Red Notice aims to hit the mark as a fun international heist caper but misses the mark.
The film is full of clichés and overused tropes such as “the muscle,” “wisecracking loudmouth,” and “a stunning woman.” Such stereotypes are tired and unimaginative, like Johnson and Gadot’s performances and on-screen chemistry.
Red Notice tries for an Indiana Jones feel with its plot that hoped to infuse light-hearted humor as in The Mummy with Ryan Reynolds casting but failed to deliver. Johnson plays John Hartley, an FBI profiler who ends up teaming up with art thief Nolan Booth (Reynolds) to catch “The Bishop” (Gadot), who sets them both up.
There is no thrill while watching this treasure hunt, full of escapades, double-crossing, and uninspired fight scenes. This movie was doomed from the moment it was green-lit because its casting choices are the only thing propping up the story’s weak execution. All three of the main cast can give better performances than Red Notice’s script provides. Red Notice may be Netflix’s most-watched film in its history, but it in no way should have cost 200 million dollars! It was an interesting story concept with a cast full of people audiences love to see, so why wouldn’t anyone expect it to be a hit? Especially after Covid restrictions were lifted in many places. While adorable Gal Gadot doesn’t do it for me as a believable baddy, Johnson is just too stiff. John Cena could have pulled off being an irritated FBI agent, better matched against Reynolds quips, and physically able to make more believable facial expressions at Gadot.
Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds in ‘Red Notice’ Image: Netflix via latimes.com
The focus of critiquing the casting here is because it’s all Netflix used to sell this film as watchable in theaters (where it did terribly) or on its streaming site. So I’m left to ponder how long Dwyane Johnson can keep getting type-cast in Hollywood as the ‘attractive muscular leading man?’ What does he have left talent-wise as time goes on when he can’t throw people down or jump from high heights from helicopters anymore? Couple that with Gal Gadot’s less than solid filmography as anything other than ‘the hot woman doing something’ (despite her outstanding Wonder Woman performance) and her talent abilities are to called into question. Everyone expects so much from them, yet films like Red Notice smoother any chance for either’s potential to shine.
It’s no surprise then that Ryan Reynolds is the best thespian of this trio. Yes, he usually does the wisecracks, the comedic-often raunchy characters, but he still has the most range. Like Johnson and Gadot’s characters, Reynolds displays as tired as if they know their characters are reaching too hard-all under fake smiles, sunglasses, and chest-puffing.
Ryan Reynolds, Dwayne Johnson, Gal Gadot in ‘Red Notice’ Image: Netflix via NYTimes.com
Writer and director Rawson Thurber created a story that takes itself too seriously in its execution despite a bit of cheese. Nothing sets this over-hyped movie apart from others in its genre, except its MacGuffin title and overuse of the color red.
Red Notice truly is nothing special and not worth your time or spot on a watchlist.
Blue Bayou (2021)Directed by: Justin Chon Rated: R Runtime: 1h 52m
Studio: Focus Features Screenwriter: Justin Chon Cast: Alica Vikander, Justin Chon, Mark O’Brien, Sydney Kowalske, Emory Cohen
Blue Bayou is a poignant film about love, family, and the ties that bind; in an unjust society full of bigots and legal loopholes.
Antonio LeBlanc (Chon) was adopted as a toddler from Korea by a family from a small Louisiana town. Who gave him up after six months—left to be raised by the foster care system for the rest of his youth. After a lifetime of small-minded people, he meets Kathy (Vikander), the love of his life. He marries her, helping raise her daughter, Jessie (Kowalske). They’re his whole world.
In Blue Bayou, Antonio struggles to make ends meet, like so many people with or without baggage. Yet Antonio’s obstacles are things he can’t check at the door or put in a closet. He’s a convicted criminal-worse in Louisiana; he’s Asain. Constantly asked, “where you from?” despite a thick Cajun accent. It’s the smallest example of racism his character endures. He’s always the outsider with no nuclear family growing up and nothing of pride to hold on to of his Korean heritage.
Alicia Vikander, Sydney Kowalske, Justin Chon in ‘Blue Bayou’ Image: Focus Features via Vanityfair.com
Small-minded bigotry is as common as breathing in the deep South of America, and prejudice and authority make a terrible combo. It is this mindset that sets off the plot and story.
A run-in with Ace (O’ Brien), Jessie’s father, and his police partner (Cohen) at a store ends in Antonio’s arrest and subsequent detainment by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The legality of Antonio’s adoption from Korea is called into question and sets the wheels in motion for his deportation.
Chon’s set locations, the lush, quiet bayou hideaway, and sunsets over the water juxtapose Antonio’s reality. That’s what this film is at its core, emotional resonance. The shared body language between Antonio and Kathy, or his honesty and bonding efforts with Jessie, all speak to the little moments we all have. For better or worse, those real human moments are layered with abuse and ridicule bubbling near the surface for Antonio, constantly. And now, through legal loopholes, he could lose it all-the only places he’s ever called home, through no fault of his own.
