Beverly Hills Cop (1984) Review

Time: 105 Minutes
Age Rating: M
Cast:
Eddie Murphy as Detective Axel Foley
Judge Reinhold as Detective William “Billy” Rosewood
John Ashton as Sergeant John Taggart
Lisa Eilbacher as Jeanette “Jenny” Summers
Steven Berkoff as Victor Maitland
Ronny Cox as Lieutenant Andrew Bogomil
Director: Martin Brest

Mikey, police officer Axel Foley’s friend, is murdered soon after he arrives in Detroit. When Axel takes up the investigation, he finds himself embroiled in the criminal world of Beverly Hills.

I had heard a lot about Beverly Hills Cop, its one of those 80s action comedy classics I heard a lot about, and is led by one of Eddie Murphy’s most iconic roles. I went in knowing just that and I enjoyed it a lot.

The story is straightforward, familiar and has very little surprises. Nothing is outstanding or memorable plotwise. Thankfully, the movie is more focussed on its characters and their interactions, and the plot itself moves quickly. There are plenty of funny situations, scenarios and jokes, and most of them consistently deliver over the course of the movie.

Eddie Murphy is the most known part of the movie, and for good reason. As protagonist fast talking cop Axel Foley, Murphy gives a charismatic and magnetic performance, and is really fun to watch. He carries much of the movie on his own, he’s the key to it working as well as it does. John Aston and Judge Reinhold’s pair of cops make for effective foils to Eddie Murphy’s antics, and altogether make for a solid comedic trio. Other actors like Gilbert R. Hill, Ronny Cox, Steven Berkhoff, Lisa Eilbacher are good in their parts too.

The movie is directed well by Martin Brest. While they aren’t the best parts of the movie, the handful of action set pieces definitely added to the entertainment. The film is also accompanied very well by a very catchy soundtrack.

Beverly Hills Cop is a straightforward but funny and well made buddy cop comedy, and benefits strongly from Eddie Murphy’s great lead performance.

Advertisement

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) Review

Time: 150 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence & offensive language
Cast:
Chris Pratt as Peter Quill/Star-Lord
Zoe Saldaña as Gamora
Dave Bautista as Drax
Karen Gillan as Nebula
Pom Klementieff as Mantis
Vin Diesel as Groot
Bradley Cooper as Rocket
Will Poulter as Adam Warlock
Sean Gunn as Kraglin
Chukwudi Iwuji as the High Evolutionary
Linda Cardellini as Lylla
Nathan Fillion as Master Karja
Sylvester Stallone as Stakar Ogord
Director: James Gunn

Still reeling from the loss of Gamora, Peter Quill must rally his team to defend the universe and protect one of their own. If the mission is not completely successful, it could possibly lead to the end of the Guardians as we know them.

The Guardians of the Galaxy movies are weird for me. For many, they are among the best movies within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and have quite the fanbase. Even as interest in the MCU declines, many detractors have claimed that GOTG 3 would be their last movie before they drop off the franchise for good. Personally I have found them to be pretty good, but there’s plenty preventing me from loving them. So I wasn’t exactly the most excited for Vol. 3, not helped by the recent string of fairly underwhelming MCU movies (like Ant Man 3 and Thor 4) and the uninspiring trailers. So it’s to my surprise that it ended up being one of my favourite MCU movies.  

Some of my criticisms with James Gunn’s past comic book movies is that some of the attempted emotion and sincerity don’t always works, especially with how its paired alongside an otherwise goofy story and silly antics, leading to a very tonally inconsistent film (The Suicide Squad being a big example of this). Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is a massive improvement on this however. This surprisingly darker story and the more resonant moments are quite present throughout; I was able to buy into everything that was happening, and was emotionally invested with the characters and their journeys. For what it’s worth, I’d highly recommend rewatching Vol 1, 2 (and maybe Infinity War and Endgame) before this, because it really helps to emphasise the progression that these characters have gone through. As said earlier, Vol. 3 has a much darker story compared to the previous two movies, with a heavy focus on Rocket’s past, and taking on certain topics including animal testing and eugenics. The flashbacks on a younger Rocket are very well done and hit in the ways that they need to. There’s some good character work here, and the heart and emotion delivered as intended. I also liked the lower stakes of the plot; even when it reaches the climax of the movie, Vol. 3 isn’t about saving the whole world like the previous movies were. While the main antagonist is certainly very powerful and dangerous, the thing that causes the Guardians of the Galaxy to come into conflict with him is more personal. James Gunn’s humour is a little hit or miss, and generally it doesn’t work for me like it does for others. However, it felt less forced in Vol. 3 and doesn’t halt the story for elaborate comedic hijinks. For what it’s worth, it’s most effectively funny of the three GOTG movies. There are some sections in the first half that I potentially could see dragging on a rewatch, but on my first viewing I was on board for the 2 hours and 30 minutes runtime. There’s only one subplot which I felt was unnecessary (which I’ll mention later), but it didn’t take away from the rest of the movie too much. Without getting into it, Vol. 3 is clearly intended as a conclusion, and it was satisfying seeing where the characters end up. Unlike most of the MCU, there is a distinct feeling of finality that really added to the movie.

