two films, suggesting more stories are in play, depending on box office receipts.

And audiences get a 90-minute romp devoid of pretension and gravitas. That’s a vacation many moviegoers can’t resist. Nor should they.

HiT or Miss: “Nobody 2” is a perfectly good sequel. It can’t measure up to the original, but it knows exactly why we rallied behind the first film.

The post Why ‘Nobody 2’ Is Guaranteed to Please Action Fans appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Robert Longo’s “Johnny Mnemonic” (1995) was considered an outright disaster upon its summer of 1995 release.

Now, it’s something of a cult favorite, not only because its new black and white version is preferred among its fanbase but because it has yet another Keanu Reeves performance that has aged far better than expected.

That’s not to say the movie is good, only that the entertainment value and an appreciation of Reeves’ most infamous scene (I’ll get to that shortly), have increased over time.

Reeves is so robotic as the title character, it comes as a surprise when we learn he isn’t playing a robot or android. Johnny is a high-tech courier in a futuristic world of 2021 where, rather than send something via e-mail on the internet (concepts the film seems aware of but doesn’t fully broach), he inserts information into his brain, which serves as a hard drive.

What happens to all the other memories he holds? Johnny helpfully explains to us, “I had to dump a large chunk of long-term memory … my childhood.”

When Johnny is given an especially valuable piece of information, hit men are sent to decapitate him. All of this is accompanied by a cool soundtrack by artists like Stabbing Westward, Bono and the Edge, Buckethead and Orbital, though the songs are better heard on the soundtrack than the barely-there way they float through the movie.

Longtime readers know how much I like Reeves, but his performance here isn’t great, to put it nicely. The film itself is a missed opportunity but a fascinating one. It’s a rare case of cyber-genius author William Gibson translating his vision to the big screen.

Despite Gibson authoring the screenplay (based on one of his stories), acclaimed artist Longo directing and sporting a most unusual cast, “Johnny Mnemonic” remains a fascinating, visually arresting and fatally goofy failure.

Reeves is often very funny as Johnny, occasionally on purpose, but mostly because his amusingly wooden acting and the silly dialog combine to make a perfect storm of an enjoyably bad performance.

In the 1995 film Johnny Mnemonic, the eponymous character (Keanu Reeves) was a data courier with a brain implant that could hold 80GB of data.

A few days back, I picked up this Lexar 512GB JumpDrive for $39.95 and didn’t have to sacrifice my childhood memories like Johnny did. pic.twitter.com/vkzu5LAA9l

— Clayton Hove (@adtothebone) February 18, 2024

The computer graphic imagery still looks cool, whether it’s Johnny conducting a hack with VR headgear and what looks like a Nintendo Power Glove, or the all-out, “TRON”-like finish. Even though this was made in the age of CD-ROMs, and “the net” was still in its infancy (but is referenced enough to suggest Gibson’s understanding of its potential), it’s fun to see the 1995 cyber punk idea of 2021 technology.

As if the camp value wasn’t already intact, there’s Dolph Lundgren’s performance as The Preacher, a long haired assassin who spouts religious-themed one-liners the way Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze is full of “ice” puns in “Batman & Robin” (1997).

This came out the same year as “The Net” and “Hackers,” all of which paint a distinctly ’90s vision of computer hacking and techno awareness as dated as a dusty old copy of Wired Magazine. Gibson’s prophetic warnings of “information overload” are intriguing but don’t fully come across.

Takeshi Kitano has a supporting role as a charismatic assassin; Kitano’s part was much bigger in the film’s longer overseas release and is partially restored in the newer, preferred version. Even with a cast that includes Dina Meyer (who exhibits real movie star presence), Udo Kier, Ice-T (looking as silly here as he was in “Tank Girl” the same year) and Henry Rollins, this is less playfully quirky than conceptually messy.

Take away the star power and flashy effects, and it’s as grungy and under-lit as those 1980s Golan/Globus sci-fi productions from Cannon Films.

Longo clearly gets the value of textured art direction but aiming for Terry Gilliam visuals doesn’t work if there isn’t a human center at the core. The computer graphics are every bit as hyper-stylized and cool-looking as those in “The Lawnmower Man” (1992) and “Disclosure” (1994) and provide a temporary distraction from how bad the film is.