Sydney Kowalske as Jessie in ‘Blue Bayou.’ Image: Focus Features via IMDb.com
Illegal immigration/entry into the United States is a very polarizing topic. Still, Chon has honed in on this overlooked slice of the issue. Despite anyone’s thoughts on immigration into America, one burning question is this: why are all adopted children from other countries not automatically citizens? The truth is illuminating.
Blue Bayou is a realistic, raw look into a topic and people’s reality on the subject of international adoption, racism, and the strength of the vows “for better or for worse.” If ever an indie film deserved a place on a watchlist, this one does.
Directed by: Lana Wachowski Rated: R Runtime: 2h 28m Studio: Warner Bros.
Screenwriter: Lana Wachowski, David Mitchell, Aleksandar Hemon
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Jessica Henwick, Neil Patrick Harris, Jada Pinkett Smith, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Jonathan Groff
The Matrix: Resurrections, director and creator Lana Wachowski take to heart the motto of House Greyjoy from the TV show Game of Thrones “what is dead may never die.”
As the film’s title might suggest, characters make a comeback in the fourth installment of the Matrix franchise, and the trailer gives it away too. If you haven’t seen any of the original three Matrix films, don’t read this review. By default, it will spoil them, which I am against doing. However, Resurrections is chalked full of flashbacks, references, and actual clips from all three of its predecessors, so it would be impossible to review this without bringing them up.
I like a film where I can try to figure out the plot versus having it spelled out for me because some filmmaker or studio thinks I’m too ignorant to follow along otherwise. You understand my meaning if you’ve ever seen a Christopher Nolan film. The Matrix: Resurrections, on the other hand, is the cinematic mind fuck of the other variety. The one where I ask myself what did I watch? Usually, that doesn’t happen in the first ten minutes or less, but this film did. I’m pleased I didn’t pay to see this in theaters.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Keanu Reeves, Carrie Anne Moss in ‘Matrix: Resurrections’ Image: Warner Bros.
In typical Matrix-style, there’s too much talking with an overload of technical jargon that many viewers won’t understand. In the film, they use the term modal/window pane. This term can have a few meanings, mostly mathematical and dealing with web pages. Its rationale is thrown out in a ten-second line that if you miss or don’t understand, you’ll be confused about what’s going on. That, of course, makes it hard to watch a movie when you’re busy trying to figure out what you missed. So, allow me to explain a bit if you want to watch this film and don’t understand webpage technical speak.
When a game developer, for example, wants to add new content or fix something with an existing product, they do so on computers in what is referred to as a sandbox. That way, they can’t inadvertently crash a server, think of playing a game online with others, or cause errors they can’t fix. The sandbox keeps all the testing contained until the developer wants to let it become a part of the program. I hope that makes sense. That is what they mean by a modal in this film. Bugs (Henwick), the new white rabbit, observes something that she understands as truth, something from the past, yet knows it’s wrong. That leads to the question of why? Enter the plot.
Jessica Henwick as Bugs in ‘The Matrix: Resurrections’ Image: Warner Bros. via thrillist.com
We learned man made machines and artificial intelligence in the trilogy, duh. At one point, the AI of machines went to war with mankind, and we lost. Machines took over the Earth. With no method of producing power the same way for themselves, the machines decided to grow human beings and use them as batteries. The Matrix was constructed to keep the billions of podded humans subconsciously oblivious to reality. In that, they allowed two main programs to run the system. That was, of course, a big reveal, the whole point of the second movie- getting to the architect. Culminating in the third film where Neo (Reeves) has a choice (not really.) Any of his options have a list of outcomes the machines find calculatedly acceptable, even wiping out Zion and starting over with a select few “freed” people. Those people won’t remember any of it, like wiping a hard drive and starting over. It’s a sick outlook on the ideas of fate, destiny, and free will. That no matter how hard you try, especially if you don’t know you’ve already lost, you are fucked. That twist about mankind’s chances was like a slap in the face. On the one hand, it was a good ending, as far as non-happy ones go. Yet, what was the point the Wachowski’s seemed to give the finger to everyone after creating all that?
Carrie Anne Moss as Trinity in ‘The Matrix: Resurrections’ Image: Warner Bros. via Screenrant.com
A viewer needs to remember those points about the original trilogy when watching the fourth installment. That no person has a choice, free will doesn’t exist. And the machines can wipe you like a computer, which is what the human brain is essentially, and put in what they want. That is how we find Neo again—saved by the machines and re-podded. In retrospect, he was carried off in the third film; he could have just been unconscious. Why fix his eyes, though? So Neo is reverted to being Mr. Anderson, another blue pill of the Matrix. Trinity (Moss) had rebar through her; she was dead! So I questioned while watching this how human was she? How much of her was synthetically replaced? The movie doesn’t address that at all; that’s an observation. Or why neither is, visually, 60-years older.
