Mortal Kombat II: Chaotic, Silly and Somehow Still a Guilty Pleasure

“Mortal Kombat II” is pure torture for film critics.

How do you assess a movie that doesn’t play by the rules, offers an utterly confounding story and leaves actors scrambling for their dignity?

And, the most amazing part? What if it’s sorta, kinda fun in a way you couldn’t confide to even your closest friend?

That’s the challenge in briefing readers on this video game sequel, a film that never takes itself seriously but packages more supercharged fight sequences than any film not named “Wick.”

It’s silly. It’s a mess. It’s way too long. And it packs suitcases of guilty pleasures in its bloated running time.

Where to even begin with a traditional plot synopsis?

A sinister realm dubbed Outworld is intent on taking over Earthrealm. To do so, it gathers a team of high-powered warriors led by Emperor Shao Kahn (Martyn Ford) to defeat Earthrealm’s finest fighters. Think a Thanos-like villain who makes mincemeat of his enemies.

He seems pretty inevitable.

The good guys this time around include, inexplicably, a has-been movie star named Johnny Cage (Karl Urban). Why would he be one of the chosen ones to fight Shao Kahn and his forces?

Make it make sense. Good luck.

RELATED:

‘THE LAST STARFIGHTER’ STILL THE BEST VIDEO GAME MOVIE

NO, VIDEO GAMES AREN’T PRODUCING VIOLENT SHOOTERS

Just know that Urban knows exactly how to play this absurd material, adding charisma and humor where it’s desperately needed.

His co-stars aren’t as fortunate, lacking the comic notes needed to ground their characters. Still, Adeline Rudolph does as much as humanly possible as the fierce Kitana, and both Jessica McNamee (Sonya Blade) and Mehcad Brooks (Jax) offer agreeable turns.

We’d also praise Josh Lawson’s Kano, a wisecracking warrior, but who in the world knows what he’s doing or why he’s here? Newbies will need to do some heavy research to fill in these backstories.

Then again, this franchise is meant for hardcore fans, not the casual filmgoer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by IMAX (@imax)

Eager for cool kills? “Mortal Kombat II” has your back. Curious why one wounded warrior floats in a coma-like state, or why a washed-up film star should be summoned to save the world?

Darned if we know.

You’d think a two-hour film that offers nonstop character fights would grow dull, but one thing director Simon McQuaid gets right is how to make over-the-top slugfests pop.

Some warriors deploy fireballs, while others wield massive weapons. Either way, every battle sequence rocks, and thank goodness.

Because that’s all there is.

Urban’s addition to the franchise suggests he’ll be the main attraction. The story splits time between Johnny and Kitana. Neither is a bad choice, but the ensemble approach works against the film, making sure neither has much of an arc.

Video game movies aren’t meant to be high art, but the chaotic nature of “Mortal Kombat II” can leave some woozy. There’s talk of an important amulet, but that subplot feels insignificant in the big picture. Whatever moral ambiguity resides in Johnny’s call to heroism barely leaves a mark.

The sequel is akin to someone giving us a satchel of quarters and saying, “have fun!”

There are worse ways to spend two hours, but calling it a “movie” feels like a stretch.

HiT or Miss: “Mortal Kombat II” offers non-stop action, mind-numbing plot beats and a hero who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word.

The post Mortal Kombat II: Chaotic, Silly and Somehow Still a Guilty Pleasure appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/345DF1U

Did 1981’s ‘Enter the Ninja’ Help Launch Ninja Craze?

Menahem Golan’s “Enter the Ninja” (1981) has a title sequence where a ninja provides a demonstration, ranging from kicks to weapons preparation, as the opening credits unravel.

Leave it to Golan, the infamous businessman and canny filmmaker, for knowing what his audience wants and insists on giving them right away.

We meet our ninja, a man named Cole, played by Franco Nero, who is visiting a friend in Manila, where nefarious business practices are occurring. When Cole’s best friend is murdered, he goes on a one-man war against a sleazy business tycoon, Charles Venarius (played by the wonderful character actor, Christopher George, the lead of the 1976 drive-in smash, “Grizzly”).

There’s also a rival ninja named Hasegawa, played by Sho Kosugi, the true star of the film and the breakout who not only followed this series, but numerous martial arts thrillers inspired by it.

Another major star of the film is Mike Stone. The Maui-born martial arts sensation who was originally hired to play Cole and, reportedly due to lack of acting experience (though likely Golan’s belief that a movie star should carry this), he was replaced by Nero but wisely kept on the film as the fight choreographer and ninja double.

I’m a fan of Nero, who has obvious gravitas and a cool accent as a leading man (he was perfect playing a Castro-like villain in the 1990 “Die Hard 2”). However, to put it mildly, Nero gives the role his all, but he’s not believable as a ninja, and it’s obvious when Stone was brought in to double him.

The decision to have Nero’s deep vocals dubbed is as ridiculous as the unnaturally chipper voice that replaced him.

Kosugi, with his intense, Toshiro Mifune-level stare and intimidating presence, is the real deal and so is Stone, whose imprint on the film is undeniable. I wish Kosugi were in “Enter the Ninja” more, as his character makes a strong entrance but doesn’t get to take center stage until the film is nearly over.

In addition to his obvious martial arts showcases, Kosugi is also excellent as the disproving father in “Aloha Summer” (1988) and as The Assassin in “Blind Fury” (1990), the better-than-expected American remake of the essential “Zatoichi” (1962-1989) film series.

In addition to love scenes and a romantic subplot the film has no idea what to do with, there are also war flashbacks, indicating that Golan and Globus were visibly chomping at the bit to start their “Missing in Action” franchise (1984-1988).

Golan’s film is completely ridiculous and wildly entertaining, easily one of the best of the Cannon Films titles unrelated to their arthouse fare (where the 1985 “Runaway Train” and the 1987 releases “Barfly” and “Street Smart” rank among their proudest releases).

Sure, the dialogue is risible, and the plot is by-the-numbers, but when you have multiple shots of ninjas diving headfirst off a waterfall in slow motion, the lack of a fresh story can mostly be forgiven.

“Enter the Ninja” is credited, in film textbooks, as well as the 2014 documentary “Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films,” for igniting a ninja craze in the U.S. and in video stores. I’d argue that Eric Van Lustbader’s 1980 bestselling novel “The Ninja” and choice moments from the top-rated 1980 TV mini-series “Shōgun,” as well as the growing appeal of martial arts movies in the U.S., were also the reason.

I vividly recall a 1-800 ad that aired in the late 1980s on TV after midnight, which showed a karate-kicking, black-attired ninja, running through the woods and doing flips over bridges – a narrator stated that “you, yes, YOU,” could become like the warrior on your TV set!

How? By sending $100 to the address listed on screen, in order to obtain a massive book that reveals all the secrets of the ways of the ninja. Despite asking my mom about it the following morning, I have yet to obtain a copy.

Enter the Ninja (1981) pic.twitter.com/NPWLUwpvAp

— Retro Recall (☥) (@RetroMoviesDB) January 16, 2026

Whatever the reason for the fascination with all things masked, aikido-trained shadow warriors, Golan’s film and his Cannon Films (co-founded by his partner, Yoram Globus) exploited the notion, in this and many other films that followed.

The best and worst thing about “Enter the Ninja” is that it’s hilarious and rarely on purpose.

What came next? For starters, the unrelated “Revenge of the Ninja” (1983) and the hall of fame guilty pleasure, “Ninja III- The Domination” (1984), which all starred Kosugi, whose plays different ninja characters in each. From Cannon Films, the Michael Dudikoff “American Ninja” franchise followed, as did a Kosugi-starring TV series called “The Master” (1984).