Yet, it’s hard to resist a movie with a mystical, hardwired dolphin, a literal “ghost in the machine” and Reeves’ immortal “I Want Room Service” monolog. The latter was reportedly due to Reeves having had just played Hamlet (in an acclaimed performance on the Canadian stage) and wanting a beefy bit of dialog.

I’m glad the Bard inspired Reeves, as his late-in-the-movie bit about wanting a “$10,000.00 a night hooker” is funnier than most of his performances in actual comedies.

An audacious cult favorite, JOHNNY MNEMONIC (1995)—starring Keanu Reeves—is a roller coaster of action and high-impact imagery.

As part of our AI collection, we’re presenting the Exclusive Streaming Premiere of a black-and-white version of the film. https://t.co/KbIup3Er45 pic.twitter.com/MOoULIJuxe

— Criterion Channel (@criterionchannl) July 3, 2023

Bad movies can be fun, as this one most definitely is. Reeves had no luck with this instant box office flop, nor playing another John (Jonathan Harker) in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992), where he was the weak link in an otherwise brilliant film.

Reeves’ performance as John Constantine in 2005 was, likewise, not widely loved until the film developed a better reputation a decade or so later. The actor hit upon a winner with “John Wick” (2014).

I’d also argue that his all-time best performance playing a “Johny” can be found in “Point Break” (1991), where he plays Johnny Utah. If this seems like a silly thing to ponder, just try watching “Johnny Mnemonic,” with its talking dolphin and Lundgren-gone-wild.

I have to hand it to Reeves – his best movies are genuinely terrific, while his bad ones, in hindsight, are proving to be more fun than expected.

The post ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ at 30: So Bad … It’s Good? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Some kids crave the danger and excitement found in horror movies, but they’re too young for adult-level scares.

Even this 50-something critic wasn’t prepared for what the “Terrifier” series delivered.

Some movies offer a bridge to the genre, a chance for pre-teens to sample it with cinematic guardrails. The recent “Goosebumps” adaptations fall into that category. So did Jack Black’s “The House with a Clock in Its Walls.”

“Sketch” gets that quasi-horror blend mostly right.

It’s an engrossing tale of loss, grief and resilience. The scares are sharply defined, but there’s no gore or profanity to make parents squirm.

Best of all? Young and old will cheer the story’s beleaguered heroes. Be warned. Children under 10 may get some unwanted nightmares from this probing take on loss.

Young Amber (Bianca Belle) uses art to process her mother’s death. She draws wild, violent images that suggest a disturbed mindset.

Her school is worried about her state of mind. So is her father, Taylor (Tony Hale, terrific), but he’s busy juggling work and suppressing his sense of loss.

Amber’s drawings depict beasts attacking the school bully, among other would-be victims. Her brother Jack (Kue Lawrence) tries to be supportive, but he’s understandably confused by her drawings.

He’s even more baffled by a local pond that appears to have magical powers. It heals his phone’s cracked screen in a blink, for example, along with a broken dish.

When Amber’s drawing pad gets an accidental dunk in the pond, it brings some of her ghastliest creatures to life.

And boy, are they angry.

Writer/director Seth Worley gave himself an almost impossible task. Tell a harrowing adventure where children are in peril while showcasing a family processing profound grief.

Most directors might muddle up the tonal balance between those narratives, but Worley appears well suited to the challenging material. His young leads do their part, delivering nuanced turns that leave the cutesy theatrics behind.

So does Hale, best known as the man-child Buster from “Arrested Development.” He modulates his comic timing to be both grounded and, on occasion, paternal. He works well with his on-screen sibling, “The Good Place’s” D’Arcy Carden, a realtor trying to keep his brother’s life in order.

The film’s editing is sharp and inspired, giving Worley’s punchlines the chance to land as intended. The real marvels are the CGI beasts sprung from Amber’s imagination. They look like a children’s sketch come to life, complete with raggedy lines and an impish sense of danger.

The film offers even more comic relief in the form of Bowman (Kalon Cox), the aforementioned bully. Picture a scene-stealer from a ‘90s kid comedy and you get the gist.

Worley’s direction here less polished, but younger audiences may disagree. Strenuously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Cinemark Theatres (@cinemark)

The best children’s films work on dueling levels. They engage young minds while sharing something profound for adults. “Sketch” offers a meditation on grief and loss, using fantastical creatures to make its points.