The logic, the construct for Neo/Thomas’s place in the Matrix again, isn’t original. I get the rationale; it’s a fitting “role” to put Thomas’s persona into after two decades. So he needs to be “freed” again. Yet this time, the Matrix is different. It’s gotten smarter about how to keep humans from wanting freedom. Sure it’s a reflection of people today being compliant and jacked in more to portable devices; straying from that is the architect of this. Well, he’s not an architect anymore; he’s an analyst. The parallel of an analyst and a psychiatrist is amusing, but Neil Patrick Harris does it so convincingly.
Neil Patrick Harris as the analyst in ‘The Matrix: Resurrections’ vs. Helmut Bakaitis in ‘The Matrix Reloaded’ Image: Warner Bros. via Screenrant.com
While the addition of Henwick and Harris are well placed and logical, those of Mateen’s Morpheus and Groff’s Smith is not. The logic is that Morpheus and Agent Smith’s characters were the cause and effect of Neo/Mr. Anderson’s freeing and growth in the original trilogy, therefore he would need a representation of them again. Except that Smith was obliterated, purged, deleted, whatever, and Morpheus is long dead too. Yet, “what is dead may never die” springs up again because Lana Wachowski has a problem letting go. While Mateen is an exceptional actor, his Morpheus comes across as a cheap knockoff, a poor duplicate of the original with none of the commanding presence Lawerance Fishburne gave to the character. Groff’s Smith is an off-putting show of bad acting, or what I imagine it was like for him at his casting call audition. Like a drunk guy at Comicon embarrassing himself in front of Hugo Weaving. Yet, the Matrix (the system) seemed to get off on its display of a toxic work environment with a boss who was completely comfortable, causing an employee with known PTSD to be triggered. Yes, that’s an evident and well-deserved middle finger to Warner Brothers by Lana Wachowski.
Jonathan Groff in ‘The Matrix: Resurrections’ Image: Warner Bros. via ew.com
The script for this film sucked. The story’s entire emotional resonance rests on how much you liked the Neo/Trinity love story in the first place or The Matrix trilogy in general. A script should be like the soul of a project, and The Matrix: Resurrections feels like a ghost. Reeves and Moss look tired, like their hearts were not in this project; others were utterly forgettable. In terms of entertainment, there is little meaningful purpose to be found in this movie.
The plot has holes and questions that are never addressed, let alone answered. This lack of attention to detail creates an uneven pace far from seamless or cohesive. That, of course, is a significant reflection of the structure of the film, the direction. It highlights how much Lana needed Lily’s help with this project. The messages and themes crammed into this film go way beyond an excellent philosophical discussion creator. It’s a hot mess. Like throwing too much shit into the blender for a smoothie and thinking it will taste fine. Sure, there’s conflict and resolution, but how it’s propped up and how you get to the end is a gigantic waste of time and brain cells.
Human batteries in ‘The Matrix: Resurrections’ Image: Warner Bros. via Polygon.com
Visually it was fine, the sets, costume, etc., a far departure from the look of 1999. The music was as expected, fitting and relevant- except the Rage Against the Machine cover during the credits. What kind of mood were they trying to elicit with that?
When The Matrix first debuted, it was visually ground-breaking for others in cinema regarding what they could do with special effects. It’s part of what made The Matrix such a hit, things like bullet-time. Twenty years later, with nothing like that to hold it up, Resurrections highlights just how vital a great script is and how much nostalgia alone doesn’t matter in cinema. Resurrections is a rampant display of why “what is dead may never die” should very much have stayed dead from all parties involved. The Matrix:Resurrections shouldnever be on anyone’s watchlist, and I wish there were a blue pill to make me forget I ever did.
It’s been a whole year since I started blogging here on WordPress! Yes, there were those few months of sabbatical in the middle, but let’s ignore that- I posted twice a week for the majority of the year; that’s still a lot to say about movies.
I intended to post twice a week this past summer, and one of my posts each week would involve me working my way through the MCU film roster before ‘Black Widows’ release. That worked out well. I may finish what I started with that mini project but mainly, at this point, if I need something quick to review in a pinch.
Part of my growing pains involved constant glitches with WordPress and their “happiness engineers” not providing much happiness. So my blog layout started one way and has changed a few times to work around some of those glitches. The problem I have is that I hate the way my blog looks. I can’t imagine others like it much if I can’t stand it myself, but we often are our own worst critics. However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask what you all think about it or what doesn’t work for you, especially on mobile devices. The comment section is at your disposal, or click on the “contact me” tab and send a message that way. If someone can’t read my posts without difficulty, then what’s the point?
Writing reviews without spoilers is a challenge, but I like the idea of talking about films without spoiling them. After a year, I recognize that my posts are a little all over the place in terms of form. Sometimes I’m overly analytical, and occasionally I full-on rant. If I were paid to do this by someone, there would be guidelines for writing, why, and what. So I’m still trying to find my voice, if you will, how I’m most comfortable and proud to say what I say about any given film.