The actors of the Guardians of the Galaxy with Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper are great in their parts. The found family thing was a little hard to buy into in their earlier appearances, but by Vol. 3, it’s completely believable. The chemistry between them is great, and they deliver on the comedic and emotional scenes. I liked seeing how far the characters have progressed, especially Nebula and Drax. The villain of this movie is named The High Evolutionary and is played by Chukwudi Iwuji. He is over the top, isn’t particularly complex and isn’t given much backstory. However, the writing and the committed way Iwuji plays him makes the character work, and is by far the most hateable villain in the whole MCU. Definitely one of the better villains in the franchise. Not all of the characters in the movie are great, this is especially the case with the roles played by Will Poulter and Elizabeth Debicki. Debicki reprises her role from GOTG 2, and she gets to do even less here. Poulter plays the character of Adam Warlock, and he is funny in his screentime. That being said, my only explanation as to why Warlock is even here is that James Gunn felt obligated to include him after teasing the character’s appearance in Vol. 2’s credit scene. While he is critical to the plot in a couple instances, he easily could’ve been written out of the story, and it would be made for a slightly better movie.

James Gunn’s direction is pretty good, definitely the best work I’ve seen from him so far. The visuals are pretty good, especially when compared to the look and CGI of the recent MCU movies. The production design is solid, and there’s a lot of great prosthetics and makeup. As expected with it being a GOTG movie. the songs are well picked, and the score from John Murphy is also quite good.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is a surprisingly heartfelt, dark, and emotional conclusion to the GOTG movies, with a great cast and characters, and entertaining action. While it’s certainly possible that it won’t work as well on repeat viewings, this movie really worked for me considering that I was a massive sceptic going in. Of the 3 solo Guardians of the Galaxy movies, it’s by far the best, and is also one of the best films in the MCU.

Beau Is Afraid (2023) Review

Time: 179 Minutes
Age Rating: R16 – Violence, sexual violence, offensive language & content that may disturb
Cast:
Joaquin Phoenix as Beau Wassermann
Patti LuPone as Mona Wassermann
Amy Ryan as Grace
Nathan Lane as Roger
Parker Posey as Elaine Bray
Stephen McKinley Henderson as the therapist
Director: Ari Aster

Following the sudden death of his mother, a mild-mannered but anxiety-ridden man confronts his darkest fears as he embarks on an epic, Kafkaesque odyssey back home.

Leading up to the release of Beau is Afraid, I wasn’t sure how I would feel about it, despite Joaquin Phoenix being cast in the lead role. Director Ari Aster is interesting to me, I liked Hereditary when I saw it, but was also very lukewarm on his follow up film Midsommar. However, the polarising reactions to Aster’s latest did have me curious, and I’m glad to say that I liked it.

Beau is Afraid is far different from any movie that Ari Aster made in the past, it more closely resembles a Charlie Kaufman movie than Hereditary or Midsommar. It’s by far his most ambitious film yet, a creative and unpredictable 3 hour long dark character piece and psychological trip through anxiety. The further the movie goes, the deeper Aster gets into protagonist Beau’s mind. The initial plot may seem simple, with it focusing on Joaquin Phoenix’s Beau going to visit his mother, but the actual movie is far from simple. So much of the movie is over the top and exaggerated. It’s takes place from Beau’s perspective and never leaves it, so you can’t get a grip on what is real and what isn’t. It is stressful and anxiety inducing, and the subject matter is uncomfortable at times. At the same time, the weirdness somewhat has a charm to it. There’s even some surprising dark humour, usually with how absurd the scenarios are. Beau is Afraid sets the tone within the first 5 minutes, and I started off having a good feeling about it. The first act was a dark comedy about irrational fears and takes place in a city where just about everyone has gone mad, and it had this absurdist charm to it. It worked well at establishing Beau and his anxieties, and you really feel his tension and fears of everything.