And it can be quite scary.

A few lines of dialogue are on-the-nose, but they capture the real villain in play. It’s not a towering monster with one good eye but merely the cruelties of life.

“Sketch” leaves some unanswered questions, especially since the locals may have questions about the creatures rampaging across their neighborhood. Forget those distractions. This adventure has heart, hope and will keep audiences open to the healing power of family.

HiT or Miss: “Sketch” may be intense for younger viewers, but the rest of the family will marvel at the sweet performances and powerful life lessons.

The post ‘Sketch’ Delivers a (Very) Scary Good Time appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Maybe Sebastian Maniscalco should make a horror movie next.

We’ve already seen Jordan Peele pivot from Comedy Central to horror with “Get Out” and “Us.” Now, Zach Cregger follows his flawed but fascinating “Barbarian” with the year’s best shocker, “Weapons.”

Cregger got his start with The Whitest Kids U’ Know comedy troupe. Now, he’s part of the new wave of horror mavens, including Peele, Osgood Perkins and Mike Flanagan.

Yes, “Weapons” boasts laugh-out-loud moments, and not the kind that happen at the film’s expense. Don’t call it a horror-comedy. The laughs let us process the unbearable tension in this fresh, prickly original.

Buckle in.

It’s so good you’ll struggle to watch the next B-movie that flashes across your streaming menu. That’s the worst that can be said about Cregger’s instant classic. Other genre fare suddenly pales in comparison.

The story opens with a child narrator setting the horrific scene. Her tone is sober and crisp, which makes her message all the more alarming.

The students in teacher Justine Gandy’s third-grade class go missing one day – save one child, young Alex (Cary Christopher).

Julia Garner, great as always, plays the distraught teacher. She becomes the target of grieving parents like Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), who suspect she’s not telling all she knows about the mass disappearance.

Local officials are stumped. The town is in mourning. Justine fears for her safety. And “Weapons” is just warming up.

Cregger’s film deserves to be seen with as few spoilers as possible, so we’ll stop the plot description there. Just know the writer/director embraces a familiar storytelling tic to flesh out the narrative, but it’s done in ways that crank up the tension and flesh out the larger story.

What seems a distraction is suddenly a vital, necessary approach. And about that two-plus hours running time? Don’t give it a thought. This film moves.

At times, “Weapons” doesn’t resemble a horror film. It’s exquisitely crafted and raw, but extended scenes let us get to know the players without genre trappings. Some figures are obvious given their roles in the narrative. Others? Far less so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by ODEON Cinemas (@odeoncinemas)

Garner’s character is wildly imperfect, and her romantic entanglements spike the stakes. Brolin’s rage at his child’s disappearance finds him tilting at windmills, a nod to our conspiratorial age.

You can read plenty into “Weapons,” but Cregger isn’t foisting anything specific on us. Great films let us tease out themes where none may exist, a mark of crafty world-building.

An exception? One visual evokes AK-47 imagery, but the moment fades before it leaves any kind of mark.

This small town feels like one we’ve known all our lives. And let’s not dismiss Alden Ehrenreich. The “Solo” alum is quietly terrific as a cop juggling more than the mass disappearance.

Veteran actress Amy Madigan steals the movie, but the less said about her character, the better. Heck, we’ve said too much already.

“Barbarian” had its share of gonzo moments, but Cregger kept a firm hand on the material. His discipline is even better with “Weapons,” a sure sign of creative growth. Horror junkies will still see kills they’ll be praising for weeks.

Remember that “buckle in” warning?

Cregger packs plenty of style into “Weapons,” but it’s never flashy or distracting, nor is the haunting score (credited to Cregger and Ryan and Hays Holladay) anything but part of the excitement. The writer/director is fully in charge of his talent, creating a comfort of sorts for audiences.

You’re in good hands. Now, get to the edge of your seat … and stay there.

HiT or Miss: “Weapons” is a fiercely original shocker with strong performances, a sly structure and an ending that’s both creepy and cathartic.

The post ‘Weapons’ Confirms a New Horror Auteur Has Arrived appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Piere Perifel’s “The Bad Guys 2” is a nice surprise, an initially middle-of-the-road follow-up to 2022’s sleeper that hits the ground running in the late stretch and emerges a worthy, exhilarating sequel.