“Enter the Ninja” isn’t great art, but it’s a fun B-movie and a well-made Cannon Film. There are better ninja and martial arts films that came before and after it, but where else can you see Nero explain to the villain, in a badly dubbed voice, “My friend, a ninja doesn’t kill, He eliminates and only for defensive purposes,” then kick the crud out of them?

The post Did 1981’s ‘Enter the Ninja’ Help Launch Ninja Craze? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/1DM5UBv

Is ‘The Christophers’ Ian McKellen’s Career-Best Performance?

Steven Soderbergh’s “The Christophers” showcases one of the best performances Sir Ian McKellen has ever given, which is enough reason to see it.

This one-of-a-kind comedy/drama is also unlike most other films about artists.

McKellen plays Julian Sklar, a reclusive but celebrated painter who infamously never finished a set of works titled The Christophers. Sklar’s rotten, money-hungry children (played by Jessica Gunning and former talk show host James Corden) hire Lori (Michaela Coel) to finish The Christophers herself and pass it off as Julian’s work.

When Julian meets Lori, he’s taken by her intelligence and skill, but has his own ideas about what to ultimately do with The Christophers.

Soderbergh’s wonderful new film isn’t just about art but, refreshingly, also the joy and agony that goes into the process of creation. Considering that most films about the art world are either museum heists or bios about self-destructive painters, the film’s exploration of the actual work of painting and the frustrations it elicits is downright novel.

Movies about painters or artists in general typically have a montage of the brushes engorged with paint, the artist madly working the canvas, in the same way movies about artists have scenes of actors furiously typing. It’s a cliché and doesn’t tap into the actual process, let alone how much fun it is to create.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Picturehouse (@picturehouses)

To give most filmmakers a break, staging the act of creating art as a cinematic event isn’t easy. Outside of the pottery montage from “Ghost” (1990), does any film, let alone a mainstream movie, reflect how an artist’s imagination, skill and obsession lead to a physical approximation of the idea?

I suppose the ultimate film that painstakingly demonstrates how art emerges from artists has to be “La Belle Noiseuse” (English title “The Beautiful Troublemaker”), in which a legendary artist paints a young Emmanuelle Béart nude in real time and we experience every paint stroke and literally watch paint dry.

Oh, and the film is four hours long.

For everyone else, there’s “The Christophers.” McKellen gives such a forceful performance, flush with lengthy, hilarious monologues, that he’s almost the whole show here. Coel brings dimension and intelligence to her role, and its refreshing to see Cordan play a character we’re supposed to loathe.

“The Christophers” plays like a companion piece to McKellen’s vehicles “Mr. Holmes” (2015) and especially “Gods and Monsters” (1998), the latter of which is still McKellen’s best movie and performance. In both that film and “The Christophers,” he plays an elderly artist who challenges and inspires a young protégée.

RELATED: SODERBERGH’S ‘MAGIC MIKE’ ENDS WITH A WHIMPER

The music and cinematography are crisp, and Soderbergh allows the extensive two-person scenes to go long but the edits never allow it to drag or feel claustrophobic.

The final scene brought a tear to my eye, as screenwriter Ed Solomon arrives at a perfect conclusion. Film buffs will remember Solomon, not only as the author of Soderbergh’s prior “No Sudden Move” (2021) but, no joke, as the writer behind every single “Bill and Ted” movie (!).

There are so many McKellen hall of fame performances, such as “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (2001), “X-Men” (2000), “Richard III” (1995) and “Apt Pupil” (1998). This one is among his richest and most complex.

“The Christophers” could have been a filmed play and, at times, feels like one. This is among its boldest achievements, as it manages to keep us engaged in what is mostly a movie about two people in a house trying to figure one another out.

Considering the achievement of Richard Linklater’s three-person 2001 drama, “Tape,” it’s almost as if Soderbergh was attempting to audaciously make the two-person variant. What could have come across as a potential stunt or something that should have stayed on stage instead emerges as a thought-provoking comedy on the notion of authorship, both in art and life.

Three and a half stars (out of four)

The post Is ‘The Christophers’ Ian McKellen’s Career-Best Performance? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/N7VoTtE

‘Hokum’ – So Scary You Can’t Keep Quiet in a Theater

Damien McCarthy’s “Hokum” begins with an author named Bauman (Adam Scott) putting the finishing touch on his novel, a nihilistic, Cormac McCarthy-like epic set in the desert,

We see the imagery Bauman is shaping, of a father and son wandering through sun-baked dunes, searching for a way out, failing to find it and facing their mortality.

This opener is jarring, as it made me wonder, “Am I even watching the right movie?”

Actually, this thematic prologue is key to what follows and not just because of what Bauman’s story is about – the author is miserable, viciously sarcastic and, like the characters he’s created, about to give up.

Bauman flies to Ireland and checks into the Bilberry Woods Hotel, with his visit intended to be personal and private. The staff at the hotel are chatty and helpful, particularly when they inform him that the Honeymoon Suite is unavailable, because the room is inhabited by a witch and sealed off from the rest of the hotel.

Things get stranger from there.

Be warned, this one is seriously scary and gave me, a lifelong horror fan, some of the biggest jolts I’ve ever had in a movie theater. I had one audible reaction after another – apologies to whoever sat next to me.

McCarthy’s prior thriller, “Oddity” (2024), also told a great story and really scared me. At press time, I have yet to see his directorial debut, “Caveat” (2020) because, well, I’m not always in the mood to watch something that is going to make me lose an entire night’s sleep.

What I’m saying is this: between “Oddity” and especially “Hokum,” we can welcome McCarthy into the class of cool new kids to this genre. Mr. McCarthy, you can have a seat right over there, next to Mike Flanagan, Zach Cregger and Oz Perkins.

Sometimes McCarthy gives in to the contemporary tendency to hit us with jump scares, but the majority of the most potent images here are a total surprise. Better still, McCarthy gets us up close to what you don’t want to see, maximizing the level of fright in each fear -inducing image.

I remember Scott from the once-notorious HBO erotic drama series, “Tell Me You Love Me” (2007) and have enjoyed his pivot into comedy. Here, Scott is well cast, bringing both snarky humor but dramatic weight to Bauman and manages the tricky task of playing a fascinating and unlikable character.

“Hokum” tells a great story, showcases a fascinating location with colorful side characters and even bookends that opening story within a story. McCarthy is clearly a fan of Stephen King and takes cues from King’s “The Shining” (1980) and especially “1408” (2007) without ripping them off.

Like the best of King, it makes you afraid of the dark, finds welcome moments of humor and always keeps the audience riveted. The legacy of “Hokum” will be how hard it rattles an audience but let’s not overlook how exciting and morbidly funny it is, too.

Since we’re unsure as to whether the phenomenon Bauman witnesses is real at first, his initial detachment makes the proceedings unpredictable. For example, we can’t yell at the screen, “Don’t go in there,” if the protagonist doesn’t believe in the supernatural.

FAST FACT: Damien McCarthy toiled as an electrician and threw short films up on YouTube to kick start his filmmaking career.

Bauman’s staunch disbelief in ghosts is like a superpower. The scenes where he gets deeper into the hotel’s hidden rooms and tunnels are rich in suspense, as Bauman is no dummy but wants real answers that no one in the hotel is giving him.

In the end, not all of my questions were answered, but when the tone shifts to the starkly emotional and even dips into a revenge tale in the late going, it stills works.

