# a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
‘Shelter’ Finds Statham Playing His Greatest Hits

‘Shelter’ Finds Statham Playing His Greatest Hits

Jason Statham’s aging action hero shtick is bulletproof.

He even looks like a bullet, his bald head aimed at the baddies. You know he’ll always find his target. But in recent years, his movies have given us just enough novelty to make the familiar feel … new.

New-ish is more accurate.

“Shelter” starts with a novel concept but settles into the Statham formula with crushing speed. A taut cast flounders through action movie cliches while director Ric Roman Waugh reminds us how good his fight choreography can be, and there’s enough of it to keep our attention.

The story suggests so much more than merely Statham on autopilot.

YouTube Video

Statham stars as Michael Mason, a loner who drinks away his life as a lighthouse operator. Except the lighthouse is no longer functional, so isolation is his endgame. He even pushes away a teen girl named Jessie (a wonderful Bodhi Rae Breathnach) who tries to connect with him while delivering his weekly supplies.

A brutal storm forces Mason to save Jessie from drowning, but her only family connection drowns in the waves. He takes her into his home, but in the process of rehabbing her from a leg injury alerts old foes that he’s no longer off the grid.

You see, Mason is a former Special Forces agent who went rogue, and he’s been in hiding for his own safety after defying orders (for the best of reasons, natch). If you’d seen a half dozen Statham movies, you can sketch out the rest.

Bill Nighy classes up the joint as a duplicitous bureaucrat, while Naomi Ackie is under-utilized as the new MI6 chief who is far less evil than he in the spy game.

YouTube Video

The film’s opening scenes are patient and stark, suggesting Mason’s past rendered him unable to function in society. Did he lose his family or suffer a trauma so severe that he had to withdraw from the world?

That might have led to a different, more engaging story.

Instead, Mason is soon on the run, meeting old allies and trying to stay one step ahead of Nighy’s goons. Except, and this is the wacky part, Mason is the best of the best, an elite killing machine who can take down a small army without suffering a scratch.

Yeah, that felt fresh when John Rambo ransacked Smalltown USA in 1982’s “First Blood,” but in 2026 it’s approaching eyeroll fodder.

And while we’re able to accept Mason as a killing machine, his increasingly illogical escapes push the Credibility Meter, even for a genre film.

The film’s big selling point is the Mason/Jessie bond. The young actress is engaging and raw, and her connection to Mason is palpable despite an anemic script.

 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

A post shared by BLACK BEAR (@blackbearpics)

The rest, of course, is Statham doing what he does best. He remains a flawless fighting machine, improvising against a wave of enemies with deadly intentions.

Sometimes.

He doesn’t always kill the goons out to erase him. He can’t decide if he’s a reluctant warrior or a vengeful killing machine. “Shelter” can’t, either. Sure, he spares hapless cops from his deadly wrath, but he must know some of the agents out for his blood have been misled.

Right?

Most of the action set pieces are perfectly fine but rote. A few are exceptional, including one battle with an unstoppable agent (Bryan Vigier) who essentially does the work Mason once did. That dynamic is another element with potential, but it’s mostly unexplored.

The two warriors share a moment late in the film that could have yielded something fascinating, but Waugh resorts to a typical resolution.

If this is your first Statham movie, “Shelter” will be both generic and engaging. For the actor’s fans, the action romp will quickly fade from memory while we wait for “The Beekeeper 2.”

HiT or Miss: “Shelter” finds Jason Statham taking out the trash, again, but you won’t pine for a sequel.

The post ‘Shelter’ Finds Statham Playing His Greatest Hits appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/swBn8Dh
‘Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die’ Overdoses on Originality

‘Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die’ Overdoses on Originality

Sam Rockwell can do almost anything on screen, even make us believe he’s a man from the future wearing a gaudy Halloween costume.

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” puts the Oscar-winner’s skills to the test in a story teeming with the absurd. It’s a bleak sci-fi comedy with several axes to grind, but the biggest one should be aimed at gonzo auteur Gore Verbinski.

Why did the director make a frothy social satire so darn long? Whatever fun we wring from this grab bag of sly gags, social commentary and culture war broadsides is muted when the saga barrels past the two-hour mark.

It might still be going on, for all we know.

YouTube Video

An L.A. diner gets an unwelcome patron, a fellow dressed like a “Star Trek” castoff circa 1967. This Man from the Future (Rockwell) commandeers the diner with a not-so-disguised threat.

He needs volunteers to fight against a deadly foe or society is doomed. His garb hardly bespeaks the future. He looks like a homeless man who attempted an unwise TikTok challenge.

No one believes him at first. Would you?

But he has a series of bombs strapped to his chest and he won’t take “no” for an answer. So a few diner denizens join him in a quest that looks doomed from the start.

From there, Verbinski takes the “Weapons” route, stopping the action to focus on the lives of several volunteers. That includes Michael Pena and Zazie Beetz as substitute teachers at a school where smartphone-obsessed teens rule the roost.

Be afraid.

Haley Lu Richardson gets a close-up as a troubled 20-something who swiftly falls in love against all odds.

And, in the most heart-wrenching subplot, Juno Temple plays a mother who loses her son to a school shooting only to be reunited with him in short order.

The latter is … complicated. Creepy, even.

The film’s focus on school shootings seriously damages its bleak but whimsical tone. Yes, all this talk about the world as we know ending is dire, but watching a mother mourn for her child is specific and gut-wrenching.

Even worse, that subplot doesn’t necessarily gel with the other messages afoot.

 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

A post shared by Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die (@goodluckhavefundontdie)

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” has plenty to say about gun violence, social media gone amok and, ultimately, artificial intelligence. Some of it plays out as wise and wonderful. Other times, the hectoring can be a bit much.

It’s painful to ding a movie this original, this willing to subvert our expectations. Rockwell keeps it all together, a Herculean task given the potpourri of themes, visual gags and characters.

Yet even he can’t save a film that doesn’t know what’s best for it. “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” keeps piling on the absurdities until we want to scream, “Enough! We get it!”

But no, Verbinski lacks any sense of restraint, so the giddy joy we felt in the first hour slowly seeps away. By the end, a dour twist on the film’s existing formula, you’ll pine for the manic nature of those first few scenes where everything seemed mysterious and new.

HiT or Miss: “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” is a glorious mashup of social commentary and sci-fi silliness that doesn’t know to leave well enough alone.

The post ‘Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die’ Overdoses on Originality appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/0IW9v3A
‘Untitled Home Invasion Romance’ Is ‘Fargo’ Lite

‘Untitled Home Invasion Romance’ Is ‘Fargo’ Lite

Sometimes flowers and candy just won’t cut it.

Jason Biggs’ character in “Untitled Home Invasion Romance” decides to revive his marriage by posing as a hero. Big mistake.

What follows is a crisp, occasionally funny black comedy that has no choice but to tie itself in knots. You might find some relationship wisdom lurking between the tale of a Romeo who’s in way over his head.

Biggs’ directorial debut is too complicated for his own good. The “American Pie” alum still displays a confident touch, suggesting his sophomore effort could be a keeper.

YouTube Video

The film opens with a romantic montage of Biggs’ Kevin and Meaghan Rath’s Suzie falling in love.