The Big Bad Mr. Wolf (voiced again by Sam Rockwell, essential to the film’s success) is now a respectable member of society, missing his days as a notorious villain and the head of a motley crew of thieves. Mr. Wolf and his teams fail at acquiring legitimate jobs, as none of them can pass a sample background check or come across as capable of taking on real work.

When a heist pulled off by the “Phantom Bandit” has law enforcement desperate for help, they turn to Mr. Wolf and his former “Bad Guys,” though the solution to the puzzle pits them against an entirely new crew of villains.

My daughter reads “The Bad Guys” books, and I always enjoy catching up to them as well. The wit is right there on the page.

The movies are an enjoyable goof on the Danny Ocean movies, with Rockwell obviously the George Clooney equivalent, the too-cool-for-the-room protagonist in charge of a team of ace criminals.

The animation in this franchise is wonderful, as the characters are angular, cartoonish but cool to look at. They’re in a landscape that is almost but not quite photorealistic.

After decades of Dreamworks Animation that mostly have the same round, bubbly, traditionally Disney-esque approaches to character and story design, it’s refreshing to see something this arresting catching on (although it must be said that the “Spider-Verse” movies are king at introducing a radical new animation approach for their storytelling).

The sequel ambles along agreeably from scene to scene, but it doesn’t have the laughs or freshness of the original. For most of the running time, I had a smile on my face but was ready to put this in the same category as close-but-not-quite animated sequels like “Shrek 2” and “Frozen 2.”

Once we get to the third act, the film takes a right turn and doesn’t just get better but coalesces into a great movie. There’s a bit where our heroes are tied up and suspended in the air. Not only must they try to escape but also prevent a file from being sent online.

Things don’t go the way we expect, and it propels us into the grand finale.

The sequence where our heroes must board a space shuttle while it’s launching is, I kid you not, one of the best action sequences of the summer. The complexity, elegance, and beauty, as well as chair-grabbing excitement generated, are unexpected.

So is how much fun the conclusion is, where the movie goes all in on becoming, of all things, “Moonraker” (1979). There’s also a smash edit that reveals if your heroes survived a catastrophic explosion that provides a giant laugh.

Even the final moments are sharp enough to welcome another entry.

“The Bad Guys 2” starts strong, coasting on goodwill for too long, then ends with what will be franchise highlights for a series that I hope goes on for a long time. According to my daughter, the final scenes are in line with where the books go in the long run.

I like how unabashedly nutty the whole thing is and where it apparently is headed. The Danny Ocean series feels like it has gone as far as it could go, but I’m down for more of this.

Like the original, “The Bad Guys 2” is brisk and stylish, but that final 30-minute stretch is when it becomes truly special.

Three Stars

The post ‘The Bad Guys 2’ Saves Very Best for Last appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It’s official. Jim Hosking is a one-hit wonder.

And that “hit,” on paper, was a trainwreck.

Yes, that’s “The Greasy Strangler,” a rude, sexually-explicit slice of Napoleon Dynamite twee that wallowed in absurdity and, “I can’t believe they just showed that” shock value.

This critic loathed it before he loved it, and don’t get me started on its wonderfully wacky soundtrack. But Hosking’s follow-up, “An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn,” proved deflating. Then again, what could follow “The Greasy Strangler,” right?

Now, he delivers “Ebony & Ivory,” a film purporting to show how Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder recorded that treacly 1982 hit.

Sort of. Maybe. Not even close.

That union gives Hosking an excuse to crank out even more delirious anti-comedy – awkward silences, repetitive phrases and endless frontal nudity. One phallic prop may require its own trailer.

It puts viewers to the ultimate test. Can you sit through 80-plus minutes of this?

Would anyone even want to?

“Greasy Strangler” alum Sky Elobar stars as the cute ex-Beatle, Paul McCartney. The rocker invites fellow superstar Stevie Wonder (Gil Gex) to a remote Scottish Cottage on The Mull Of Kintyre, presumably to record a tribute to racial healing.

You know the song. Chances are Hosking loathes it, and he’s not alone.

Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don’t we?

Not Macca’s finest hour. Except there’s little about their conversation, or the plot, that hinges on that track. Or music. Or anything you’d half expect from such a collaboration.

Instead, we’re treated to naked walks on the beach, endless conversations about breaded vegetarian food and hot chocolate.