We’re at a moment where the horror genre, soon after the landmark year of 2025 (“The Monkey,” “Sinners,” “Keeper” “Wolf Man” and “Weapons” were among the very high points), can either keep surprising us and emerge as vital pop art or, well…”Lee Cronin’s The Mummy” is a recent example of how it can go back to the lows of “Turistas” (2006), “Captivity” (2007) and the train of bad remakes from the early 2000s.

“Hokum,” in the best way, is as pivotal a horror film as “Insidious” (2011), in that it isn’t about easy gushes of gore or trying too hard within the confines of a studio product to make an imprint. “Hokum,” like “Insidious,” will matter in the long run because it isn’t gory or a studio product but an art film that only cares about scaring its audience, again and again.

The filmmaking, performances and screenplay are also top notch, but really, you’ll remember this one because of how much it terrified you. I can’t wait to see it again. For everyone else, “The Devil Wears Prada 2” is also playing next door.

Four Stars (out of four)

The post ‘Hokum’ – So Scary You Can’t Keep Quiet in a Theater appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

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

‘Devil Wears Prada 2’ Lets Miranda Off the Hook

It could have been worse.

Delayed sequels often suggest desperation, if not creative failure. For every exception like “Top Gun: Maverick” we’re punished by that “Zoolander” update or, much worse, “Caddyshack 2.”

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” clears that low bar with a still-solid cast, some genuine yuks and the kind of fan service that doesn’t make our teeth hurt. It struggles to find its purpose and commits a near-unforgivable sin with Meryl Streep’s iconic character, the scene-swiping Miranda Priestly.

This Miranda is too nice. It’s like making Darth Vader cuddly or Hannibal Lecter fond of puppies.

Runway magazine has made the leap to the digital age, but it hasn’t been easy. The film opens with a poorly sourced magazine feature that draws a digital bullseye on the rag.

The solution? Hire hotshot journalist Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway), the Runway alum who is now a respected reporter. Her viral video defense of journalism, seen here as inspiring but gag-inducing in real life, finds her back in Miranda’s inner circle.

Few films genuflect to journalism quite like “Prada 2,” and the timing couldn’t be worse.

Trump WRECKS Norah O’Donnell as her trap for him backfires!@RubinReport: Norah has the gall to reference Trump as a pedophile and r*pist RIGHT AFTER the attack ‍ pic.twitter.com/MK08ZbK9GQ

— The Rubin Report (@RubinReportShow) April 27, 2026

The reunion is far from smooth, but bigger challenges await. Can Andy generate clicks with her just-the-facts journalism? And will the magazine’s owner commit the cash needed to keep real content afloat?

This isn’t exactly binge-worthy fare, let alone enough to hang a sequel on. Good thing more twists are on the horizon, but even hinting at them runs a huge spoiler risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by The Devil Wears Prada 2 (@tdwpmovie)

Hathaway’s Andy remains a do-gooder with a conscience. She’s aghast at income inequality and sees her journalism as a necessary corrective. Yet she delights in dolling up in designer wear handed to her by scene stealing Stanley Tucci, back as the lovable Nigel.

Andy sees no problem soaking in the luxury her position affords her while the “poors” make do with less. The film even features a scene where Miranda must fly coach, making fun of the “plebes” she’s forced to sit near.

The horror, the horror.

Maybe “Prada 2” is the ultimate Hollywood message movie. Down with income inequality, say the A-listers whose riders would dwarf a family of four’s annual budget.

The film’s returning screenwriter, Aline Brosh McKenna, either can’t see that moral hypocrisy, or she knows that “Prada” fans insist on opulence above all else.

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” is targeting a massive $75-80 million debut in North American, with some expecting ticket sales closer to $100 million.

The sequel should earn $100 million internationally for a global start in the $175-190 million range.https://t.co/kdfMKnt678

— Variety (@Variety) April 29, 2026

Some notable new faces fail to launch, from Kenneth Branagh as Miranda’s devoted husband to B.J. Novak as a mogul’s spoiled son. Lucy Liu appears briefly as the ultimate interview “get,” but that’s not the most cringe-worthy part of her role.

And then there’s Streep, bringing back one of her many iconic performances. Her Miranda could slay a dozen bullfighters with a withering glance.

She brings some, but not all, of that ferocity back, but something is missing. Maybe it’s knowing that being a magazine magnate in 2026 is like lording over a treasure trove of Blu-ray discs.

She’s yesterday’s news, but her softening still feels like a cheat.

There’s nothing wrong with Miranda discovering a conscience she buried decades ago, but that character arc is poorly realized. And Emily Blunt gets the worst of the sequel chores. Blunt’s Emily is back and besotted by a nerdy tech gazillionaire Benji Barnes (Justin Theroux, curiously shackled).

Her transformation is even more whiplash-inducing than Miranda’s.

None of the above is as cringe-worthy as Andy’s new romance (sorry, Adrien Grenier!). She has a meet not-so-cute with an Aussie building developer (Patrick Brammall), and their courtship sets a new low in lack-of-screen chemistry.

Why even bother? The romance adds nothing to the story, and the pairing’s “Two Weeks Notice”-style clash never heats up.

But that’s “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” an agreeable collection of shout outs, fashion closeups and member berries gussied it up for our inspection. It’s neither dull nor memorable, and it never makes us pine for Jackie Mason’s attempt to out Rodney Rodney Dangerfield.

It deserves a Miranda raised eyebrow, at best.

HiT or Miss: “The Devil Wears Prada 2” should satiate franchise fans, but the sequel goes wobbly at the worst possible time.

The post ‘Devil Wears Prada 2’ Lets Miranda Off the Hook appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/qNR1Feg

‘Over Your Dead Body’ – Nasty, Desperate but Sporadically Funny

Jorma Taccone’s “Over Your Dead Body” stars Jason Segel and Samara Weaving as an unpleasant couple who try to rekindle their failing bond by spending a weekend in the woods together.

Things immediately go bad once they arrive at a deserted cabin. Attempts to make things romantic bring out caustic resentment. When their true intentions are revealed and prove to be less than honorable, they turn against one another in a war of more than words.

Then, more people show up and the stabbings and attempted homicides increase with every passing moment.

This limp comedy, shockingly from one of the members of The Lonely Island, demonstrates, once again, that Danny DeVito’s “The War of the Roses” (1989) is still the best, funniest, smartest and most impactful of the violent love stories.

This weak farce slowly gives way to gory slapstick and is just the latest “Ready or Not 2” or “They Will Kill You.”
Paul Guilfoyle, playing Segel’s had-it-up-to-here father, makes a third-act re-entry into the story that is the film’s funniest sequence.

Weaving gives the most compelling turn of the two leads and no movie with Juliette Lewis can be all bad.

Segel is one note and doesn’t connect to the material as he has in better vehicles. Strange but true – Segel had better chemistry with The Muppets in the 2011 “The Muppets” than he does here with Weaving.

It has its moments, but Taccone’s film is nowhere near as funny as his “Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping” (2016) or, really, anything he and his collaborators put out on “SNL” during their rule as The Lonely Island (the Michael Bolton-powered “Jack Sparrow” is an instant laugh inducer for me).

“Over Your Dead Body” plays like “The Break Up” (2006) if it were invaded by “Straw Dogs” (1971) and winds up just as funny as that sounds. Unlike the best comedies that blend human cruelty with refreshingly subversive humor, this one is, indeed, nasty but always desperate.

Despite the level of the carnage (which includes, no joke, an attempted rape and a slaughter by lawnmower), this always feels low stakes and lightweight. The tendency here is to allow the violence to get ugly, then dip back into cheery sentiment.