One year later, that impulsive bond has fizzled. They reunite after a trial separation, and Kevin wants to jumpstart their marriage with a “Fargo”-seque scheme. He’s hired his actor buddy (a winning Arturo Castro) to break into their vacation home as a “burglar.”

Kevin would step in, thwart the robbery and show Suzie he’d do anything to protect her.

And … scene! It helps that Kevin is an actor, too, but he’s best known for starring in an ED commercial (the faux ad is legitimately funny).

Except nothing goes as planned. And, suddenly, the unhappy couple is staring at a dead body.

Biggs stages everything up until this point with impressive efficiency. We feel the fraying bond between the couple, Kevin’s obvious desperation and why criminal acts should be left to the professionals.

What happens next involves Suzie’s old camp buddy (Anna Konkle), now a local sheriff investigating that dead body, and Suzie’s old flame (Justin H. Min) offering his help.

And maybe more?

The laughs are intermittent but undeniable, and the small town touches prove sweet, not condescending. Some plot points are teased but eventually ignored, like the curious bond between Suzie and the Sheriff.

Biggs stumbles while balancing the various tones in play. It doesn’t help that secondary characters bum rush the third act in ways that spike the finale but feel manipulative.

He’s better at slowly revealing a key part of Suzie’s past, but the story doesn’t fully process what it means for the marriage in crisis.

“Romance” also can’t smooth over some of the moral quandaries flooding that third act. The screenplay, a solid affair from Jamie Napoli and Joshua Paul Johnson, has no time to process everything that happens in those last, frantic minutes.

Biggs is in over his head, but a Hitchcock or Demme might struggle with this material.

Still, Biggs and Rath keep the focus where it belongs, on a marriage that felt so perfect at first but looks headed for the rocks. Just know Biggs proves he’s ambitious enough behind the camera to suggest his career is leaning in a thoughtful new direction.

HiT or Miss: “Untitled Home Invasion Romance” may boast an awkward title, but its blend of comedy and black humor has its perks.

The post ‘Untitled Home Invasion Romance’ Is ‘Fargo’ Lite appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/ksLfEi3
‘Send Help’ Is the Very Best of Sam Raimi

‘Send Help’ Is the Very Best of Sam Raimi

Sam Raimi refuses to grow up. Let’s hope he never does.

The director behind the OG “Evil Dead” saga is back with “Send Help,” a delirious blend of terror, drama and Survival 101. And, in between, there’s plenty of unnecessary gore and bodily fluids.

See what we mean about never growing up?

It’s all expertly assembled, a story driven by two crackerjack turns and a narrative that refuses to play down to our expectations.

YouTube Video

Socially awkward Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams) is an indispensable part of her company, but her business savvy doesn’t impress the new owner, Bradley Preston (Dylan O’Brien). He’s a Patrick Bateman type, smooth and soulless, eager to stomp on your feelings if it pleases him.

And, boy, does it ever.

Sure, Linda delivers the goods, but she’s not the kind of person you want in your golf foursome. She’s mousy and dull, the employee you avoid at the water cooler. Raimi stages these sorry facts for our bemusement, and Linda is so clueless we almost side with Bradley.

Almost. Not really. But she’s far from idealized, one way the film sidesteps any girlboss fears.

Bradley begrudingly invites her as part of an Asian business trip, but their plane short circuits mid-flight, killing most of the crew and passengers.

Linda and Bradley are the only survivors, washing up on a tropical island. And, as luck would have it, Linda is a survivalist junkie. She does more than watch that CBS reality show of the same name. She’s made it her passion to research how to stay alive in unforgiving climates.

Like a sun-blasted island that reeks of paradise.

 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

A post shared by (@_filmfiend_)

Bradley is wounded and far less capable of fending for itself. Their dynamic has shifted, but how will that play out as the days drag on and no rescue boat appears?

We’ve already said too much, but there’s so much to savor in the rest of “Send Help” that it’s impossible to spoil it all. McAdams’ character blossoms on the island, relishing the chance to put her skills to use. Bradley is initially humbled by her chops, but he’s such a jerk that it may not last forever.

It’s a two-hander with tart dialogue, tart surprises and an ability to find fault in both characters. The film’s setup suggests a woke reversal, the evil capitalist at the mercy of the can-do office drone.

Yes … and no.

No lectures. No awkward conversations about The Patriarchy™. Raimi lets the story speak for itself, and there’s plenty to be gleaned from Linda’s pre-crash predicament.

It makes everything that goes down on the island so much richer.

Raimi’s direction is taut and purposeful. He corrals his instincts enough to tell a logical story, but there’s always something in play to keep us engaged. Credit screenwriters Mark Swift and Damian Shannon for providing a structure that keeps the island activities grounded.

Even some of the sillier aspects of Linda’s survival training may make sense by the final minutes. The rest is up to Raimi, untethered by MCU guidelines or Comic-Con expectations. 

Welcome back.

HiT or Miss: “Send Help” isn’t the best movie of 2026, but it just might be the most fun.

The post ‘Send Help’ Is the Very Best of Sam Raimi appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/J8CNeoA
This Wasn’t Your Typical Take on ‘Hamlet’

This Wasn’t Your Typical Take on ‘Hamlet’

Concept Shakespeare, in which plays by William Shakespeare are made contemporary or presented in stylized, potentially more accessible ways, are nothing new to theater, though it’s an unusual quality for motion pictures.

There are a few examples of motion pictures that tackled William Shakespeare’s work in an unorthodox, novel or gimmicky manner.

Jean-Luc Godard’s bonkers 1987 “King Lear” is barely interested in the source material, offers none other than Woody Allen, Molly Ringwald, Burgess Meredith and Godard himself giving half-invested performances and plays like a private joke that only made Godard laugh.

YouTube Video

Far more mainstream, if unique for its time, was Baz Luhrman’s “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet” (1996), in which Shakespeare’s character and dialog are interspersed with a modern setting and a kaleidoscopic, hyper-stylized MTV approach.

When it comes to “Hamlet,” arguably Shakespeare’s masterpiece and most performed work, most filmmakers either stick faithfully to the original text or use the narrative blueprint as a means to unfaithfully update the material and lose its beautiful language.

What Michael Almereyda’s 2000 film version of “Hamlet” has to offer is not a definitive interpretation of Shakespeare’s play. In fact, this is far from the most ideal, faithful version of the Bard’s two-act drama and is best viewed by those familiar with the story.

YouTube Video

Newcomers may find the film perplexing and frustrating. For everyone else, particularly those familiar with “poor Yorick,” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and infinitely quotable dialog like “The Play’s The Thing, Where Upon I’ll Catch the Conscience of the King,” this is something refreshing.

Opening in “New York City, 2000,” this “Hamlet” maintains the iambic pentameter (meaning, Shakespearean dialog) but is set in the last year of the 20th century. Taking place at “Hotel Elsinore” and portraying the events at “Denmark Corporation,” the tale of the Danish Prince is now an American yarn of businessmen who, literally, get blood on their hands.

Ethan Hawke plays Hamlet, now a tortured young amateur filmmaker whose wealthy mother Gertrude (Diane Venora) has re-married after the death of her husband (Sam Shepard). The Ghost of Hamlet’s father appears and informs his son that he was murdered by his wife’s new husband (Kyle MacLachlan).