After it leaves its first act and enters the second hour beginning with a section where Beau is staying with a couple, that’s where it began to stumble for me. Despite some good moments and great acting, it gets shaky really quickly. Once the journey actually begins, its like the movie is just dragging Beau from one traumatic experience to another. It loses its focus until the third act, and the momentum fizzles out over time; by the end I didn’t think it went anywhere particularly thoughtful. At a certain point, it really seems like Ari Aster is just opting to torture Beau, and the mean spirited attitude towards the main character does have some mixed results. I was on board with it for the first hour or so, but it becomes grating. It is also a very self indulgent movie with some elaborate set pieces, and while they are well crafted, they don’t always add a whole lot to the movie. This movie obviously can’t just be taken on face value and you have to look a little deeper to find further interpretations, but weirdly it felt a little shallow and on the nose. While the last act has some stand out parts and is more consistently strong than the middle act, it culminates in a dissatisfying ending which takes an abrupt turn. I’m sure its meant to leave you with that feeling, but my patience had been wavering over the course of the movie, so the conclusion did leave me feeling a little cold and not necessarily in the good way. For a 3 hour long movie, so much of it felt incomplete and underdeveloped. It is definitely too long, parts of the middle act and the ending stand out as such. It drags at a certain point, and it doesn’t help that its already exhausting to watch.

The acting is pretty strong. Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role gives another emotionally committed performance, he really sells so much of his character and the situations he’s thrown into. The rest of the cast are pretty good in their parts too, including Nathan Lane, Amy Ryan, Parker Posey, and Stephen McKinley Henderson. However, Patti LuPone is the standout and makes a strong impression in her scenes.

Ari Aster once again shows himself as a more than capable director. The cinematography is stunning, it’s greatly edited, and the sound design and musical score from Bobby Krlic is on point. The visual storytelling is impressive, and all the technical elements come together to build the anxiety filled atmosphere. While you could question the necessity of some of them, the set pieces are at least visually appealing and creative.

Beau is Afraid is an ambitious, surreal, overlong, and anxiety filled nightmare which has its fair share of issues. However, it is also incredibly directed and shot, creative, darkly funny, and has some great performances. Ari Aster takes some massive swings with this movie and I’m happy that he got to do that, even if there’s a lot of the movie that didn’t entirely work for me. It’s very difficult to gauge who this would be for, but once again I have to throw out the often-redundant declaration “it’s not for everyone”. Even though I liked it myself, it’s not one I want to revisit (even beyond the length), but at the very least I admire it.

Army of Darkness (1992) Review

Time: 81 Minutes
Age Rating: M – contains violence and offensive language
Cast:
Bruce Campbell as Ashley “Ash” J. Williams and “Evil Ash”
Embeth Davidtz as Sheila
Director: Sam Raimi

Zombie-battling hero Ash takes on an army of skeletons after being sent back in time.

My rewatch of the Evil Dead movies continues with its third instalment, Army of Darkness. This movie would be a jarring entry in the franchise considering that it takes quite a notable shift in tone and approach. However, it actually pulls it off quite well, better than expected.

Evil Dead II had to reshoot a recap of the events of the past movie because of rights issues, and funnily enough Army of Darkness has to do that too, albeit with it being much shorter and toned down. So hypothetically, you could just jump into Army of Darkness without any issues, but the first 2 Evil Dead movies are still worth checking out. While the second movie changed a little in the tone and approach from the first movie, becoming a horror comedy instead of a mostly straight faced horror, its third instalment takes an even bigger step. First of all, instead of it being set in a cabin in the woods, it is now in a medieval setting which happens to have deadites, following from Evil Dead II’s ending in which lead character Ash Williams was transported back in time. It is also a little more story focussed than the previous two movies, with it not being contained within a small location. Still, it doesn’t lack the distinct energy and creativity from the previous movies. The difference in tone is immediately noticeable. Army of Darkness is a PG-13 movie and it is a little jarring coming to that following the last two movies and lacking the usual blood and gore. The tone is far more comedic and lighter, which does have the consequence of making it feel a little disconnected from the last couple of films. It is also over the top and silly, and it leans further into the comedy and self awareness. It gets ridiculously goofy and campy, perhaps a bit too silly at points. However, on the whole it is a very well written movie, incredibly quotable and memorable, and most of the jokes work. The third act is also really entertaining, especially with the battle scenes. The endings are pretty interesting; there are two different cuts, Director’s and Theatrical, each with their own distinctly different ending. The Director’s Cut ending makes sense and is a good ending for an Evil Dead film, but I think the Theatrical Cut ending is the most tonally fitting for Army of Darkness, even if it only exists because people at test screenings found the original ending to be too dark.

Army of Darkness has a much larger cast compared to the last two Evil Dead movies, but again it mostly comes down to its lead star, Bruce Campbell. This is where his character of Ash Williams fully became the icon that he is today. Campbell elevates every scene he’s in, his comedic timing is on point, and he’s just fun to watch, whether he’s delivering one liners, or being put though the (PG-13 level) wringer. He’s at his most entertaining here, and I think this is one of the all-time best comedic performances in a movie.