It’s hard to tell if Taccone just couldn’t handle the tonal changes or if he felt what was needed is to let the audience know it’s all a joke. As a comedy, “Over Your Dead Body” is hateful and ugly but as a thriller, its distractingly chipper.

Among the most inspired touches is an out-of-left-field inclusion of Al Pacino’s audiobook (which isn’t to say that Pacino is in the movie). I laughed a few times at some unexpected moments of physical humor and everyone on screen is visibly giving this their all, but the overall effect is numbing.

Allow me to remind readers of “Splitsville,” last year’s comedy starring Dakota Johnson.

That film is also set in an isolated location, deals with couples falling out of love, and is consistently hilarious, the best comedy of 2025.

“Splitsville” is an ideal substitute for this forgettable time-waster.

One and a half stars (out of four)

The post ‘Over Your Dead Body’ – Nasty, Desperate but Sporadically Funny appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/NF1iZRx

‘Burnt Offerings’ at 50: The House That Haunted Us

Dan Curtis’ “Burnt Offerings” (1976) is a unique haunted house thriller, as the villain isn’t a ghost but a house with the ability to unhinge a happy family.

The supernatural quality of the film is made evident in the tour de force final scene (more on that showstopper later), but the film is, refreshingly, not about the things that go bump in the night by means of a pesky spirit. Instead, this is more relatable, dealing with how a new home and a different environment can be more than some can handle.

Karen Black and Oliver Reed are Ben and Marian Rolf a married couple who, along with their son Davey (Lee H. Montgomery) move into an isolated mansion they are renting for the summer. The owners are the Allardyces, wonderfully played by Burgess Meredith and Eileen Heckart, who are so dotty and strangely chipper, it should have given the Rolfs an early warning that they need to run in the opposite direction.

Nevertheless, the Rolfs, including the grandmother, played by the legendary Bette Davis, move in and find that things are immediately off. Among the strangest touches – there’s someone who lives upstairs, never leaves her bed and only Marian has seen her.

Curtis’ film reminds me of the striking 1978 Anne Rivers Siddons’ novel, “The House Next Door” more than “The Amityville Horror” (1978), which unfairly gets compared to this movie simply because they were released within years of one another.

Actually, Curtis’ brand of gothic horror and a tortured family dynamic, explored in his groundbreaking and delicious vampire soap opera, “Dark Shadows” (1966-1971) seems in line with what goes on in “Burnt Offerings.”

The two are both of the horror genre but have completely different storytelling approaches.

The house becomes an all-encompassing obsession that transfixes the family, a nice twist on a genre that peaked with Robert Wise’s 1963 “The Haunting” and is always in need of a revision or unusual spin. Curtis’ unusual, haunted house tale is a quaint, slow burn most of the way, until it gets really wild and concludes in a truly insane manner.

Until then, this matches the pacing of his “Dark Shadows.” Curtis takes his time telling tales.

Black is excellent, and Davis is wonderful, near the start of her post-“Baby Jane” reign as a horror regular (Davis’ unsettling turn in the TV movie “The Dark Secret of Harvest Home,” released the same year, is another buried treasure for fans).

It’s funny to see Reed playing a bespeckled, doomed dad the very same year as his wild turn in Ken Russell’s “Tommy,” where he played the title character’s dangerous stepfather.

Based on the 1973 Robert Morasco novel, “Burnt Offerings” is post-“The Haunting”, pre-“The Amityville Horror” (1979) and well before the game-changing “The Shining” (1980) and “Poltergeist” (1982). There is, however, a striking similarity in how “Burnt Offerings” and “The Shining” conclude, as both have epilogues in which the camera lingers on tell-tale photographs.

Curtis’ film is far from perfect, as there are, of all things, too many pool scenes and it visually looks like it was made for TV.

Then there’s the ending, which I won’t spoil. “Burnt Offerings” has a jolt of a big reveal, a hilarious, over-the-top twist on top of that, a wicked conclusion and a closing image that makes me wonder if anyone involved in the making of “The Shining” saw this one first.

The best thing about “Burnt Offerings” is the unusual spin it offers on the haunted house genre and, undoubtedly, there’s no way you’ll ever forget those final moments.

The post ‘Burnt Offerings’ at 50: The House That Haunted Us appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/bea0mRN

‘Animal Farm’ Targets Capitalism, Not Soviet-Style Repression

The best Pixar movies are meant for children but evoke something special for adults.

Look no further than the “Toy Story” franchise, a near-perfect case of storytelling that appeals to young and old alike.

“Animal Farm” does the opposite.

The tale, based on George Orwell’s revelatory novel, is neither goofy enough for kids nor savvy enough for their parental units. And, in bringing the story back to life, director Andy Serkis has found the imperfect sweet spot – a movie meant for neither demographic.

The story opens with a farm facing disclosure from a wicked, no good bank. The animals, including Lucky the pig (Gaten Matarazzo) and friends are targeted for the slaughterhouse but recoil at the destination.

They overpower the humans and strike out on their own. Free at last!

Except their freedom is short-lived. The animal community conjures up a list of societal rules, including All Animals Are Equal, but some threaten to break those commandments.

That includes Napoleon, an ungainly boar voiced by an effective Seth Rogen (assuming you can get past his annoying pot laugh). The animals come up with some wily innovations, producing electricity on their own terms.

The societal fractures start to show, and even the sober voices like Boxer the horse (Woody Harrelson) and Snowball (Laverne Cox in a gender-swapped role) are swarmed by greed and mischief. Matters grow worse when the farm’s success draws the attention of a villainous CEO (Glenn Close), all too eager to exploit what the animals have built.

Serkis’ vision looks wonderful, both with the fully realized animal portraits and gleaming tech that evokes an authoritarian vibe. Except the film’s story is all over the map, both tonally and with its comic sentiment.

One minute, it’s a wacky, G-rated farce with animals farting for comic relief. The next? A beloved character faces his Maker in a tense, emotionally grounded sequence.

This “Animal Farm” can’t decide what it wants to be, so it ends up frustrating all potential audiences.

It’s not a shock that Hollywood would pivot from Orwell’s original vision. It’s like Disney recognizing the timeless appeal of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and demanding a new approach.

And how did that turn out again?

Yet Angel Studios, a faith-adjacent shingle with content that speaks to Heartland values, gobbled up the finished film. That’s an acquisition that might make its own compelling, behind-the-scenes story.

“Animal Farm” can’t even fully commit to its anti-consumerism shtick, although given the glut of similar messaging, why bother in the first place? Sure, it’s briefly fun to see pigs roaring around in sports cars and playing with their smart phones. 

But what’s the point? There’s little to say beyond obvious observations that have been shared in countless other films.

Orwell was different, and that’s why we’re still talking about him today.

Screenwriter Nick Stoller (“Get Him to the Greek,” The Five-Year Engagement”) proves a terrible choice for the project. His sense of satire is wobbly, and his eagerness to reinvent the source material is suspect.

It’s a miracle Napoleon doesn’t don a red hat at some point.

Children’s movies can be sophisticated and frothy, if carefully orchestrated from start to finish. “Animal Farm” has no such luck, leaving audiences scrambling to find the reason behind the project. 

HiT or Miss: “Animal Farm” may be the most misguided film in some time. It’s neither kid-friendly nor faithful to the source material. 