Hamlet plots his revenge, dragging his secret love, Ophelia (Julia Stiles), down with him.

The cast is excellent. While this is Concept Shakespeare, no one is playing it that way, as everyone here is giving sincere, dedicated turns. Hawke is perfect, bringing his youthful, Gen-X teen angst to his portrayal.

Stiles is stronger than I expected as Ophelia and Liev Schrieber is first-rate as her brother, Laertes. Shepard is ideally cast and so is Steve Zahn, playing Rosencrantz as a barfly slacker.

The biggest surprise is Bill Murray as Polonius: Murray isn’t a natural with Shakespearean prose and it shows. Instead, his self-styled performance, in which he plays the role as a bureaucratic suck-up, feels like Murray is adapting the language to his familiar persona.

It’s odd at first but fascinating to watch. Murray makes the role his own, even capping the “Look to it, I charge you” soliloquy by tying his daughter’s shoe.

There are other weird, post-modernist touches that bear mentioning. Hamlet gives his “To Be or Not To Be” speech while walking through the aisles of Blockbuster Video. As he broods from aisle to aisle, “The Crow: City of Angels” plays in the background.

The famous soliloquy has frequently been interpreted as a question of suicidal contemplation, something Hawke literalizes by opening the speech with a gun to his temple.

The Ghost of Hamlet’s Father vanishes into a Pepsi vending machine and, in a brilliant touch, “The Mouse Trap,” the play-within-the-play about Hamlet’s stepfather, is now a cheeky film-within-the-film.

Almereyda has made an experimental, weird but purposeful re-imagining. It has similarly deconstructive goals as Godard’s “King Lear” but maintains a clarity of theme and a fidelity to the source.

This low-budget and truncated yet still effective “Hamlet” is full of beauty and arrestingly different choices. Almereyda’s style is subtle, but he manages to find gorgeous imagery in unlikely places.

The one misstep is the climactic sword fight, which is now a rooftop sword match. It makes no sense having Hamlet brandish a gun but take on his opponent in a classical duel. While well-acted, this sequence is a dud and is the only one that could have used another unorthodox rethinking.

The artistic value of this “Hamlet” is that it’s distinctly Warhol-like, a reflection and dissection of established ideas and iconography of the source material, not a mere reproduction. Like a Warhol painting of an instantly recognizable individual, this begins with the expected, takes it apart and finds new ideas and a fresh staging of a durable, essential work of theater.

Kenneth Branagh’s three-hour, word-for-word 1996 adaptation, Laurence Olivier’s classic interpretation from 1948 or even Franco Zeffirelli’s exciting but questionable 1990 Mel Gibson version (where scenes were added) are better examples of faithful stage-to-screen adaptations that maintain the essence of the story.

Only Almereyda’s “Hamlet” offers the odd but one-of-a-kind pleasure of hearing Murray declare, “This Above All Else: To Thyself Be True.”

The post This Wasn’t Your Typical Take on ‘Hamlet’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/k6WnCpu
‘We Bury the Dead’ Is Not Your Average Zombie Flick

‘We Bury the Dead’ Is Not Your Average Zombie Flick

“We Bury the Dead” is an atmospheric slow burn of a zombie movie, which some will accept with relief, while others instantly dismiss it while they line up for “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.”

This new horror film, written and directed by Zak Hilditch, set in Tasmania and depicting a landscape of corpses suddenly showing life and aggression, isn’t quite the stinker the first week-of-January release date would lead one to believe.

It’s not scary enough for October and not exciting enough for summer, but it’s good enough to see at least once. The film is better than most of the dismal new fare that studios typically dump in theaters this time of year.

YouTube Video

Daisy Ridley plays a grieving chiropractor who enters the zombified landscape in hopes of reconnecting with her missing husband. She meets a real wild card (Brenton Thwaites of “The Giver”) who helps her survive the dangerous terrain but can’t talk her out of pressing on into unpredictable landscapes with no safety in sight.

By giving this a Conrad-inspired “Heart of Darkness”/”Apocalypse Now” feel, of a journey in which the traveler is immersing herself into total madness, the story takes its time and lingers on the environment. Since the film is so gorgeously shot and full of striking vistas worth seeing on the big screen, the decision to be a slow-moving movie about slow-moving zombies mostly works.

Yet, the film exists in a world where no one has heard of zombies or seen a George A. Romero movie. What is awfully familiar to the viewer is new to the onscreen characters, creating monotony, as well as a murky threat: sometimes the zombies run but mostly they walk, and they don’t seem to be cannibals or much more than a nuisance.

So how are they a threat, aside from messily dropping pieces of themselves on the ground?

“We Bury the Dead” only seems partially invested in the zombies and more interested in using the horror genre to paint a metaphor for how we deal with loss. One of the best scenes involves a human helping a zombie bury his deceased family. The whole film is like that, emphasizing how humans deal with loss and mourning, with intermittent zombie sightings.

There are a few good jolts, the zombie make-up is excellent, and I cared about the protagonist, mostly due to how affecting Ridley is in the role. This is a far better vehicle for her than last January’s stink bomb, “Cleaner.”

A pivotal sequence, set in a farmhouse and reflecting on the loss of a marriage partner, is good at character building but it slows the whole movie down. Despite a fairly brisk running time, “We Bury the Dead” isn’t as quick on its feet as it ought to be.

A sequence where Ridley’s character must walk 40 miles on foot while carrying an axe isn’t just implausible- the movie is so laid back, you wonder if we’re going to watch her do it in real time (spoiler: we don’t).

“We Bury the Dead” reminded me of the equally impressive but not entirely memorable “It Comes at Night” (2017). The best version of this type of zombie subgenre (call is the Touchy Feely Zombie Movie) is “Maggie” (2015), the terrific, devastating zombie drama.

YouTube Video

A farmer (Arnold Schwarzenegger, never better) discovers that his daughter (Abigail Breslin, who’s excellent) has been bitten by a zombie and has hours before she turns, but he refuses to give up on her. “Maggie” used the zombie scenario as a metaphor for being a parent with a dying child and the film hits hard.

“We Bury the Dead” should be more impactful, but it has some odd tonal changes, like a heart-to-heart confession suddenly interrupted by a rowdy pool party. The few moments of comic relief are welcome but, likewise, out of place for a film so downbeat.

A character tells Ridley to “use The Force,” a shoutout this doesn’t earn or need. “We Bury the Dead” is good enough to see once, but zombie fans will seek something meatier to chew on.

Two and a half stars (out of four)

The post ‘We Bury the Dead’ Is Not Your Average Zombie Flick appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/jzYZDWI
‘H Is for Hawk’ Will Catch Everyone Off Guard

‘H Is for Hawk’ Will Catch Everyone Off Guard

Phillippa Lowthorpe’s “H is for Hawk” is an early 2026 sleeper, a nice surprise in a season typically full of post-yuletide filler.

Most January movies don’t stick around and leave no impression. Not this one.

Claire Foy stars as Helen MacDonald, an academic researcher who is devastated by the death of her father, played by Brendan Gleeson. By random chance, Helen is paired with a hawk, who she trains and keeps in her home.

Initially, this only adds to Helen’s personal struggles, but her breakthroughs in the training lead to a personal catharsis for them both. The film is based on a true story.