I stay away from reviewing TV shows, but I watch a fair amount of them. So, in honor of my first year (and since Covid gave us all a limited amount of content in terms of films), I am listing fifteen TV shows I feel are worth watching or re-watching. In alphabetical order, they are:
After Life
Bones
Broadchurch
Doctor Who
Game of Thrones
Justice Leauge/Unlimited
Killing Eve
Lost in Space
The Crown
The Handmaid’s Tale
The Marvoulus Mrs. Masiel
True Blood
True Detective
Westworld
Young Justice
Mini-series honorable mentions: Chernobyl and Wanda Vision
Thank you all for joining me this first year and being as interested in movies as I am. Happy viewing!
Directed by: McG Runtime: 1h 38m Rated: PG-13 Studio: 20th Century Fox
Screenwriter: Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg
Cast: Tom Hardy, Chris Pine, Reese Witherspoon
A happy working environment is what many hope to find at some point in life, alongside a profession we love. In This Means War CIA operatives, Tuck (Hardy) and FDR (Pine) live their best lives in a job they excel at, as they are lifelong friends. Who better to have your back? One is a ladies’ man, and the other, more reserved, but when the same woman catches their respective eyes, all bets are off. This is the premise of McG’s romantic comedy.
What unfolds instead is an absurd bromance between childhood friends, now spies. As farces go about the American government, the CIA is a lukewarm placeholder in terms of relevance. The subplot was stale, adding nothing more than white noise to the background. The execution of this promising plot fails with the grace of a gymnast blunder posted on YouTube.
The best on-screen chemistry is between Hardy and Pine. It might have been a funnier movie if Witherspoon had been a faceless woman, start to finish. Why? It’s not all that funny and certainly not romantic. Unless relentless stalking, abuse of work resources, and taking shots at one another like a game of wack-a-mole is your idea of true friendship and romance. This film promised to be a fun popcorn flick with an exceptionally talented and attractive cast; however, nothing could save this pointless screenplay from being anything other than a pig with lipstick.
Tom Hardy and Chris Pine in “This Means War.” Image credit: Kimberly French/20th Century Fox
These three actors all have a plethora of films between them that are better to watch than this. Watch any of them. Watch anything that doesn’t involve McG or Timothy Dowling, and you roll the dice with Simon Kinberg. This flop has no place on your watchlist.
Cast: Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Vincent D’Onofrio
Throughout the 1970s and 80s in America, Jim Bakker (Garfield) and his wife, Tammy Faye (Chastain), were the Kardashians of Christian televangelism. Starting as humble and timid in their pursuits to bringing the love of god to everyone via a traveling church show, later making their way on to TV became so much more. In the end, Jim Bakker was trying to create a Christian theme park to give you an idea of his ambitions. After creating a tv network that reached over 20 million views worldwide at the time of his arrest.
After escaping the brainwashing of a religious upbringing, as an adult, I stay clear of the subject, by and large. As a child of the 80s, I don’t need a trip down memory lane, except maybe I did.
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker were huge with adults for decades, a perspective I couldn’t understand as a child. Still, why should I watch a film on a topic I dislike? Jessica Chastain. She brings to life the layers, demons, and superficial complexities of the self-professed, big-hearted clueless wife. Her performance, depiction, and commitment to the role of Tammy Faye are nothing short of Oscar-worthy.
Andrew Garfield and Vincent D’Onofrio in ‘The Eyes of Tammy Faye’ Image: Daniel McFadden/Searchlight Pictures via nydailynews.com
Chastain and Garfield are energetic and believable together as this ever-changing couple, with clear character arcs. The script is all right, as it’s easy to construct one when based on two highly public figures/events. When a film must cover many time periods, the plot’s pace can get bogged down, but Showalter does reasonably well considering. An audience can easily see the conflict to resolution and the origins of these people/characters, which is needed in a bio-drama. Nothing feels missing as this story notes the rise and subsequent public fall of the Bakker’s.
The Eyes of Tammy Faye is a visual display of big hair, lavish outfits, materialism, and makeup. All while dripping with the love of god, asking people to open their wallets. Again and again and again. I adore Andrew Garfield as an actor. But if not for Jessica Chastain, I’m not sure another actress could have pulled me in to endure the recreation of the Bakker’s Christian televangelist propaganda.
Jessica Chastain in ‘The Eyes of Tammy Faye’ Image: Searchlight Pictures via latimes.com
If, somehow, you’re not a fan of Andrew Garfield or Jessica Chastain, take a pass on this embarrassing reminder of American behavior. Otherwise, I’m on the fence on whether or not to recommend it for your watchlist. It comes down to your tolerance of the 80s or religion. I saw it; Chastain is amazing, yes. But I’ll never watch The Eyes of Tammy Faye again.
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2hr 7 min
Studio: Disney Screenwriter: Michael Green, Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Cast: Emily Blunt, Paul Giamatti, Dwayne Johnson, Edgar Ramírez, Jack Whitehall
Movies are adapted from books, real-life events, and video games, but Jungle Cruise was based on a Disney theme park ride. It’s an ode to the capitalistic aspirations of the American-based company. Digressing from that, it is a palate cleanser to all the sci-fi, superhero, or low-rent quality content currently swirling around.