If that’s a spoiler alert, so be it.

The film should have cost as much as a trip to Costco. The setting is restricted to Macca’s [rental?] property, and the action rarely leaves this tiny hamlet.

Elobar’s performance in no way attempts to channel Macca. He adds a few “mates” at the end of his sentences and occasionally does that McCartney head shake.

Gex’s Wonder impression is even less authentic. And that’s fine. This isn’t a historical biopic. It’s comical to see two actors not even break a sweat recreating the music icons.

Ha ha. No, really.

That’s where the smiles start and mostly stop.

LIVE Thursday!
Sky Elobar and Gil Gex of Ebony & Ivory return to the podcast to talk their new film from Jim Hosking of The Greasy Strangler!https://t.co/S398YQC7Bu pic.twitter.com/noDCUXP4AJ

— Without Your Head Horror Podcast (@WithoutYourHead) August 4, 2025

The curious soundtrack tries to enhance what’s seen on screen but can only do so much. Elobar and Gex are game and fully committed to the approach, but so what? There’s nothing clever, or engaging in the screenplay, just absurdist banter that never elevates beyond its chronic weirdness.

Why was “The Greasy Strangler” oddly intoxicating and “Ebony & Ivory” an endurance test? The former had a semblance of story in addition to wacko visuals and comic flights of fancy. Oh, and that wonk-wonk, bizarro soundtrack.

Intoxicating.

“Ebony & Ivory” feels like someone watched that film and copied its tics. Weird. Shocking. Vulgar. Silly. Cramped. Excessive.

Moronic.

Director Wes Anderson is becoming a parody of his creative self after a dozen films. Hosking reached this dubious level in just three.

A quick note: “Ebony & Ivory” is so distinctly off-putting that it may be revisited as a cult “classic.” Count on it, actually. It still isn’t within shouting distance of “good” in any traditional sense.

HiT or Miss: “Ebony & Ivory” reveals the limits of quirky director Jim Hosking’s brand of comic chaos.

The post ‘Ebony & Ivory’ – Oh Lord, Why Must We Watch This? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Seth Worley’s “Sketch” is an odd film that sports creativity but winds up somehow both predictable and bizarre as a metaphor for how we process the loss of a parent.

It’s also a what-were-they-thinking moment for Angel Studios, which is selling it as a dark family fantasy. No, it’s much, much darker than that.

Imagine “Jumanji” (1995) without Robin Williams and add a dose of creatures who appear to have escaped “Pan’s Labyrinth” (2006). I didn’t like “Sketch” very much overall, but especially dislike how Angel Studios is suddenly in the business of creating nightmare fuel for children.

The marketing materials are sugar coating how unsettling it is.

Tony Hale of “Arrested Development” fame stars as Taylor, a grieving father whose sadness over the death of his wife has made him emotionally distant from his two children and slow at moving on and selling his home. Taylor’s daughter Amber (Bianca Belle) draws angry, frightening pictures that catch the attention of her classmates and teacher.

While Amber’s pictures are understandably a means of processing her feelings, they freak everyone out. It gets worse when, due to a magic pond (or something), Amber’s illustrations come to life and terrorize everyone.

An attempt to broaden the scope and suggest that the admittedly cool-looking CGI monsters are harassing people on a massive scale, a la “Ghostbusters” (1984), is brought up in news footage, then never addressed again. The suggestion that the magic on hand could be used to bring back Amber’s dead mother (initially hinted then verbalized) is a plot strand that would be fine for “Pet Sematary” (1989) but seems tasteless here.

The message seems to be fairly straightforward but gets jumbled through the presentation and the intensity of the images. “Sketch” suggests that it’s okay to feel grief, but be sure to compartmentalize your feelings, allowing good and bad to coexist, as well as using art to express the feelings that could hurt others.

Or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by SKETCH (@thesketchmovie)

By the third act, when one of the kids is sporting H.P. Lovecraft tentacles and the insufferably deadpan aunt is wielding weapons like Ash in a C-grade “Evil Dead,” I wondered what on Earth I was watching.

I’m all for success stories, especially in the indie film market. However, I confess I don’t like the mediocre, heavy-handed movies Angel Studios puts out and don’t care for the aggressive post-credits infomercials they tag onto some of their films.