YouTube Video

Foy gives a powerful performance, depicting how a new relationship with an animal can be a way to counter overwhelming grief.

Based on MacDonald’s 2014 memoir of the same name, “H is for Hawk” is another great showcase for Foy, a consistently terrific actress who has come close to stardom but has managed to make great choices and turn in one standout turn after another. Foy has been so good for so long, it’s always a pleasure to catch up with her latest work.

“H is for Hawk” is strikingly similar to “The Friend,” the 2025 drama about a writer (Naomi Watts) mourning the death of her best friend (Bill Murray), who, in his passing, gifts her his Great Dane, who becomes her closest companion. “The Friend” is my favorite film from last year and has scenes that are similar to what we have here.

YouTube Video

Both films are about how a key mentor figure leaves the protagonist with a project/companion. Both films have ample flashbacks to keep the mentor in the story after they’ve died (Gleeson and Murray play deceased characters but have ample flashbacks and dramatically impactful scenes).

Just as Murray’s scenes in “The Friend” are flashbacks that reflect on the absence of his character, the sequences between Foy and Gleason showcase their gentle chemistry and demonstrate why Helen was so close to her father.

Another comparison, and easily the most complimentary, is that both films avoid being cutesy animal comedies or family farces with adorable reaction shots and poop gags. Neither film is a bummer, but both explore how a new, highly unusual friendship is preferable to being still and allowing grief to eat us alive.

The Friend Naomi Watts bathes Apollo the dog
Naomi Watts gives her ‘Friend’ a well-deserved bath.

Finally, like “The Friend,” “H is for Hawk” manages to be funny and smart without resembling a mechanical Disney feel-good comedy.

The scenes of Helen training her hawk, with the cinematography and editing in tour de force mode, are wonderful. Considering how much suspense the film generates just from having the hawk on Helen’s arm, the drama always resonates, and the training sequences are fascinating.

I enjoyed “H is for Hawk “a lot, but it could have been tighter and loses its grip when it meanders into other facets of Helen’s life. Still, I give the film credit for remaining entertaining and never becoming a schmaltzy, manipulative drag.

I prefer “The Friend” because it’s a tighter film, but this one matches it for emotional richness and is also worth seeing on the big screen.

Three Stars (out of four)

The post ‘H Is for Hawk’ Will Catch Everyone Off Guard appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/etzTSnu
Pratt’s ‘Mercy’ Will Make You Think (and Howl)

Pratt’s ‘Mercy’ Will Make You Think (and Howl)

The A.I. revolution is upon us, and filmmakers have taken the baton from James Cameron.

Someone had to.

“Mercy,” an A.I. infused thriller, is no “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” the ultimate warning about our computer overlords.

It still makes us think about where artificial intelligence will lead us.

“Mercy” also reminds us that while Chris Pratt has charisma to spare, even he can’t camouflage some of the most manipulative storytelling this side of daytime soaps.

YouTube Video

Pratt stars as Chris Raven (dude, what a name, right?), a detective accused of murdering his wife. The story is set in a near future when A.I. bots lord over “Mercy Court,” where the accused have 90 minutes to prove their innocence or the chair they’re seated in goes electric.

Not Bob Dylan style, mind you.

Chris must mount a defense, and fast, while the A.I. judge (Rebecca Ferguson) lets him access all the media he might need to do so. Private videos. Public camera feeds. Data files. 

Nothing is off limits. Nothing is sacred. It’s a sly way of commenting on how much personal freedom we’re giving up in the digital age. It also assumes people are constantly filming themselves like a “Found Footage” competition that never ends.

It’s one of countless plot devices that keep “Mercy” afloat. Either you buy into the concept or you wait in the lobby until the film wraps. There’s no Plan B.

The case against Chris looks airtight. He’s an alcoholic with anger management issues, and a Ring doorbell-style video has him entering the family’s home a short time before Chris’ wife (Annabelle Wallis) was murdered.

Might as well crank up the chair and dispense with that 90-minute period, right?

But wait! Chris is a cop, after all, and he scrambles to find who the “real” killer is. Unless he blacked out and doesn’t remember committing the heinous act.

“Mercy’s” premise couldn’t be more fascinating or timely. How much should we trust A.I. intruding into our lives? What facts can be trusted, and which ones need context to fully explain? Can we outsource crime fighting to robots, especially if it greatly enhances our safety (as the movie insists in the opening moments)?

And if you’re gonna cast Pratt, you better make sure he does more than writhe in a chair for 100 or so minutes.

 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

A post shared by Mercy Movie (@mercymovie)

“Mercy” isn’t dull despite the static setting. The interrogation room doubles as a holodeck of sorts, allowing director Timur Bekmambetov (“Wanted,” “Night Watch”) to flood the screen with digital imagery tied to the case.

That can be fascinating at times, but in other sequences it might make audiences laugh out loud. It should.

The more Chris digs into his defense, the wackier the story becomes. The third act turns the dial to 11 before snapping it off entirely. We didn’t need “Mercy” to take such a drastic turn, but Bekmambetov is determined to expand the narrative beyond all sense of reason.

Ferguson is a cool, chilling presence as our cyber-judge, but the film allows her to grow in the grand Data/”Star Trek” tradition. The results are wobbly, at best, but it does make us consider how ChatGPT and its ilk process information and, in a frightening fashion, adapt to new realities.

Remember that story of an A.I. bot that was told to shut down … but didn’t? “Mercy” thrives when we flash back to headlines like that.

For all its myriad flaws, “Mercy” keeps flirting with issues that overlap with our reality. That, and a narrative that never slows down, make it oddly irresistible.

Silly. Corny. Predictable. Outrageous. But irresistible.

HiT or Miss: “Mercy” is sillier than most sci-fi thrillers, but a determined Chris Pratt and themes that overlap with our digital age make it all too chilling.

The post Pratt’s ‘Mercy’ Will Make You Think (and Howl) appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/iNrF2wA
‘Labyrinth’ Made the ’80s SO Much Better

‘Labyrinth’ Made the ’80s SO Much Better

Jim Henson’s “Labyrinth” (1986) is more than deserving of the cult following it continues to build worldwide.

Back in theaters to celebrate its 40th anniversary, Henson’s wild puppet fantasy, a hybrid fantasy/comedy/musical/fairy tale, carried two human actors who are surrounded by massive sets and hordes of puppeteers, was a box office flop in 1986.

Of course, we should consider that it was released during the summer of 1986, with the dominance of “Top Gun” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” There were lots of unworthy casualties that season – remember, John Carpenter’s “Big Trouble in Little China” also died that summer and has a fanbase as vocal as this one.

YouTube Video

When we meet Sarah (Jennifer Connelly), she’s cosplaying a scene from a novel she carries with her, called “The Labyrinth.” Visibly alone in a park near her house, in costume, Sarah’s devotion to reciting fantasy lit dialog seemed strange in 1986.

Now, I can think of at least three people I know exactly like her, as well as recognizing her brand of fandom every time I’ve attended a Renaissance Fair.

In other words, “Labyrinth” was ahead of its time, and not just in its inching towards the kind of full-fledged fantasy epic Peter Jackson would attempt and pull off decades later (though other ’80s fantasies came close, such as the 1981 “Dragonslayer” and the 1985 “Return to Oz,” both flops-turned-cult films).