The post ‘Animal Farm’ Targets Capitalism, Not Soviet-Style Repression appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

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

‘Man Who Wasn’t There’: Coen Bros’ Overlooked Noir Masterpiece

Joel and Ethan Coen’s “The Man Who Wasn’t There” (2001) is one of their later-period masterpieces that has always been overlooked.

The new Criterion Collection release sheds a needed light on this acclaimed but lesser-known work, which, astonishingly, resulted in the Coens sharing the Best Director award at the ’01 Cannes Film Festival, with none other than David Lynch (who also won for “Mulholland Drive”).

“Fargo” (1996), “The Big Lebowski” (1998) and “No Country for Old Men” (2007) may be Coen’s creative calling cards (and what an amazing trio they make) but “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is every bit as rich, shocking and funny as the other neo-film noirs.

Billy Bob Thornton plays a quiet but skilled barber named Ed Crane, who has been faithfully cutting heads in a 1949 barbershop in California with his brother-in-law, Frank (Michael Badalucco). Most of Crane’s dialogue comes in the form of narration, which perfectly sets up the plotlines and instructs us on the best way to provide a haircut.

Ed discovers that his wife, Doris (Frances McDormand), might be having an affair. This leads Ed into blackmailing Doris’ boss, “Big Dave” (James Gandolfini), which is the start of the character’s tumbling into a pit of moral grime and shocking turns of fate.

RELATED:

WHY ‘FARGO’ FRANCHISE IS BOTH NECESSARY AND RARE

‘MILLER’S CROSSING’ REVIEW: CLASSIC COEN BROS

There’s also a subplot involving Ed’s friendship with “Birdy” (Scarlett Johansson), a pianist hoping for a career, and the possibility of UFOs. The Coens explore where America was in 1949, where citizens were fearful of where the world was headed and how moral compromise and doing the wrong thing for the “right” reasons will end in self-destruction.

Remember, it’s a Coen brothers film noir, like their 1984 classic “Blood Simple,” not a fable, like the wonderful 1987 “Raising Arizona,” but still containing a concentrated quirkiness and some hilarious moments.

This was the last true Coen Brothers masterpiece, though their 2016 “Hail, Caesar!” came close. The brothers have subsequently split to make solo efforts – I love Joel Coen’s “The Tragedy of Macbeth” (2021), while Ethan Coen has been hard at work making darkly comic thrillers like “Honey Don’t!” (2025).

Whether they ever work together again or are now committed to solo projects, their body of work has recurring themes and approaches but is full of versatile narratives and genres.

Around the time of “Intolerable Cruelty” (2003), I thought I had fallen out of love with their output (the Tom Hanks-led “The Ladykillers” in 2004 didn’t do much for me, either). Most longtime fans cite the Best Picture Oscar winner “No Country for Old Men” (2007) as the turnaround Coen brothers film for them.

It’s similar to how Martin Scorsese’s “The Aviator” reignited a whole new fanbase for him in 2004.

“The Man Who Wasn’t There” hit me much harder.

Thornton is amazing in this for the most obvious of reasons – he’s so still and underplays the part but manages to give Crane such depth and an inner life.

Yes, Roger Deakins’ gorgeous black and white cinematography is a wonder to behold and amazes in every scene, but the story is also moving and engaging.

Crane is, indeed, a “modern man” who is aware of and participates in ideas of what the future will be like, namely the chaos, rebellion and new modes of business that mark the next decade ahead of him.

As funny and layered as the best from the Coen brothers, though many regard it, then and now, as too cold and detached. The real word to use in describing this film is deadpan.

Tony Shalhoub and Badalucco capture the Coen cadence and give wonderful character turns. A young Johansson (the same year she did “Ghost World,” no less) is another outstanding component.

Her character isn’t a gimmick or femme fatale but someone whose presence in Crane’s life eventually becomes a real problem. Even though Johansson and the Coens keep her role from becoming an obvious femme fatale, we’re still deep in film noir territory here.

The hall of fame cinematography, the sets and even the choice of music is at a master-class level.
Aside from “True Grit” (2010) and “O Brother, Where Are Thou” (2000), the Coens often struggled to find an audience for their period pieces.

“The Man Who Wasn’t There” is an outstanding drama that returns us to a simpler time but, like Crane’s grave mistakes, also makes us grateful that some things remain buried in the past.

The post ‘Man Who Wasn’t There’: Coen Bros’ Overlooked Noir Masterpiece appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/7KyoG1D

‘Logan’s Run’ at 50: Dystopian Classic Never More Relevant

Michael Anderson’s “Logan’s Run” (1976) is now 50 years old.

Based on the 1967 novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton, it depicts an idealized and controlled society, which is eventually recognized as a widescale menace the citizens are in need of escaping.

Set in the year 2274, it presents an idealized society where the catch is mandated death at the age of 30 by public execution, which citizens attend like a New Year’s Eve party. The look of this world is uncannily similar to Epcot Center in the Florida leg of Disneyworld, with the interiors resembling a vast shopping mall.

The focus is Logan, played by Michael York, one of the “sandman” law enforcers who terminate anyone who rebels against the system. Sandman’s colleague and best friend, played by Richard Jordan, enjoys the decadence of their world and submits to the youthful hedonism and the casual sadism in the public executions of those deemed too old to live.

RELATED:

SCI-FI SCRIBE REJECTS DANGEROUS GROUPTHINK

27 MOVIES THAT MADE US WANT TO STUDY SCIENCE

When the system turns on Logan, as it does for John Anderton in the similar “Minority Report” (2002), Logan basically takes Anderton’s two-word advice: Everybody Runs.

On the glittery surface, this sci-fi hit is very of its time but, even at its silliest (arguably the snow-crusted scene that bridges the second and third acts), “Logan’s Run” never lacks spectacle and, more importantly, rich ideas.

Anderson’s film is among the many futurist dramas with actors in jumpsuits, obvious special effects and a tendency to be campy. “Logan’s Run” is no different in that respect, as the crowd scenes resemble a ’70s-themed costume party.

However, the third act is so smart and surprising, it elevates everything that came before it and manages to keep this soaring until the end.

“Logan’s Run” spawned a TV series, which ran for a mere six months in 1977-1978, as well as a Marvel Comics series and countless films “inspired” by it.

Made in the age of “Buck Rogers” but arriving a year before “Star Wars” (1977), the DNA of “Logan’s Run” is obviously present in “The Hunger Games” (2012), “Minority Report” (2002), “Total Recall” (1990), “Voyagers” (2021), “Demolition Man” (1993) and the obvious rip-off, “The Island” (2005), the latter of which is also the best film Michael Bay has ever made.

The old-school spectacle is bountiful, with models, optical illusions, striking sets and old-fashioned wizardry that often are easy to spot but not always. The echoey bleep-bloops on the soundtrack are silly, especially when Jerry Goldsmith is on hand and provides a typically muscular score.

By the time Peter Ustinov shows up and starts quoting T.S. Elliot’s “Book of Practical Cats,” the ideas are still building and even richer in the late going. Like the closer of “Planet of the Apes” (1968), the great third act reveal here brings greater depth to the central drama and crystalizes the themes of empowering personal freedom and open mindedness in a controlling society.

The first words spoken in the movie Logan’s Run (1976) are “Wake up.” It’s interesting how much science fiction was trying to warn us. pic.twitter.com/IrSkZVAbri

— Chris Gore (@ThatChrisGore) February 18, 2023

York, post-“Romeo & Juliet” (1968), is a commanding presence but his character is unappealing. Jenny Agutter’s rebel is the heart of the story and Jordan’s performance is the film’s best. Farrah Fawcett’s big scene winds up being a showstopper. Overall, the film never runs out of arresting visuals, worthwhile themes and nutty set pieces.