It’s not the fault of Angel Studios that “Sketch” kind of bites, but you’d figure that they’d catch how their off-brand release is kind of, well, sketchy and not for the intended audience indicated. If that sounds unfair, try watching an episode of their runaway success, “The Chosen” (2017-Present) follow it up with “Sketch,” and tell me if it feels like you went from watching Angel Studios to Shudder.

The PG-rating assigned to “Sketch” is a joke, unless we’re still living in the 1980s. I’m not exaggerating – this is a horror film for kids, the kind of thing Joe Dante could have gotten away with (and did in 1984 with “Gremlins”).

The frequent jump scares, frightening monsters and ample profanity (thanks to this movie, I had to explain to my little girl what a “bastard” is) should have been enough to merit this a PG-13.

Next Wednesday’s estimated location count for Angel Studios’ Sketch is 2,000 locations.#TheSketchMovie #BoxOffice pic.twitter.com/sa3Vffnzue

— BoxOfficeReport.com (@BORReport) July 31, 2025

It’s worth noting that earlier this year, Angel Studios released the CGI family film, “The King of Kings,” which was also rated PG. I’m guessing that, had that film also had a scene where a girl is being held down by a skull-faced demon who is trying to strangle her with “Venom”-like CGI vines coming out of its mouth, maybe it wouldn’t have received a PG rating?

On top of the horror movie moments, like a hiding-behind-a-tree-bit right out of “The Village” (2004) and a spider attack to match any scene from “Eight Legged Freaks” (2002), it’s also a morose family drama about a girl mourning the death of a parent.

Teens who grew up with “Harry Potter” might be able to process and enjoy this, as well as grown-ups who loved “Bridge to Terabithia” (an equally sad but far more enthralling work from 2007).

The movie this badly wants to be is “A Monster Calls” (2016), which went all in with the darkness and despair of the scenario, also showcased impressive visuals and psychological complexity in tackling a tricky, hard-to-render mainstream subject matter.

“Sketch” will work for those addicted to “Stranger Things” (2016-Present) or who fondly remember “Eerie, Indiana” (1991-1993) or even a cult item like “Little Monsters” (1989) but lacks the conviction or charm of either.

Hale succeeds at giving a sincere performance, but he can’t grant the film a needed emotional center and neither does anyone else here. The monsters are pretty cool, but they repetitively pop up, clock in a jump scare, then literally vanish.

Overall, I found the movie to be a wonky, feel-good parable, but I also disliked it because my little girl spent most of the movie hiding her face in my shoulder. What was I thinking, taking her to this? Maybe because, for one thing, I trusted a supposedly family-trusted film studio…which I ironically have never liked in the first place.

The one thing “Sketch” has over the similar but far worse “IF” (2024) from last summer is that at least there are no musical numbers, and it wraps up in 90 minutes.

Two Stars (out of four)

The post ‘Sketch’ – Heartfelt Message, Scary Results appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Michael Shanks’ “Together” begins with a prologue informing us that, within a small town, a couple has gone missing and a weird underground cave might have something to do with it.

We then meet Millie (Alison Brie) a teacher who is leaving the city to take a job out in the country, along with her musician boyfriend Tim (Dave Franco), who everyone agrees is very lucky to be with Millie and not quite good enough for her.

At a going-away party, several of Tim and Millie’s friends not only remind them both of how much better Millie is in this coupling, but an awkward romantic gesture that backfires puts Tim in the doghouse. Once they arrive at their new home, both are clearly considering if they’re right for each other.

Then, they go for a hike on a trail that obviously either leads to Stephen King’s Pet Sematary, a haunted house, or the weird cave from the opener.

httpv://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb9tln–Ajs

The problem with “Together” is that you can sense the script checking off the boxes right away. The early hike isn’t the first time things get overly predictable. There’s a third main character who enters that story and obviously holds the secret to the whole thing – I easily detected his villainy and suspect many will do the same.

Minor spoiler – if you somehow haven’t seen the trailer or poster, then you won’t be aware that the result of Tim and Millie being in the creepy cave is that they suddenly begin to stick together, as they their flesh were Velcro.

It initially adds a weird sensuality, as their urge to merge now has serious and painful consequences, but it becomes gross once we see the seemingly magnetic pull they experience only grows stronger over time.