Henson’s protagonist, the 1980’s mall equivalent of Alice tumbling through Wonderland, was exactly the kind of genre fan and convention attendee that was not given pop culture distinction at this time. By the mid-’90s internet explosion, this time of open-and-proud-of-it-fandom is a part of the culture.

Anyway, Sarah’s parents are leaving for the night and require Sarah to watch over Toby, her baby brother. Sarah couldn’t care less that her parents don’t get out much and is furious at the assignment. Taking a cue from “The Labyrinth,” Sarah half-heartedly uses the logic of the book to summon the Goblin King (David Bowie) to take her brother away.

When the Goblin King shows up, Sarah is frightened, suddenly thrust into a fantasy world of dream logic and bizarre creatures. Sarah pleads with him to give her Toby back, but he relents, instructing her to travel through the massive maze that leads to his castle by a certain time, or her brother will turn into one of his goblin minions.

With that, we’re off.

Bowie might have been better off playing the role without the massive wig, and the character’s motivations are somewhat vague in the third act – is this a seduction or, as in the rest of the film, is Jareth simply messing with Sarah?

The Goblin King seems to stand in for the cynical adult world that awaits Sarah, while her ascension into this fantasy world, as well as Connelly’s compelling performance, suggest a young woman just inching towards the tween years (Connelly was 15 when she made this).

YouTube Video

It’s Connelly’s film and, even when she lands on a clunky line reading, she carries the film ably. Her sincerity helps us to believe in all the wild creatures she encounters. Considering that this was Connelly’s third film, and after working with Sergio Leone and Dario Argento(!), it’s no surprise that she wound up one of the best American actresses of her generation.

Diehard Bowie fans don’t typically cite this film as being among their favorites (the “Never Let Me Down” era never gets much respect), but really, this film made lots of kids too young for Ziggy Stardust an overnight Bowie fan (at least that’s my story).

The key ingredient isn’t Henson or co-producer George Lucas but Terry Jones, the Monty Python member whose sense of humor and character comedy is present during the best sequences: Sarah’s hilarious pep talk from a helpful, scarf-wearing and tiny worm, as well as the contentious door knockers and the bizarre creatures who present her with a riddle, all are fragments of peak Python lunacy.

Henson saturates the screen with oodles of puppets as much as he did in his magnum opus, “The Dark Crystal” (1982), though that film is far darker and meaner (and still better). A sequence where Sarah is chased by the Cleaners is riveting. So is the M.C. Escher-inspired finale, where Sarah pursues her baby brother in a gravity-free room.

When the film becomes a David Bowie video, it’s a mixed bag: the clunky “Magic Dance” is the fan favorite, but I love the eerie masquerade of “When the World Falls Down” and the rousing “Underground” so much more.

The stranger “Labyrinth” gets, the richer it is: hoarders will likely see their waking nightmare embodied by The Junk Lady. The Helping Hands are as arresting as they are unsettling.

Henson rightfully acknowledged the inspiration of Escher and Maurice Sendak in the end credits. Sarah’s bedroom items thoroughly suggest that the story is all in her mind, as various books (ranging from Sendak’s 1963 “Where the Wild Things Are” to L. Frank Baum’s 1900 “The Wizard of Oz) and figurines suggest the whole thing is in her head.

YouTube Video

A deeper form of exposition has been spotted over the years that I find startling: an early pan around Sarah’s bedroom shows us newspaper clippings of her mother, Linda Williams, a stage actress, in a relationship with an actor who is clearly played by David Bowie.

This makes the scenes between Jared and Sarah have a darker, more pronounced weight, as he may be a representation of someone who seduced her mother in the past. As someone who grew up watching this movie and didn’t come across this subtext until recently (the slow-motion pan and scan Blu-ray option is, yet again, a reason I love physical media and what it allows film lovers).

Without this subplot, the film still works, but there’s an elevated danger knowing that The Goblin King, in some form, has always been a threat to Sarah.

I should also mention Trevor Jones’ score, which is especially good when the tone gets scary. The majority of “Labyrinth” is light and fun, though I find it most impactful when it leans into universal fears (that early scene where Sarah finds an empty crib and suspects otherworldly critters are sneaking around the room is terrific).

The episodic story, frequent tonal shifts and moments of camp are why I still give Henson’s “The Dark Crystal” the edge. That said, “Labyrinth” succeeds as a “Wonderland”-like fable, where the dangers of real life are conveyed in a skewered fantasy landscape.

Odd as it may be, the Goblin King remains Bowie’s most well-known acting role in a film. This is the insanely talented artist and part-time film actor who once worked for Nicolas Roeg, Tony Scott and David Lynch. Bowie played Pontius Pilate for Martin Scorsese and his best, most astonishing film transformation was playing Andy Warhol in “Basquiat” (1996).

Yet, who could forget the time he turned a glass ball into a snake, held it end-to-end and tossed it at Jennifer Connelly?

The post ‘Labyrinth’ Made the ’80s SO Much Better appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/pViqXvI
Agatha Christie Would Love ‘A Private Life’

Agatha Christie Would Love ‘A Private Life’

Rebecca Zlotowski’s “A Private Life” stars Jodie Foster as Dr. Lillian Steiner, an American psychiatrist living in France with a revolving door of clients.

When one of her patients turns up dead, Steiner suspects foul play and investigates what appears to be a murder cover-up.

This cool little mystery, led by Foster’s excellent performance and a willingness to be old school in its presentation, is a French film with Foster ably speaking French for most of the running time.

Don’t let the subtitles turn you away. This features a gem of performance from Foster and an approach to the whodunit genre that is both a throwback and refreshingly offbeat.

YouTube Video

“A Private Life” is low-key enough to merit comparison to the best of classical whodunits (I don’t mean “Knives Out,” I’m talking about Agatha Christie or even Arthur Conan Doyle). It manages to include enough touches of caustic humor to be contemporary.

Although set in modern day, Zlotowski’s film could have been a 1950s-set period piece.

Foster brings her natural authority, vulnerability and charisma to the role of a shrink who carries her patient’s secrets, making her an unwelcome presence in mixed company. This touch is handled well – when you’re a psychiatrist doing amateur sleuthing, how much of it is personal discovery and when does it cross the line if the suspect is a patient?

If you’re listening to the daily struggles and personal testimonies of patients and sworn to secrecy, how do you investigate suspects that have hired you to help them find catharsis?

It’s not a thriller akin to Foster’s hall-of-fame entries, “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) or “Panic Room” (2002). It’s also, thankfully, not among frivolous wannabes like “Flightrisk” (2004) or “The Brave One” (2007).

YouTube Video

Unlike the recent, Foster-led season of “True Detective” (2024), her latest is enticing and fun most of the way and doesn’t crash in the late going. While the mystery maintains its fascination, there’s also a sustained lightness here that reminded me of Christie’s long-running 1952 play, “The Mousetrap.”

Also, and this is one of the best things about the film, there are scenes taking place in Foster’s mind that are so visually dazzling and cleverly handled, they merit comparison to David Lynch.

Surrealism can come across as heavy-handed and trying to hard if its not handled well. Here, it’s a welcome, unexpected touch.

Zlotowski deserves credit for including these stunning interludes, which don’t derail the film or distract from the carefully established tone.