This weird, trippy and fascinating sci-fi parable can be interpreted as portraying the physical and psychological struggle that goes into escaping a cult, as well as a meditation on age-obsessed society, run by computers and ruled by groupthink.

Thank God that doesn’t sound relevant to the world we live in today!

The post ‘Logan’s Run’ at 50: Dystopian Classic Never More Relevant appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

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

‘The Passenger’: Nicholson Shines in Antonioni’s Underrated Masterpiece

Michelangelo Antonioni’s “The Passenger” (1975) marked a special collaboration between the director and his star, Jack Nicholson.

Their daring, highly unusual film, now 50 years old, is a challenging work and deserves to be rediscovered.

When we meet Locke, played by Nicholson, he’s a reporter on assignment in the Sahara Desert, finding himself alone and unhappy. His vehicle stuck in the sand, Locke defeatedly returns to his rundown room for rent and discovers that his neighbor has died.

Rather than report it, Locke is suddenly hit with an idea and runs with it: Locke steals the dead man’s identity and flees the country.

Locke was originally on the search for truth, but his journey became about creating and maintaining his own, original existence. When Locke meets a character identified as Girl (Maria Schneider), he only entangles her in the danger his new life has brought him.

A subplot emerges where figures from Locke’s past are trying to locate him. Yet, since Locke’s existence is no longer tied to his former identity and his path coincides with a newfound danger, who exactly is he at that point?

The initial luxury Locke experiences in wandering the world a free, anonymous figure becomes yet another form of existential dread.

Patient in its scene-to-scene movement, which isn’t the same as being slow or boring, “The Passenger” has this spellbinding ability to make the viewer feel like you’re seeing the story occur in a real, organic manner and not ensnared to convention or mainstream narrative expectations.

Locke’s strange journey, both a soul search and an escape from the past he escaped and the present he’s failing to control, could be taken as a metaphor for counter culturists. Or, it could be an allegory for what Nicholson and other actors experience whenever they take on a new character.

Jack Nicholson, Maria Schneider ‘The Passenger’ (1975) Michelangelo Antonioni. pic.twitter.com/MM6mKrJUws

— The projectionist woman (@projectionistw) March 4, 2023

Perhaps some will be bored by this (as some were with Antonioni’s prior films) but what the filmmaker succeeds at evoking is a story unfolding in real time. The unpredictable quality of the story and the transformative nature of Nicholson’s character mark it distinctly as a film of the 1970s.

Yet, even in the midst of gritty, uncommercial, anti-mainstream 70’s works like, for example, “Dog Day Afternoon” (1975) or “The Conversation” (1974), Michelangelo’s film maintains an experimental approach that defies easy categorization. Like a David Lynch film (minus the overt surrealism) without a scholarly or any explanation, there’s still so much here to unpack.

Rather than come across as aloof or cold, “The Passenger” is intensely fascinating, a movie that rewards multiple viewings and offers a deep cut for fans of Nicholson’s work.

Michelangelo’s most well-known films will always be “Blow-Up” (1966), “L’Avventura” (1960), “Zabriskie Point” (1970) and “Red Desert” (1964). Yet another crucial Antonioni deep cut is his final film, “Beyond the Clouds” (1995), which the filmmaker co-directed with Wim Wenders.

That film has ravishing dream-like moments that have never left me. I remain hopeful that The Criterion Collection will rescue “Beyond the Clouds” from obscurity.

The most famous scenes in “The Passenger” are the single-take shots where so much is happening in the frame, while a great deal of choreography and careful timing is occurring off camera. Digital filming would allow so many acrobatic shots to be achieved more easily today but Antonioni was doing in-camera shots that are amazing for how seamless they look.

Nicholson has called the making of “The Passenger” as “the biggest adventure in filming of my life.”

The Passenger (1975, Antonioni)

“Michelangelo Antonioni reduced all this reducing of the actor’s use to me in one simple statement, ‘Jack, nothing’s wrong, but for me, the actor is a moving space’.”

— Jack Nicholson pic.twitter.com/Ilz2wn9Smh

— DepressedBergman (@DannyDrinksWine) June 15, 2024

Nicholson plays all this very real and straightforward, without the knowing stylishness of his more flamboyant portrayals. As in his best work, you can never catch him acting.

Part travelogue, part thriller, “The Passenger” is a loving expression of the possibilities of cinema. “The Passenger” arrived in 1975, a landmark year for Nicholson- the same year as his odd cameo in the Ken Russell musical “Tommy,” his ill-fated comic turn in Mike Nichols’ flop “The Fortune” and, most crucially, his starring role in the Best Picture Oscar winner, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

“The Passenger” was the third of Antonioni’s trilogy of English-language films (“Blow-Up” and “Zabriskie Point” were the others).

After being released in the 1980s in a clamshell videocassette, Nicholson took the film out of circulation and made it a hard to find, sought after work. The film resurfaced in 2005-2006, with Sony Pictures distributing a re-release and Nicholson providing a solo commentary track on the DVD that acts as a master class for actors and fans of the film in general.

Now more than 50 years old and mostly forgotten, “The Passenger” is a gift for lovers of cinema and an underseen masterpiece from both Antonioni and Nicholson.

The post ‘The Passenger’: Nicholson Shines in Antonioni’s Underrated Masterpiece appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/MaID30Z

Odenkirk’s Fargo-Style ‘Normal’ Goes Full Tarantino

“Normal” is a spiritual cousin to “Fargo” until it channels its inner “Straw Dogs” on steroids.

Confused? You have no idea until you experience “Normal.”

Bob Odenkirk’s latest stab at action-star status is a head scratcher, a sly, smart character study that goes gonzo mid-film. Director Ben Wheatley (“Free Fire”) is no stranger to cinematic chaos, but even he loses all control of the story and characters.

It’s hard to get angry at a film with its tongue buried so deeply in its cheek, but you’ll also miss the movie it might have been.

Odenkirk stars as Ulysses, a temporary sheriff in the small town of Normal, Minn. He’s a stopgap solution, and he treats the gig accordingly. 

Low-profile law and order stuff. Period. He’s nursing a deep personal wound, so this kind of part-time job is just what the doctor ordered.

Except he’s too good of a cop not to notice something is a bit, off, about the locals. The town’s Mayor (Henry Winkler) thinks he could be a good long-term solution to the sheriff vacancy, but even that sales pitch raises the lawman’s suspicions.

What is everyone hiding?

If you’ve seen the trailer, you know where this is headed. Can Ulysses crack the town’s mystery before one of a million bullets comes for him?

The first half of “Normal” is exactly what’s missing from too many movies today.

• A complicated, relatable hero
• Dialogue that’s both rich and full of life
• Minor character details that make this small town pop (think mustaches)
• A mystery that keeps you on the edge of your seat

And then the bullets start flying, and everything “Normal” established is thrown out the window.

It doesn’t help that the film’s moral compass is wobbly, at best. A pair of bank robbers are rebranded as heroes in short order. Some lazy dialogue trots out lazy class envy rhetoric, complete with attacks on those eeeevil banks.

Good guys become bad guys before reclaiming their hero status without rhyme or reason.

The one surprise? A key character is revealed as non-binary, but the film doesn’t overplay the moment or deliver a lecture, a la “Malcolm in the Middle.”

Except for all the rich character work completed in the film’s superior first half, that character (played by Jess McLeod) gets little attention or exploration.

Nor does Lena Headey, granted one strong scene early in the film and ignored until later. And that’s “Normal’s” biggest problem.