When I first saw this film’s trailer, I wanted to see it. Not because the plot was original (it’s not), but because Emily Blunt’s films are always entertaining. In that, I wasn’t disappointed. She’s a wonderfully talented actress who is more than capable of portraying whatever is required of her. In Jungle Cruise, she’s Dr. Lily Houghton, a sassy British botanist who’s out to find a magical plant that will cure-all, a vital tool as World War One rages. It also would validate herself amongst the sexist scientific community. She sets off to the Amazon to search for this fabled plant, with her brother, MacGregor (Whitehall), in tow.
Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Slashfilm.com
Once there, she encounters Nilo (Giamatti), a Prince (Plemons), and Frank Wolff (Johnson), who are all in the middle of their own mico issues that help Lily and MacGregory meet Frank, their riverboat captain, and continues the tone for the film. That tone, feeling, is similar to the banter, charm, hijinx, and quirkiness of The Mummy andPirates of the Caribbean franchises, with a hint of Indian Jones. If there was more action and humor with Johnson in tow, I could have seen this as a workable version of Jumanji as well. It’s an exciting mix, but I did say this plot isn’t original.
The plot feels familiar, and so do aspects of the story, but it’s not so campy despite Frank making bad captain (dad) jokes. The romantic segway is on the nose for Disney, but it’s not so groan-worthy it’s unwatchable.
Edgar Ramírez as Aguirre in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Filmschoolrejects.com
Cinematically it’s beautiful; it was filmed in Hawaii. Despite the cast, the rest was made possible by an army of CGI experts. Edgar Ramírez’s Aguirre has snakes coming out of him; one comes out of his face! The stunt and action sequences are well done for the type of movie that Jungle Cruise is and the period for which it’s set. I wish that Aguirre and his cohorts had more screen time, a chance to add more conflict to the story. It seems like a missed opportunity to not use them more.
I don’t see movies purely because Johnson is in them; his “acting” does nothing for me. I’d be more impressed if he could do a film where he didn’t throw something, have a fight scene, or swing off/jump off something. When you have an actor who can do their own stunts, great, but he doesn’t scream to me, a seasoned riverboat captain and con man. Depending on the age, Andrew Garfield or Jack Davenport-type actors would have fit the bill better than Johnson. When we think of Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones or Brendan Fraser’s Rick O’ Connell, one will out-think his opponents. The other is going to shoot at you. Dwayne Johnson is just going to punch you across the Amazon and keep going.
Paul Giamatti as Nilo in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Screenrant.com
It’s a simple story, but it’s consistent with a plot that doesn’t spring too many leaks from beginning to end. There are times where the pace stalls, not from poor editing but the plot arrangement in general. The energetic performances by the cast and the general chemistry they all have together make it entertaining enough to get through. Jungle Cruise is different from others in its genre because the protagonists seek a magical plant and not the fountain of youth and whatnot. Or that it’s a woman searching and not a man. They’re small twists, but it works. Moreover, unlike Pirates, Indiana Jones, or The Mummy, Jungle Cruise is more family-friendly.
Jungle Cruise isn’t a cinematic masterpiece; it is a carefree way to spend time with the family for a few hours. It’s a textbook example of a popcorn film, made to watch as an escape for a few hours of innocent enjoyment. If that’s your thing, then give Jungle Cruise a place on your watchlist.
Director: Anthony Minghella Rated: R. Runtime: 2 hr 19 min
Studio: Miramax Screenwriter: Anthony Minghella
Based on: Novel by Patricia Highsmith
Cast: Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Jack Davenport,
Philip Seymour Hoffman
“I always thought it would be better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody.”
-Tom Ripley
Sometimes it’s difficult to look back at periods and view a story through the lens of ‘that’s how it was.’ To accept that people were so gullible, to accept things flat out. And yet, that’s how author Patricia Highsmith wrote the characters for her book, the basis for this film. A viewer needs to understand this about The Talented Mr. Ripley and set their expectations accordingly. If you can go along with the story, you’ll find it more enjoyable. Usually, I can’t abide such things within a story or plot because I see it as a sign of lazy writing. Still, the acting by this phenomenal cast makes up for it.
Tom Ripley (Damon) is tasked through a stroke of fortune, via a white lie, by a Mr. Greenleaf with going to Italy to bring back his son. The boat-loving playboy Dickie Greenleaf (Law). What single person passes up an all-expenses-paid trip to Italy?
Once there, he, of course, must keep up the lie. Tom is adept at lying and convincing others of his wants and intent, which comes off as more unbelievable as the story progresses. Despite that, Tom comes off as smooth but vulnerable, exuding this innocence about him that he uses to get people around him to include him. Things unravel when he’s left out or stops feeling like he’s in control when others get in his way. Then-then the psychopath in him is viewable as if the mask falls away at times. Matt Damon does an incredible job of portraying such a character with all the nuanced layers required; he makes it seem effortless.
Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ Image: Miramax via Eonline.com
Dickie Greenleaf is a spoiled, temperamental scoundrel. Or a selfish American prick. Even with his womanizing, drinking, instant need to be amused all the time, Jude Law still makes him likable. He brings an energy to the character that is an absolute must. Law and Damon together are like tea and water; they belong together.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is a presence in any film. As limited as Freddies’ role is in The Talented Mr. Ripley, you understand he’s not stupid. He and Dickie are tight, and he smells the bullshit coming off Tom from a mile away. Hoffman is a solid supporting character matched only by the always incomparable Cate Blanchett. As Meredith, Cate is effortlessly the embodiment of a jet-setting, fashionable American heiress of the 1950s. Meredith gets more character development for a film with little female presence than Dickie’s girlfriend, Marge (Paltrow). While Meredith is off doing her own thing, it’s easy to see she has an active social life that doesn’t appear to hang on the whims of men. Marge is either around Dickie, Tom, or Freddie. She interacts with no one else of consequence, making her seem shallow. When her world falls apart, it’s disgustingly apparent Marge has no one else to talk with or turn to. She’s a non-married woman in a foreign country depicted as naive and hysterical with no redeeming character arch. 1950s women were treated a certain way, with limited expectations; as such, Marge gets shafted as a character with too many female stereotypes.
Hoffman, Paltrow, and Law in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ Image: Miramax via The Mirror
So, within this mix of liars, brats, and sycophants, we have an intricate web of lies and deceit dressed up as the high life of the rich in beautiful Italy. When the police get involved, Tom’s lies become like a conman’s shell game to keep anyone secret of the moment in play. The question becomes can he keep it up? Will he get found out? While The Talented Mr. Ripley isn’t a full-on suspense film, it has those moments. The slow burn keeps you wondering how it will all play out for Tom, who will do anything to avoid going back to his own life.
What I find to be more beautiful or satisfying than the stunning Italian settings is the ending. Noting about the film is neat, and neither is the ending, and it’s brilliant for that. The Talented Mr. Ripley is overall a well-told story with a good plot, depicted by a fantastic set of actors that is worth a place on anyone’s watchlist.
Director: Denis Villeneuve Runtime: 2 hr 35 min Rated: PG-13
Studio: Legendary Pictures Based on: Frank Herbert’s novel ‘Dune’
Screenwriter: Eric Roth, Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve
Cast: Timohée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, Sharon Duncan-Brewster
Dune is a science fiction saga layered with all the typical trappings of humanity. Rife with greed and civil unrest as a set of noble houses control planets for resources, wealth, and power. Often to the detriment of the locals.
Not too far into the film, and I’m having a flashback to 2015’s Jupiter Ascending, which was marginally more exciting than this film.
In Dune, the house of Atreides is given stewardship of planet Arrakis by the overlord of all the houses-the Emperor. House Atreides, people of a water planet, go to Arrakis, a desert world, to mine spice. It’s the only thing of value to the houses because though spice is a drug; they also use it to navigate space. Okay. Spice is only on Arrakis, with two other things: the locals, known as the Freemen, and massive sandworms.
The Freemen walk in a certain way to not cause unnatural vibrations in the sand that would otherwise attract the worms. They also wear special garb to help them endure the intense heat of the surface. Freemen characters are Chani (Zendaya), Stilgar (Bardem), and Dr. Kynes (Duncan-Brewster). Dr. Kynes has the most screen time out of these three, and the trailers for this movie imply the other two have more significant roles than they do. So if you see Dune just because they are in it, you’ll have to wait for most of the film and will be vastly disappointed.
Javier Bardem’s Stilgar in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via IGN.com
The previous stewards of Arrakis, House Harkonnen, mined the spice for 80 years and left abruptly. Houses Harkonnen and Atreides are sworn enemies but obey the Emperor’s decree of change. Still with me?
Paul Atreides (Chalamet) is the son of Duke Leto Atreides (Isaac), next in line to rule his homeworld. Paul follows his father and mother, Lady Jessica (Ferguson), to Arrakis to learn how to lead more. Dune is billed as a sci-fi hero’s journey of a young boy born for a destiny he can’t grasp. A journey to provide safety for his people and family, all while not giving into fear.
Frank Herbert originally published Dune in 1965.
‘Dune’ Spice harvester Image: Legendary Pictures via WSJ.com
To get to my following observation, let me highlight some key phrases and notions about Dune. 1. An Emperor (really) 2. Mine spice (Kessel) 3. Planet of sand (Tatooine) 4. Massive worms (Sarlacc pit, or Jabba) 5. Walking a certain way (Sand people) 6. Wear special garb (Sand people) 7. Hero’s journey (Luke) 8. A Young boy(Luke/Anakin) 9. Destiny (Luke/Anakin) 10. Not giving in to fear (Jedi) 11. High council (Jedi)12. Superpowers (the Force) 13. Imperium (Empire). I could go on. Before seeing this version of Dune, I knew nothing about it. I had never read the books or seen the previous movies, so I walked into the theater with no pre-knowledge or conceptions. However, after only a few minutes into the film, I was beyond irritated.