When the horror is grounded in the psychological, it’s truly effective. For a while, we’re meant to consider if it’s all in Tim’s head and the logic works best at that level.

Once we get to how this sticky sensation affects the body physically when someone isn’t around, with the leads thrashing against shower walls and windows, as well as being dragged by invisible forces, the laughs come and they’re not always intentional.

Scenes of Franco and Brie struggling not to smack into each other reminded me of the forgotten “Amazing Stories” (1985-1987) episode “The Main Attraction,” which is a lot like this movie, minus the gore and bathroom stall sex.

There is a frightening subplot, concerning Tim’s parents, presented first as a potent nightmare (by far the film’s scariest scene), then as a grueling flashback. Otherwise, the story is daring but not at all surprising.

What holds it all together (see what I did there?) are Franco and especially Brie’s excellent performances. I was always rooting for this couple’s relationship and their survival, which is due to how well the actors make us care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by NEON (@neonrated)

Here is the third horror-hybrid film this year (after “Companion” and the just-out “Oh, Hi!”) to tell us, as subtext or openly, that there’s nothing worse than being in a relationship. Run for the hills, kids! Marriage sucks and fidelity to one person for the rest of your life is a form of personal imprisonment.

Having been in a happy marriage for decades, I write this with tongue in cheek and, for that matter, “Together” is only sorta-kidding about its status as an anti-date movie and sporting an un-romantic takeaway about coupling.

Since Franco and Brie are a married couple, it not only lends an undeniable chemistry to roles that would be hard for any actor and, perhaps, the assurance that the whole thing is meant to be fun. Perhaps not.
If there’s contemporary subtext to unpack, perhaps it’s how COVID-19 forced many to stay indoors, stuck and unhappy, made to face whatever and whomever was suffering next to us.

If that’s the case, “Together” could be a perfect double feature with Ari Aster’s unpleasant, unforgettable 2020 flashback “Eddington.” The thriller might be “too soon” to fully appreciate today, but it will probably age better than any of his genre offerings.

Another angle to consider with “Together” – if, as some say, “hell is other people,” then being stuck, literally and figuratively, with someone who may be right for you is, well, fodder for a horror film.

I wish Shanks’ screenplay were smarter and fresher. Explaining the concept gets this into trouble immediately, as the reason “why” is stupid and illogical – we’re meant to just go with it and not ask questions. As in this summer’s other acclaimed arthouse horror film, “Bring Her Back,” a grainy, scratchy VHS recording is on hand to explain lots of backstory.

(I’m ready for DVDs to become the exposition bearer of bad news).

Walking out of the theater, a few critics I saw this with compared it to “The Substance” (2024), which has now become the new standard for “body horror.” I’d go further back and point out that Brian Yuzna’s “Society” (1989), a satire of what ultra-rich California movie stars are really like behind mansion doors, is even funnier, far more disgusting and accomplished in its depiction of bodies being smushed into one.

“Society” did it with goopy prosthetics, whereas the CGI in “Together” is effective but obvious. Nothing in “Together,” in terms of challenging our gag reflexes, can go toe to toe with anything from David Cronenberg.

Compared to “Crimes of the Future” (2022), that movie is punk, whereas this one’s a 90’s boy-band anthem.

Speaking of which, I figured the title and subject matter would lead to a jokey song in the late going, as there are just too many love songs with the word “together” in the movie. What the filmmakers settle on is disappointingly on the nose, though likely the most affordable option for a mid-budget horror film.

Osgood Perkins’ forthcoming “Keeper” appears to be the fourth film this year on the subject, completing a 2025 quadrilogy of cinema intended to make us re-think that marriage proposal, let alone that second phone call.

“Phone call,” ugh. I’m old. No one calls anyone anymore.

Two and a Half Stars

The post ‘Together ‘ Makes Monogamy a Body Horror Nightmare appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Jim Jarmusch’s “Ghost Dog – The Way of the Samurai” (2000) shouldn’t work at all.

Here is a hybrid hitman thriller, neighborhood drama, character comedy, gangster saga and code of honor meditation. It somehow manages to be droll yet thrilling, funny yet somber. It’s easily Jarmusch’s best film, though hardly the only time he made personal, tonally ambitious and wildly quirky films that are hard to categorize but easy to like.