Why bother exploring the quaint town of Normal and its oddball residents if you’re going to toss every ounce of that hard work later? It’s fine for a movie to experience a dramatic shift, a la “Sinners” or “From Dusk ‘Til Dawn.” The two halves still have to function as a single unit, and that’s where “Normal” collapses.

The ultra-violence packs some obvious laughs, and some of the brutality is well staged. The rest is so chaotic and uninspiring, especially in a post-“John Wick” world.

Just don’t blame Odenkirk. He’s heartbreaking as Ulysses, a man crushed by a tragedy that had a spiraling impact on his life. The star doesn’t need much screen time to capture his character’s pain and resilience, but he does so with brutal efficiency.

In an alternate universe, “Normal” would find something less sensational to anchor its seismic mid-movie shift. In this universe, “Normal” is fascinating until it bludgeons us into submission.

HiT or Miss: “Normal” works hard to build a small town setting with a secret, but said secret proves the movie’s undoing.

The post Odenkirk’s Fargo-Style ‘Normal’ Goes Full Tarantino appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

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

‘Crime 101’ Is Inferior Spin on This Cop Classic

Brad Layton’s “Crime 101” had a brief run in theaters this past February, before getting pulled, despite strong reviews and a $37 million domestic box office tally that was far from embarrassing (though not enough to cover the reported $90 million budget).

A month later, it premiered on Amazon Prime, where most were seeing it for the first time.

I’m glad the film is finding a new and appreciative audience and there are things to savor in this contemporary crime thriller. Nevertheless, the problem with the film isn’t with the level of filmmaking or the performances, but an overly familiar screenplay, with too many elements we’ve all seen before.

We meet Mike (Chris Hemsworth), a slickly attired jewel thief, during a heist that takes an unexpected twist of fate. Lou (Mark Ruffalo), the detective on Mike’s case, is at odds with his department and is tireless in his efforts to catch him.

Meanwhile, Sharon (Halle Berry), a veteran insurance broker, is wasting her time with insufferable clients (chief among them played by a wonderfully loathsome Tate Donovan) and a career that is heading nowhere. There’s also Ormon (Barry Keoghan), a deranged biker and thief who keeps crossing Mike’s path during the most inopportune moments.

These central characters, seemingly living separate lives that couldn’t be more disconnected, come crashing together.

Michael Mann’s “Heat,” the best film of 1995, has influenced so many subsequent crime sagas, best among them Ben Affleck’s better-than-expected “The Town” (2010). Here, the similarities to “Heat” are too close, too on-the-nose.

A subplot with Mike’s unexpected, tortured romance with Maya (played by Monica Babaro, terrific here and as Joan Baez in the 2024 “A Complete Unknown”) is compelling, until you remember how much better this was handled between Robert DeNiro and Amy Brenneman in “Heat.”

Keoghan’s Ormon is strange and intriguing but never carries the danger of Kevin Gage’s Waingro in the Mann film. Likewise, the contrasts between the Hemsworth/Ruffalo characters vs Pacino/DeNiro, or Jon Voight’s striking mentor role in Mann’s film versus Nick Nolte’s similar turn here (in fairness, Nolte isn’t in this one enough to register as strongly).

Obviously, filmgoers who have never seen or even heard of “Heat” will like “Crime 101” so much more. For me, the worst thing about “Crime 101” is how much it made me want to turn it off and watch “Heat” instead.

There’s also an unfortunate moment where Mike and Lou discuss movies and “Bullitt” (1968) is brought up, another too-obvious nod that Hemsworth character is supposed to be channeling Steve McQueen. Most will realize this long before the movie literally has the actor announce this to us.

Still, I enjoyed “Crime 101” for the beautiful cinematography of Erik Wilson (who shot all three of the “Paddington” films) and the strength of the performances.

I haven’t been this blown away by Hemsworth since his unexpected turn in the vastly underrated “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” (2024); the actor’s way of conveying so much inner torment and conflict with very little dialogue is impressive.

Mike is a compelling figure, and Hemsworth is the film’s center.

Berry also delivers one of her best performances and, after some shamelessly flamboyant recent turns in “Poor Things” (2024) and “Mickey 17” (2025), it’s great seeing Ruffalo give a performance that doesn’t try to match Pacino, but serves as a nice counterpoint to his career-best work in “Zodiac” (2007).

We’ve got one last job for you. Crime 101 is now streaming on Prime Video – don’t miss out. pic.twitter.com/NqAYcu8tZP

— Prime Movies (@primemovies) April 1, 2026

Based on Don Winslow’s 2020 novella, Layton’s screenplay keeps the story moving but mostly redresses the conflicts of “Heat,” though his film has unexpected twists.

No spoilers from me, but the most surprising quality is how upbeat the ending is. I don’t mean to undermine the feel-good quality of the conclusion, which is the last thing I expected from a moralistic L.A. crime saga, but I suspect even Frank Capra would find the closing moments a little too much.

“Crime 101” is pretty good and has moments to savor but seriously, if you haven’t seen “Heat,” start there, then watch “The Town” and then come back for “Crime 101.”

Two and half stars (out of four)

The post ‘Crime 101’ Is Inferior Spin on This Cop Classic appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/K0h3AS8

Why Adam McKay’s ‘Thrash’ Drowns in Climate Fearmongering

There are two distinct signs that Climate Change fearmonger Adam McKay produced the shark thriller “Thrash.”

The creative team gave him a shout-out with a McKay-themed tanker that spills its cargo early in the film. And the story never stops reminding us that we helped make the movie’s signature storm a reality.

Where’s that Al Gore cameo when you need it?

“Thrash” is still an unabashed B-movie, and it works best by leaning into those genre tics. The story simply doesn’t know whether to let loose or keep reminding us why we need to reduce our carbon footprint, and stat.

(Except China can do what it pleases…)

A massive storm is heading toward a coastal South Carolina town, and a few unwise souls haven’t heeded the warnings to seek higher ground.

Dakota (Whitney) has a good excuse. She’s become agoraphobic since the death of her mother, and nothing is going to pry her out of her home. Expectant mother Lisa (Phoebe Dynevor) tries to leave, but the fast-moving storm has other plans for her.

And a trio of teens was told to stay put by their evil foster parents. More on them in a moment.

The storm proves as dangerous as promised, but that’s not the worst part. The rising waters bring a crush of bull sharks into the town, and they’re famished.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Netflix UK & Ireland (@netflixuk)

“Thrash” feels like a sober spin on “Sharknado,” another film where the deadly fish can move almost anywhere they please. This isn’t intentional camp, though, and director Tommy Wirkola of “Dead Snow” fame proves adept at both the kills and camera flourishes.

There’s real talent behind the camera. The script is another story.

The recent thriller “Crawl” (2019) featured a similar scenario with far better results. That film focused on killer crocs, while sharks are the main course here. 

There’s a reason Quentin Tarantino loves that movie.

“Thrash” is occasionally gripping, but there’s little storytelling momentum and the character development is hopelessly flat. Yes, Dakota proves to be a plucky heroine, but her increasingly absurd actions don’t gel with the film’s serious mood.

RELATED: 11 INSANE SHARK MOVIES (NOT NAMED SHARKNADO)

And, in case you missed some of the messaging peppered throughout the film, Wirkola’s camera keeps showing U.S. flags to let us know who’s to blame for this eco-disaster.

Think that’s accidental? Then you don’t know how McKay weaponizes pop culture. And look no further than the evil foster dad (Matt Nable). He might as well be wearing a red MAGA hat. He hearts country music, keeps juicy steaks out of the reach of his kids and has a basement teeming with rifles.