This irritation was because I couldn’t stop thinking about how much George Lucas poached from Frank Herbert. Not drew on as inspiration, full-on stole. George Lucas released the first of his Star Wars films, A New Hope, twelve years after Dune was published. Yes, the troupes of a young hero’s journey, saving one’s family, and the notion of destiny are all well used throughout cinema and literary works; but this is something else.
Sandworm of Arrakis in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Looper.com
My urge to slap George Lucas aside, Villeneuve’s Dune isn’t worth the hype. It’s dull, cold, and wastes its runtime with lackluster performances. This film should have had gravitas and more substance, considering the vast source material available. I saw the trailer like millions of others, but I was unimpressed. The movie, like the trailer, left me with no investment in the plot or the characters. Dune’s filmmaker expects the audience to care and follow along with this story, though there’s no satisfaction at the end.
Why is there no satisfaction or excitement to find out what happens next? Imagine the following: you wake to strangers in your home, there’s shooting, fire, and death. Therefore you flee for your life through dangerous parts of town to seek shelter and help from people you barely know. All while not disturbing the gigantic sandworms and daydreaming about a girl. These people agree to help you- end film. Without actual spoilers, I just summed up Dune.
Zendaya in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via nerdist.com
Villeneuve cuts Dune off after two-and-a-half hours with no actual climax/resolution. Walking through worm-infested dunes isn’t a proper climax. It’s a bloody boring letdown. As an avid reader and fan of films, I know that movies rarely do their sourcebooks justice. Even though I haven’t read Dune, I don’t believe the first novel ended the way the film did. Please correct me if I’m wrong because Dune is one of the top 100 books of all time.
How does such a popular novel make it to the silver screen with lackluster cast performance, pace, and lack of details? The most energy any character provides is Jason Momoa’s Duncan Idaho, discounting Brolin and Bautista’s roles as gruff, angry soldiers. That’s not a stretch for them, so I hardly call it acting.
Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Harkonnen in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via latimes.com
Stellan Skarsgård’s depiction of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen was said to be terrifying. I’m a big fan of Mr. Skarsgård’s work, and terrifying isn’t the word I would use to describe him in this film. Authoritative, vengeful, physically imposing (he’s a tall man in real life) who flies, which I find to be a weird ability, but not terrifying. Again I haven’t read the books; maybe he’s amazingly terrific as his literary counterpart description.
The Lady Jessica is credited as Atreides but is referred to as the Dukes’ concubine in the film. If she’s his concubine, she’s not his wife. Either way, she is the mother of the Dukes’ son, Paul. The Lady Jessica is part of the Bene Gesserit, a political shadow group of sorceress with a breeding program. Again, I have that Star Wars connection in my mind. Breeding, cloning. Female sorceress’s, the Nightsisters of Dathomir. By and large, Ferguson’s emotional range is that of a brick wall.
Chalamet, Ferguson, and Isaac in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Screenrant.com
Ferguson is a brick wall, and Timothée Chalamet is a wet mop. Why is there hype around this kid? Harry Potter had more emotional responses about his dead parents, whom he’d never met than Paul does about any of the stuff happening around him. And Paul is a lot older than an eleven-year-old. For that matter, Harry’s dead parents in memory form or in moving magical photos conveyed more emotion for their son than Lady Jessica.
It’s not fair that all I can think about is Star Wars when watching this; Frank Herbert really should have sued George Lucas at some point. Star Wars has plenty of other things that separate it from Dune. Still, so many of the broad strokes are not original, leaving me with a bitter taste in my mouth about the franchise. Herbert crafted a sci-fi series in novel form, and had George Lucas never come along with Star Wars, who knows how popular the Dune series cinematically could have been long term. All it needed was a studio, cast, and director, along with an excellent screenplay to bring it all to life- a few decades too late. Instead, now, Dune is left seeming like recycled content.
Jason Momoa as Duncan Idaho in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Vanityfair.com
The script and direction should be solid when watching a big-budget film with a solid cast based on a classic novel. The passage of too much time and George Lucas robbed Dune of its full potential. Try as Denis Villeneuve did to make a better version of the 1984 attempt of Dune; it still falls flat. The devil is in the details, and there were not enough of them for Dune to resonate as the larger-than-life story it’s branded to be.
Hopefully, the next attempt at Dune on the big screen will better incorporate details about the Houses in general, the interpersonal connections, and the mystical components that were played up but meant nothing. The story isn’t compelling enough without energetic performances and more complete pictures of characters and story arcs.
When plot mechanics are the backbone of a film with little emotional resonance (story), it shouldn’t be on anyone’s watchlist. That’s not a film worth anyone’s time.