The setting is New Jersey, where a dysfunctional crime family is a known neighborhood nuisance. There are kind citizens milling around, such as Pearline (Camille Winbush), a young girl who is always reading and Raymond (Isaach de Bankolé), an ice cream man who always offers a smile.

Under the surface, there are reports of a public servant, a folk hero, killer for hire and secret warrior known only as Ghost Dog.

Forest Whitaker is the title character, an assassin for hire and local legend, but that makes the role sound like you’ve seen this before. Ghost Dog isn’t John Wick, though the character is comparatively unknowable, has a background rich in pathos and has a strict moral code.

Like Wick, you sense that Ghost Dog feels angst about his profession but is still better at it than anyone else.

Jim Jarmusch and Forest Whitaker (reading Rashomon) on set of GHOST DOG: THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI pic.twitter.com/2mI94VjH3p

— Janus Films (@janusfilms) December 18, 2024

At this point, Jarmusch was celebrated for his “Stranger Than Paradise” (1984), “Down By Law” (1986), “Night on Earth” (1991) and “Dead Man” (1995), to name just a few. Along comes this audacious blend of mobster crime drama, slice-of-life comedy, samurai actioner, hitman meditation and revenge saga.

Jarmusch’s film is soulful, kind of nuts and utterly hypnotic. This latter quality is somewhat due to the pull of the story, the astonishing ease of the tonal shifts and especially in the banger of a soundtrack from The RZA.

“Ghost Dog – The Way of the Samurai” isn’t quite Blaxploitation (though one scene in the third act suggests Jarmusch is conscious of Ghost Dog being akin to “Superfly”- more on that later). The character reminds me of Obi-Wan Kenobi fused with Toshiro Mifune – the blend of kindness and danger is unmistakable.

What I’m trying to say is that this is a seriously cool character and Whitaker is fantastic in this.

A final aspect that Ghost Dog has in common with John Wick: they both care for an animal that meets a sad end from stupid criminals. Like the outcome of Wick’s dog (sorry for the minor spoilers), what happens to Ghost Dog tells us plainly that the antagonists simply must die.

FAST FACT: RZA announced a “Ghost Dog” sequel was in the works in 2017, but two years later, the project switched to the small screen. There’s been little discussion of it since then.

Whitaker is tall and intimidating but can convey either a stone-cold disposition or bare compassion. Perhaps the easiest comparison, in that the character is both dangerous and whimsical, is to Shintaro Katsu’s performances in the “Zatoichi” film series. The title character is a blind swordsman who will greet you with a smile and a friendly demeanor, until you cross him and out comes the swish of the sword hidden in his cane.

Yes, the lovable 1990 Rutger Hauer vehicle, “Blind Fury,” is a remake of “Zatoichi.”

As a filmmaker, Jarmusch only seems to be presenting this story in his signature detached cool, but the ease of the pacing masks how complex this is. The overlapping imagery, “Hagakure” recitations/ chapter stops, and daily anecdotes lean into the poetry of Ghost Dog’s odd lifestyle. While the overall result defines “offbeat,” this is still more exciting than most art films I can think of.

The montage of Ghost Dog practicing his swordplay, working out to a pounding RZA track, is as thrilling as any similar sequence in a “Rocky” or “Karate Kid” film.

A late scene where Ghost Dog outmatches two bear-killing rednecks is the sole note where Jarmusch leans heavily into the influence of Melvin Van Peebles’ “Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song” (1971). The scene works, but the movie doesn’t need it.

The film is a study in contrasts and that goes beyond the tonal mixing. “Ghost Dog – The Way of the Samurai” is genre defiant in the best way, as weird and hip as “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension” (1984).

It plays like a kind of weird college mixtape of mismatched and unexpected wonders. Whenever you feel at ease with the genre expectations being established, Jarmusch hits you with another quirky character detail or surprise that keeps us guessing as to where it’s all going.

I love Jarmusch’s films, but this one is my favorite, and it gets better with repeat viewings. Considering the ode to revenge dramas, Japanese action films and the story of reinvention at the center, Jarmusch’s film actually plays like a prelude to (if not an all-out cinematic cousin) to Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” films (2003-2004).

Jarmusch ends his masterpiece with a placeholder for a sequel, with Pearline providing an ongoing link. I say, bring it.

The post ‘Ghost Dog’ – Part John Wick, All Jim Jarmusch appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.