“A Private Life” is also centered and interesting enough in its depiction of psychiatry to emerge as the better film of the season on the topic, surpassing the awful, crass scream fest “If I Had Legs, I’d Kick You.”

I wish there was a bigger kick to the final reveal, but the film overall manages to conclude in a satisfying way. If Foster winds up making a series of these films, then a new franchise is off to a strong start.

Three stars

The post Agatha Christie Would Love ‘A Private Life’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/wcPDOXS
Ethan Hawke Makes ‘Blue Moon’ Magical

Ethan Hawke Makes ‘Blue Moon’ Magical

Few American actors are better at playing idealistic young dreamers than Ethan Hawke, and his characters have matured gracefully along with him.

They’re still full of wanderlust or pent-up creative energy, only now it’s tempered by experience and the errors of their ways. Now that Hawke is well into middle age, along with the rest of Generation X, he can provide a more nuanced approach than his earlier roles invited.

YouTube Video

When we first meet Hawke as legendary lyricist Lorenz Hart in “Blue Moon,” he’s lying down in a rain-swept alley, clearly on the brink of death. Alone, as he famously wrote, without a dream in his heart.

We then rewind to a few months earlier, and we learn how, over the course of a single evening, Hart and heart alike were both shattered. Director Richard Linklater’s film proceeds to weave an engrossing spell on the viewer, but it’s Hawke’s performance that ultimately binds it all together.

The lyricist stumbles into Sardi’s Restaurant, and the bartender (a wonderful Bobby Cannavale) aims a gun at him. It’s a private joke that they’ve laughed along with many times.

Lorenz starts to talk, sometimes playing off the bartender, the GI playing the piano and various people entering the restaurant. At other times he’s talking to no one in particular, just hoping someone hears him speak.

“Oklahoma!” has just opened on Broadway and “Larry” Hart is understandably resentful of his former partner Richard Rodgers’s success with a new lyricist, Oscar Hammerstein. He sneers at the sort of “cornpone” Americana his one-time collaborator is selling now that the country is at war.

He takes particular exception to the use of an exclamation mark in the title.

Lorenz speaks out on various other subjects throughout the night, like the dialogue in that great new film, “Casablanca,” and what he finds most erotic (the latter can’t be shared here).

Most provocatively, in an inversion of the Main Character Syndrome he seems at times to be afflicted with, he suggests that if the world’s a play, we’re all just extras in it. It’s a commentary that will sadly echo as the night grows older.

Mostly, though, he talks about Elizabeth (Margaret Qualley), a 20-year-old Yale fine arts student with theatrical aspirations of her own.

YouTube Video

He sees the possibility of a new muse in her, and plans to finally win her over with flowers and a copy of W. Somerset Maugham’s “Of Human Bondage.” Alas, when they get the chance to talk in private, we find out the latter offering is all too appropriate.

That, and his abortive attempt at reviving his partnership with Rodgers when the latter arrives to celebrate his newest success, tell him the band has long passed him by.

Hawke’s take on this role comes one immediate strike against him. He doesn’t look anything like the real Lorenz Hart. His face was already halfway there when he played Chet Baker, but this time he has to undergo an all-too obvious makeup job that makes him look more like Henry Fonda than anyone else.

There’s also the fact that Hart topped out at five feet tall at the most, and Hawke is just an inch or two under six. That means we get several awkward moments where he’s posed with other actors in an attempt to create the illusion of a great height difference.

No matter, because Hawke is electrifying as a man still trying to locate the spark of life within him, and it’s near impossible to think of another actor who could do so well in the role. We spend the evening as transfixed on him as Wallace Shawn was on Andre Gregory during their dinner together, just enjoying listening to him talk both the evening and his regrets away.

He speaks in a rapid-fire patter, barely giving himself a moment to breathe, and yet we’re able to take in every word without difficulty. He’s alternately funny, frustrating (on purpose) and thoughtful, and we’re ultimately emotionally invested in him, despite his personal flaws.

Linklater is uniquely suited to this project, having previously made “Before Sunrise” and “Dazed and Confused,” films consisting largely of extended conversations over a single evening. Even going back as far as “Slacker” he evidenced a great delight in listening to eccentrics speak, bouncing one conversation off another, and allowing his characters to reveal themselves in the process.

Of course, Hawke and Linklater wouldn’t be able to work as well together without the benefit of a decent script, and Robert Kaplow (who previously wrote another of Linklater’s finest films, “Me and Orson Welles”) provides the right words for their music.

The dialogue embodies the sort of perceptive, twisting wit that was a hallmark of Hart’s own lyrics. Did Lorenz Hart really talk like this? I don’t think anyone ever did, but it’s the way he should have spoken if one just goes by the way he wrote.

Not all of the film works quite as well. A brief discussion with fellow restaurant patron E.B. White is initially amusing. Hart finally holds a conversation with someone who is his opposite in personality but still able to match him in witty perceptiveness. But when Hart helps come up with a name for the mouse in the children’s story White is writing, it’s far too cloying.

It seems even more contrived that he should also have similar meet-cutes with Stephen Sondheim and George Roy Hill (he’s simply referred to as “George Hill” and who will recognize him as the future director of “The Sting” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?”) in the same evening.

Moments like these belong in fables like “Forrest Gump,” not in a drama of realistic possibilities.

YouTube Video

Then there’s Qualley’s character, who takes our breath away the moment she enters the room. If she doesn’t match Hawke in the reading of lines, she at least is able to similarly command our attention as well.

The real Lorenz Hart may not have been attracted to women, but we can understand why he’d be enamored of this one specifically.

There’s nothing wrong with her performance, yet there’s something about how the character is presented that makes her sensibilities seem too modern for the period milieu. Qualley disappeared into her character and the Sixties setting in “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood,” but from the moment we first see her in “Blue Moon,” she seems like a 21st-century-woman in 1940s fashions.

Then again, maybe that’s the whole point. The cliché is to have the younger woman represent a past chance, a missed opportunity for a better life that the hero never grasped. But Qualley instead speaks for a tomorrow that will never come for our protagonist.

For once, he’s forced to truly listen to someone else speak, limiting his interruptions. And near the end, when his former songwriting partner spirits her away from him, we realize that even had he lived longer, his career would likely not have survived the shifting waves of postwar public taste, at least not as well as Rodgers managed to.

“Blue Moon” marks the ninth collaboration between Hawke and Linklater over a 300-year span. It’s a far less prolific partnership than that between Rodgers and Hart, but they’ve still managed to produce a small handful of movies together that will likely at least enjoy cult status.

Lorenz Hart, in contrast, was just 48 when he died, but had packed enough work for three lifetimes, having written (at conservative estimations) at least 800 songs alone or in collaboration. It’s only a small percentage of those that endure, however brightly.

It’s difficult for those of us who have followed their careers to think of Hawke being 55, or even for Linklater being 65. They have matured as artists and display a wisdom not apparent in their younger years, but there’s still a youthful vitality to their work that refuses to fade.

Perhaps Hawke and Linklater could have made “Blue Moon” earlier, but it’s unlikely they could have done so with the same level of depth and understanding of what truly matters in art and life alike.

We should be glad they waited this long: “Blue Moon” is one of the best movies of 2025.