Subtle.

Even the great Djimon Hounsou can’t class up the film with his steely presence as Dakota’s Uncle.

Genre films often send messages between the thrills. The great 2014 shocker “The Host” warned about polluting the waters while delivering a kick-arse B-movie.

“Thrash,” by comparison, isn’t satisfying enough to distract us from the eco-bullet points.

HiT or Miss: “Thrash” has its moments, but the film’s heavy messaging floods the senses.

The post Why Adam McKay’s ‘Thrash’ Drowns in Climate Fearmongering appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/46c5Hjk

‘Outcome’ Takes Belated Slap at Cancel Culture

The “Now, It Can Be Told” files have a new chapter.

Hollywood looked the other way as Cancel Culture silenced comedians, shuttered R-rated comedies and told screenwriters what they could and couldn’t say on screen.

Somebody should write a book about that. Oh, wait…

Now, Jonah Hill has something to say on the subject, in a spiritual sequel to last year’s superior “Jay Kelly.” “Outcome,” an Apple TV+ original, follows a superstar actor struggling to stay ahead of a nasty news cycle.

Except we don’t know what that news cycle might be.

It’s clever on the surface, but Hill’s second narrative feature is nearly derailed by the film’s co-star – Hill himself.

Keanu Reeves is a curious choice to play Reef Hawk, a Tom Cruise-level superstar who has been in the public eye since he was a toe-tapping child star. Reeves’ upbeat, positive brand is legendary, while his character in the film is far from perfect.

He’s globally famous, rich beyond anyone’s dreams and surrounded by his old high school chums, Kyle and Xander (Cameron Diaz ​and Matt Bomer). And he’s as distant and self-centered as one might imagine, given his fame.

Reef successfully kicked a heroin habit and is ready to make more movies, until his “crisis lawyer” tells him an incriminating video is lurking out there, somewhere.

Hill plays Ira, a legal “fixer,” with a bald head, unruly beard and gleaming white caps. The “Superbad” alum is almost unrecognizable, and that may be a good thing. Hill’s performance is a nightmare, an over-the-top turn that strains to make us laugh but never succeeds.

Grating barely describes it.

It’s up to Ira to find out what the video in question contains and the best way to minimize the PR fallout. Along the way, we learn plenty about Reef’s problematic past, a narrative better realized with that recent George Clooney vehicle.

“Outcome” starts as a navel-gazing exercise in Hollywood greed, but before long the film’s true target emerges – Cancel Culture.

Reef did something to someone at some time, and it’s a mad dash to learn what might have been so problematic to his career.

An offensive film role? A social media message gone awry? A perfectly acceptable movie that’s now deemed problematic? 

Or something worse?

One scene finds Ira recruiting a dream team of spin cycle experts to brace for the social media storm. Yes, that’s Laverne Cox handling PR work from a woman’s perspective, and a barely there Roy Wood, Jr. tackling race-related issues.

That’s assuming Reef did something racially charged in the first place. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

That story thread should have been hilarious, but “Outcome” is too brazen in its approach. Plus, anytime Hill is on screen, the comedic potential droops.

Hill, with co-writer Ezra Woods, can be too on the nose even for Elon Musk, the man who coined the term “woke mind virus.”

If you didn’t get where Hill and Woods were going, a bumper sticker closeup does the heavy lifting: “Honk if you can separate the art from the artist.”

The film’s comedic value is shockingly low, but “Outcome” works better as a dramatic closeup of fame gone wild. Reeves seems in considerable pain as he reflects on a life of comfort, not collaboration.

Hill partially redeems himself with a short scene featuring Ira’s physically-challenged son. It’s a soulful moment that shows another side of his character, and the actor handles the sequence beautifully.

It reminds us of his more graceful directorial debut, “Mid-90s.”

“Outcome” has its moments, although considering the material it should have been a slam dunk for Hill given his resume and Hollywood cache. The latter helped him snag Martin Scorsese for a cameo turn, but it didn’t afford him the distance from the material to tease out larger laughs.

The “Superbad”-era Hill might have crushed this topic. Not the 2026 model, sadly.

Instead, “Outcome” is an interesting look at fame, regret and a cultural scourge that Hollywood refused to counter until it faded all on its own.

HiT or Miss: “Outcome” works far better as an X-ray of Hollywood fame than a comedy skewering Cancel Culture madness.

The post ‘Outcome’ Takes Belated Slap at Cancel Culture appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/XDbGW79

Gripping and Smart: ‘Faces of Death’ Revives Cult Horror Classic

It’s impossible to recreate the myth surrounding the “Faces of Death” franchise.

It’s also good that we won’t fall for it again.

Those movies suggested we were watching actual murders, like a theatrically approved snuff film. Turns out that wasn’t the case, barring some stock footage snippets.

The new “Faces of Death” takes a meta approach to the phenomenon. It’s a sly way to tackle the subject, even if some will argue it’s a naked ploy to exploit an IP.

And they have a point. Still, the new film delivers standard horror movie treats while saying plenty about our social media age.

None of it is good, and most of the commentary is spot on.

Young Margot (Barbie Ferreira) works at a social media platform where she labels inappropriate videos. Some clips are gruesome, while others are overtly sexual.

The tags she applies to each is fascinating. It’s purely subjective, but a few videos begin to haunt her.

Are they elaborate pranks meant to look like ritualistic killings? Or could they be the real deal?

Margot’s backstory makes her job even more difficult. She was the “star” of an infamous viral video where her sister died during a selfie-fueled stunt. The fact that anyone would hire her for her current gig is one of many head scratchers stuffed into the plot.

That’s genre movie making, for ya!

Margot’s emotional health starts to decline as she investigates those suspicious videos. Meanwhile, the story broadens to follow the man behind those seriously demented takes.

“Faces of Death” doesn’t resemble the ‘70s era franchise in any tactile fashion. It’s not a faux documentary filled with found footage or recreated slaughters. It’s a conventional horror yarn that uses that franchise as its warped inspiration.

We won’t share more to keep the surprises intact, but just know it’s reasonably clever and likely the best path forward.

None of the above makes “Faces of Death” compelling, at least at first. It takes a while before we become invested in Margot’s mission. It helps that “Stranger Things” alum Dacre Montgomery plays a fiend with a predilection for the vintage “Faces of Death” series.

He’s mesmerizing, and his performance anchors the story’s ick factor. Fans of musician Charli xcx may squeal over her appearance in the film, but it’s not a role of any consequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Independent Film Company (IFC) (@independentfilmco)

Director/co-writer Daniel Goldhaber has plenty to say about our digital age, from the depths of Reddit depravity to our indifference to suffering. It can be heavy-handed at times, but it’s threaded expertly into the narrative.

Anyone looking to be shocked, or even mildly outraged, by a “Faces of Death” affair will come away disappointed. This isn’t “Terrifier” country.

The most curious part of the film is its struggle to land a release date. The production wrapped in 2023, and horror has been white-hot for some time. That, plus the IP factor and the professional approach on display make the delay a head scratcher.

Goldhaber delivers a few unsettling visuals, no doubt, but his biggest accomplishment is making us take a good, long look at western culture and our role in it.

Now, that’s scary.

HiT or Miss: “Faces of Death” may be a bit too meta for its own good, but the film builds to a compelling showdown that doesn’t require us buying the franchise’s myth-making tics.

The post Gripping and Smart: ‘Faces of Death’ Revives Cult Horror Classic appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/wiGs9Cc