Director: Chloé Zhao Runtime: 2 hr 36 mins Rated: PG-13
Studio: Marvel Studios Screenwriter: Chloé Zhao, Patrick Burleigh, Ryan Firpo
Cast: Richard Madden, Gemma Chan, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, Lauren Ridloff, Barry Keoghan, Lia McHugh, Brian Tyree Henry, Kumail Nanjiani, Ma Dong-seok, Kit Harington, Bill Skarsgård
Eternals is everything a decade’s worth of MCU films couldn’t do; it tells a complete, complex, and compelling story, with a strong plot, from beginning to end. A story where you didn’t know how it or the characters would end up. When you spend a decade establishing characters, building up an ensemble to fight together, you expect them to win. You expect them to make it to the end of their respective standalone films, so there’s little mystery there. How you get from Iron Man to Endgame is largely spectacle. Flash over substance.
Eternals is more substance over flash, and many movie-goers hate that. Over the years, the MCU model conditioned people to expect less story from Marvel films, which are padded with costumes, CGI, and action. Don’t despair. Eternals have plenty of CGI and action woven more intrinsically within this detailed, rich story.
Perhaps this is part of what many disliked. Details. Being required to listen and pay attention; when it’s not a spectacle, that’s what films need. Perhaps it’s the openly gay couple with a kid? Get over yourselves. Maybe it’s the sex scene? Hm, that one is fair. Up to this point, you could take young kids to see their favorite superhero in what has been a G/PG rated aspect of this topic in the MCU thus far. Well, kids grow up. Comic characters are not just for kids, nor have they ever been. Eternals isn’t dark and deranged like Zack Snyder’s comic book character depictions. Eternals fall in the middle. I’ll grant you this tiny spoiler if you’re on the fence about this film based on this point. It’s tastefully done. Sure it’s clear at one point two of the characters are lying down and don’t have clothes on anymore, but it’s from the collarbones up. Take from that what you will.
Image: Marvel Studios, composite by Kirsten Acuna/Insider.com
Exploring this further, Eternals has a well-rounded, diverse cast. There are black people; one of whom is deaf, white people, an Indian character, Asian characters, a Spanish character, and a kid. This large cast ticks off a bunch of boxes with ease and not for the sake of ticking off boxes. I appreciate a well-rounded, talented cast that lets the film be about the story-not character-specific. In prior MCU films, one or two characters always managed to show up even when it wasn’t their standalone film like the film wouldn’t work without their inclusion. While Eternals have costumes, you should consider them more as uniforms, extensions of their powers, and ship. In this manner, this ensemble is without the brightly colored spandex costumes and accompanying ego trips. It’s all the better for it.
Fans, however, may not feel better about the film’s opening sequence. They’ll need to read the screen. This isn’t a bad thing! It certainly sets the tone for the movie and the upfront departure from every other MCU project to date. It provides needed backstory in a format that consumes less screen time and budget. This format will not resonate with every viewer, but it’s an essential blip in the overall runtime of the film. It’s hardly the first film to use this tactic. So, read it without complaint. It’s also an important reason to remember to show up and find a seat before the film starts!
Celestial image from the MCU Image: Marvel via Screenrant.com
Eternals has gotten mixed reviews, and I’m going to point out why you should ignore the naysayers. 1. Marvel didn’t put nearly the marketing effort into hyping this movie as others. It’s like they didn’t know how because 2. They are obscure characters with no prior buildup 3. The teaser trailer did nothing for this movie. Please ignore it. 4. It’s not all Hulk-like smashing, gun-heavy violent 5. The box office sucked. On that last point, when American films come out usually, other countries see them first. China is an excellent example of this, and they opted not toallow Eternals into their theaters. When that happens, the studio will see fewer zeros from ticket sales. That’s just a fact. Couple that ban with still touchy post-Covid theater options, and it’s clear those previous metrics for evaluating a hit or flop need reassessment ASAP. With all that against it, tossing that all aside and Eternals should be considered a box office hit.
Chloé Zhao did a bloody marvelous job bringing together a large ensemble that portrayed characters worth being invested in. A cast who have great chemistry and energy that are believable and meaningful. Full of details that make the plot move along at an incredible pace, with seamless cinematography. Zhao tells a consistent story whose themes are just right and impactful. The audience can understand their story, who they are, why they are on Earth, their purpose, and how it all fits together in the MCU, which is a fair point after Thanos.
Kumail Nanjiani is Kingo in ‘Eternals’ Image: Marvel Studios via SYFYWire.com
Moving forward, I sincerely hope that the house of mouse doesn’t “Disney-fi” future work with the Eternals within the MCU because this fresh infusion of characters is a palate cleanser. The right amount of serious and grownup to intermix with the sassy, zany and quirky characters left doing projects with the MCU.
Eternals is worth a spot on your watchlist and your time. Make sure to stick around for the two end credit scenes; one’s at the very end. Cheers!
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23120398/matrix_resurrections_machine_city.jpg)
Watch List Reviews 