The post Ethan Hawke Makes ‘Blue Moon’ Magical appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/z6B1cAn
Wake Us Up from Dreamy ‘Sound of Falling’

Wake Us Up from Dreamy ‘Sound of Falling’

Sometimes watching a movie is like seeing someone’s dreams, a hypnotic experience where we get to witness the obsessions and fantasies of an artist.

At other times, watching a movie can be like listening to someone describe their dreams, which can be dreary and patience testing. Mascha Schilinski’s “Sound of Falling” begins like the former but becomes the latter.

This love-it-or-hate-it drama, an acclaimed favorite on the film festival circuit and probable Oscar contender, has it followers. I was completely on board with Schilinski’s vision at first, until I got to the point where I couldn’t defend it and just wanted it to end.

YouTube Video

“Sound of Falling” is a highly stylized German film, showing us a family that has lived in a home a century ago, lingering on their daily lives and unguarded moments. Then the story jumps to a generation later, with the family living during World War II, then during the 1980s, then in more contemporary times.

Sometimes we see this family in a different setting but most of the film centers around the property that opened the film and lingers on the moments that are private and unflattering.

Comparisons to the films of Ingmar Bergman are merited, as the pace, tone and visuals reminded me of some of his darker, more contemplative films.

Yet, to go with a more crassly mainstream comparison, “Sound of Falling” is exactly what Robert Zemeckis’ “Here” (2024) was trying to be. In both films, the camera is the eye, as we are the invisible visitors/observers watching different generations of people inhabiting a single space over periods of time.

Schilinski’s eerie film is like “Fanny and Alexander” (1982) crossed with the darkest detours from David Lynch or Lynne Ramsay. In fact, the entire first act reminded me of Lynch’s “Eraserhead” (1977). I mean this as a compliment. and this portion of the film had me bewitched and optimistic.

YouTube Video

In some scenes, characters are seen gazing directly into the camera, right at us, a truly unsettling feeling. The editing will take jumps into the near future, showing us a character we’re currently watching, then revealing the moment of their death, then cutting back to where we left off.

Then the story cuts to a more recent time in human history, but the feeling of being a voyeur never ceases. Sometimes, we watch what seem like random moments. At other times, the characters take focus and become vivid and relatable.

Like the best films of Lynch, it fluctuates wildly between resembling a gorgeous painting or a dread-inducing waking nightmare.

“Sound of Falling” turns uncomfortably intimate and difficult after an hour, becoming hard to endure, let alone remain invested in. My admiration remains for the artistry, but the film becomes unbearable.

At 155 minutes, the endless loop of discomfiting, often perverse imagery wore me down. There is true film artistry here and the film will stay with you but whether you want to experience something this taxing in full is up to the viewer. David Lynch came up a lot in my critique, reminding me how much I miss him but also how much heart and humanity exists in his work, even at his coal-black darkest.

“Sound of Falling” needed to be more like Lynch, with his tendency to linger on lost innocence, and less like invisible, unholy surveillance footage. Schilinski is a major talent, and I’m looking forward to whatever she does next, but I won’t ever watch “Sound of Falling” again.

Two Stars (out of four)

The post Wake Us Up from Dreamy ‘Sound of Falling’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/Lsme0UJ
Someone Should Bury ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’

Someone Should Bury ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’

It takes a special skill to make a dull zombie flick.

Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead” managed that dubious feat. So did Jim Jarmusch’s “The Dead Don’t Die.” At least “We Bury the Dead,” which focused on grief more than gore, kept our attention.

Those films all have some pluses, something that’s harder to say about “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.” We could blame director Nia DaCosta, still smarting over her disastrous MCU debut (“The Marvels”), for the anemic sequel.

The real culprit is screenwriter Alex Garland.

The mind behind the “28 Days Later” franchise didn’t know where he wanted the story to go next, apparently. He settled on mindless torture, paper-thin characters and a story arc about a kinder, gentler corpse.

No cap.

YouTube Video

Spike (Alfie Williams), the lad introduced in 2025’s “28 Years Later,” is now part of a murderous gang who wear stringy blond wigs.

Their leader, Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell), indoctrinates poor Spike into the crew in the dumbest scene possible.

Some might call that a sign.

Jimmy’s acolytes (dubbed his Fingers) wander the undead landscape, searching for a story that never appears. Sure, they bump into other human survivors, but nothing that remotely resembles a subplot emerges.

Unless you consider torture a narrative perk.

Meanwhile, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is still puttering about his Bone Temple in between encounters with an “alpha” zombie he dubs Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry). Dr. Kelson repeatedly drugs Samson to ensure his personal safety, but in doing so discovers something that could help humanity survive the undead apocalypse.

Or, Dr. Kelson just needs a friend. Where’s Wilson when you need him?

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

“The Bone Temple” is aggressively bloody, but while some horror leans into the icky stuff, like the darkly comic “Terrifier” saga, “Temple” lacks purpose. Even more unsettling? Why do we care about any of these characters?

Poor Spike isn’t much of a focal point, and he’s too small to make a difference. Spike’s growing bond with a fellow Finger (Erin Kellyman) is weak at best, robbing the film of a compelling subplot.

And why does anyone follow Jimmy in the first place? O’Connell can be mesmerizing, and he’s burning endless calories here, along with a red-skinned Fiennes. There’s no substance behind the theatrics.

Garland’s often astute storytelling evaporates early on, and his dialogue is a blend of coy musings and over-the-top blather.

Make it stop. That goes for the movie, too.

 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

A post shared by D-BOX Technologies (@dboxtech)

The third act features a gonzo deep cut that, taken by itself, is gloriously unhinged. Seen as part of the big picture, though, it feels like a franchise frantic for a “member berries” moment.

“The Bone Temple” is pure visual noise. Ugly, visual noise, to be exact. Some of the better zombie movies have something to say, either a gloomy take on societal decline or observations on race and capitalism. The previous movie observed how humanity reverts back to classic gender roles during a societal reboot.

This film’s most inventive twist? Sure, those flesh-eating zombies are bad, but the remnants of humanity are even worse.

Whoa! If only zombie king George A. Romero had thought of that first.

Oh, wait, he did. And so did other filmmakers who have tried their hand at undead thrillers.

It’s the genre’s laziest trope, but it’s almost all “The Bone Temple” has to offer … unless you count Dr. Kelson trying to rehabilitate Samson before it rips his brain and spinal cord out.

There’s nothing here of consequence … until the epilogue.

No spoilers, of course, but expect a clunky stab at social relevance that comes out of nowhere and can’t connect with anything we’ve just witnessed. It will make TDS sufferers cry out in recognition, if this critic’s screening is any indication.

The best to be said about DaCosta’s direction is that she captures that frenzied, “28 Days Later” style that connects franchise installments. She also makes the very most of that titular Temple.

Beyond that, there’s precious little to savor from her handiwork or a franchise that has run out of things to say (or kill).

HiT or Miss: “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” isn’t just a sorry excuse for a sequel. It’s a prime candidate for the year’s worst movie. And it’s only January.

The post Someone Should Bury ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/J2pz5fm
‘Primate’ – Avoid Furious George at All Costs

‘Primate’ – Avoid Furious George at All Costs

In the opening scene of Johannes Roberts’ “Primate,” a dumbbell wearing a loud Aloha shirt visits a chimpanzee habitat, makes annoying wisecracks to the visibly unhappy chimp and, within seconds, gets his face ripped off.

We know why this happened.

A pre-title card informs us that chimps who catch rabies can become dangerously aggressive. I suspect a more plausible reason for this scene, as well as the entire movie: someone suggested in a studio meeting that the simian attack scene in Jordan Peele’s “Nope” (2022) was far too subtle.

YouTube Video

We meet a group of dumb, attractive teenagers, whose characters can be summed up as The Stoner Guy, The Sober Responsible One, The Hot Girl Who Will Die Immediately, The Younger Sister of the Responsible One, etc.

The actor with the most to do is Trot Kotsur, the wonderful, Oscar-winning actor of “CODA” (2021). Kotsur is playing an author who apparently writes awful books (sporting titles like “A Silent Death”) and has a pet chimp, whom he forces to wear an ugly red t-shirt, in his fancy cliffside home.

Clearly, Kotsur deserves better. So does the audience.

This chimp slasher movie devolves into a trapped-in-a-swimming-pool-with-a-killer-chimp thriller. The whole thing is set on Oahu, which is conveyed with lots of Aloha shirts, beach vistas and “Hawaii” signs, but the end credits (and unconvincing art direction) reveal this was filmed nowhere near a Hawaiian island.

Speaking of unconvincing, the core threat, Ben the Chimpanzee, is either a guy in a suit or an animatronics puppet but, either way, it never looks remotely real. It actually helps, as this is a hateful exploitation flick, not about a ravenous jungle creature turned bad but, far more dubious, a domesticated, ASL-speaking chimp, the kind featured in Francine Patterson’s 1978 children’s book, “Koko’s Kitten.”

I get it, nothing is off limits in the horror genre (Exhibit A. the recent “Winnie the Pooh”-inspired kill-fest). Yet, the ick factor in this is off the charts, which some genre fans will be happy to note.

Some of “Primate” is truly vile, such as the ample, showy gore set pieces where faces are yanked off and eaten. Much of the film is unintentionally hilarious. I’ll give Roberts proper credit for making a technically competent film, and I loved the bit where the chimp knows how to use a key fob to catch a victim.

Otherwise, I spent the running time rolling my eyes in disgust or laughing at it in contempt.

YouTube Video

I’m old enough to remember the 1986 Richard Franklin thriller, “Link,” which starred Elisabeth Shue and Terrence Stamp and is just like this movie, only with one teenager instead of a half dozen. “Link” was also a stinker, though I’d rather revisit that one than suffer through this again.

The moments that try to tap into Ben the chimp’s tortured transformation and stifled humanity are the worst – the filmmakers and sadistic screenwriter don’t care about this animal and are just setting up another moment where the creature will perform more unwanted dental surgery on a cluster of dumb characters.

How stupid are these people? The realization that Ben the chimp has rabies arrives absurdly late, as does the suggestion that getting in a pool can protect the cellphone-obsessed teens.

Another character comes rushing back to his house, which has obviously been trashed by the chimp, but is distracted enough by a slice of pizza to miss the danger standing right behind him. Yet, if anyone in this movie acted like a rational human being and called the proper authorities early on, the story would have wrapped up after 11-minutes.

Here’s a small way to improve this awful movie: rather than a forgettable title like “Primate,” why not call it “The Chimpening” or “Furious George?”

One Star (out of four)

The post ‘Primate’ – Avoid Furious George at All Costs appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/ADlsSZj
‘Father Mother Sister Brother’ Is Pure Jarmusch Gold

‘Father Mother Sister Brother’ Is Pure Jarmusch Gold

Jim Jarmusch’s “Father Mother Sister Brother” is a three-story anthology film exploring the bonds we have with our siblings and the way so many of us can say we love our parents but had to survive an unsteady upbringing.

Like his poetic, deeply moving “Paterson” (2016), Jarmusch’s latest stars Adam Driver. The film begins slowly, establishes repeating patterns, dawdles long enough to make you wonder if it will all come together, until it does, beautifully.

YouTube Video

We open on the segment titled “Father,” in which a brother and sister (Driver and Mayim Bialik) drive to a remote part of New Jersey to visit their dad (Tom Waits). The pre-visit conversation suggests there will be tension and that the isolation of the father’s location extends to how he’s viewed by his children.

Among the details that come up in this segment that have stayed with me – Waits’ patriarch reminds his children how he used to make “cookie chicken” and that they used to love it. Maybe I’m wrong about this but is he saying that he used to sprinkle crumbles of cookie atop a chicken and bake it for their amusement?

From the looks of things, I think I’m right about this.

The sequence is a long piece of three-person drama, with what remains unsaid having even more dramatic weight than what comes out in casual conversation. Waits is extraordinary during this sequence, though I was especially impressed by Bialik, who I remember once stole Garry Marshall’s “Beaches” (1988) by playing a younger Bette Midler.

The story jumps to the next vignette, set in Dublin, titled “Mother,” with screen legend Charlotte Rampling playing a writer awaiting the arrival of her daughters (Cate Blanchett and Vicky Krieps). Although this segment is unrelated to the one that came before it, there is overlap in the topics that arise (ranging from water to the omnipresence of skateboarding teens in the distance).

Also, most pivotally, we’re struck by the knowledge we carry from the dialogue occurring before the gathering and witness how so much should be discussed but goes unspoken.

Finally, we arrive at “Sister Brother,” the best segment, where a different pair of siblings (Indya Moore and Luka Sabbat) are tasked with going to the apartment of their recently deceased parents. During their time together, the brother and sister reconnect with their past via memories and uncovering photographs reminding them of where they come from.

What I’ve provided above is a fairly simple, spoiler-free description of the plot but seeing this is so much better than the synopsis above. Jarmusch, as always, creates a distinct mood. Filmgoers who don’t like his movies often dismiss his work as “detached,” while I’d say his best films are observant, patient and full of universal truths.

Jarmusch’s last film, the all-star zombie comedy, “The Dead Don’t Die” (2019), felt like an in-joke and a rare failure in his body of work. What this filmmaker is capable of includes the fantastic Bill Murray career highlight “Broken Flowers” (2005) and the delightful “Mystery Train” (1989).

Cinephiles tend to lean into the one-two punch of Jarmusch’s breakthroughs, “Stranger Than Paradise” (1984) and “Down By Law” (1986) but I’m a bigger fan of the loopy “Night On Earth” (1991) and “Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai” (2000), Jarmusch’s best film.

YouTube Video

“Father Mother Sister Brother” is among Jarmusch’s finest, in that its staying power sneaks up on you. The early scenes are interesting but vague – where was the movie going? By the time you get to the emotionally rich final scenes, Jarmusch isn’t just applying his one-of-a-kind brand of cool and creating another richly textured cinematic mix tape, he’s reminding us of the complex relationship we have with our parents and legacies.

As with “Paterson” and “Broken Flowers,” the first act had me curious but feeling in the dark, but the payoff is so touching and thoughtful, it left me enriched by the experience…it also inspired me to call my parents.

Three and a half stars (out of four)

The post ‘Father Mother Sister Brother’ Is Pure Jarmusch Gold appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.



from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/XpW1BlR