Sam Raimi’s direction is strong once again, with the same creativity and vision you’ve come to expect from him. The camera movements are great, especially with the zooms and POV shots. The practical effects are generally good, especially with the makeup effects. There’s also some solid production design, and I liked the looks of the castles, skeletons and monsters. Even the effects that look dated today add some sort of charm.  

While I admit that I prefer the more horror focussed Evil Dead movies, Army of Darkness is still really fun to watch. It’s a campy, quotable and highly entertaining action comedy, helped by Sam Raimi’s direction and Bruce Campbell’s career defining performance as Ash Williams, and is an absolute blast to watch from beginning to end.

Evil Dead II (1987) Review

Time: 84 Minutes
Age Rating: Graphic violence
Cast:
Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams
Sarah Berry as Annie Knowby
Dan Hicks as Jake
Kassie Wesley as Bobby Joe
Richard Domeier as Professor Ed Getley
Director: Sam Raimi

The second of three films in the Evil Dead series is part horror, part comedy, with Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) once again battling horrifying demons at a secluded cabin in the woods. After discovering an audiotape left by a college professor that contains voices reading from the Book of the Dead, Ash’s girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) becomes possessed by evil spirits that are awakened by the voices on the tape. Ash soon discovers there is no escaping the woods.

With the latest film in the franchise releasing relatively soon, I decided to rewatch the previous Evil Dead movies in the lead up to it. The Evil Dead released back in 1981 ended up being something of a low budget horror classic, especially with the creative direction and impressive practical effects despite the budget constraints. 6 years later, director Sam Raimi directed a sequel which many have regarded as the best of the franchise, myself included.

The opening 10 minutes might confuse people who recently watched the previous film. While Evil Dead II is indeed a sequel to the original, Raimi didn’t really own the rights to his original film and so couldn’t use any of the previous footage from The Evil Dead. So he reshot his own recap of the first movie and due to constraints, they opted to only feature lead character Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) and his girlfriend Linda instead of all 5 characters in the original movie. While you could very well just jump into Evil Dead II completely blind, I’d still recommend watching the original. The plot is very similar to the first movie; Ash is still at the cabin dealing with the undead, and you could say that it’s just a rehash of Evil Dead but with a bigger budget. However, it works better for me in just about every way, and I found it to be really entertaining. The first Evil Dead was a crazy movie and had some over the top moments which bordered on hilarity especially with the blood and gore, but on the whole it was straight faced horror movie aiming to be intense and scary. Its sequel however opts to play more as a horror comedy, and delivers on both aspects. The issues of the first movie are conquered by the more absurd approach in its sequel, as is self aware and embraces the silliness. Horror comedies are pretty hard to pull off, but Raimi delivers on that. The dark and slapstick humour is pretty much pitch perfect and makes the movie so much fun to watch. I liked the first movie, but it does take its time to escalate to craziness, even though I do appreciate that. Evil Dead II takes the deranged insanity of the original’s last 30 minutes and sustains it for the entire runtime of the movie. It is a far more exciting movie and is absolute madness from beginning to end. It also concludes with an insane ending, which would lead into the third entry of the Evil Dead franchise, Army of Darkness.

Bruce Campbell gave a decent and commendable horror performance in the first Evil Dead. However, he gets taken to a whole other level in the sequel, and it would be the start of his character of Ash Williams becoming a pop culture icon, who would become fully realised in Army of Darkness. On top of Campbell’s acting just being better, Ash isn’t only a normal guy put through the wringer, but is also pushed to far beyond insanity. His performance is completely manic and unhinged, to the point where he resembles a cartoon character. Bruce Campbell chews the scenary delightfully and also has a likable charm to him, and he especially delivers on the physical comedy. The supporting cast aren’t particularly huge, but the acting was at least a little better than the cast of the first movie.

Sam Raimi returned to make a sequel to the 1981 original and this time he is working with a considerably larger budget. However it doesn’t lose the creative vision behind the first movie, if anything Raimi’s style is more fully realised here and his direction is fully confident. At its heart, it is still a low budget horror that takes advantage of the increased production value. There’s a lot of creative and unique choices and familiar trademarks, from the use of stop motion, snap zooms and POV shots. It’s a better looking movie, from the cinematography to the production design. They also again use some practical makeup and effects from the deadites to the violence and gore, which still look rather impressive and hold up well today.

Evil Dead II is not only an improvement over the first movie in just about every way, but also horror classic in its own right. It is a very fun and absurdly over the top horror, made excellent by Sam Raimi’s still creative but more refined direction and style, and an incredibly entertaining lead performance from Bruce Campbell.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) Review

Time: 134 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence, offensive language & horror
Cast:
Chris Pine as Edgin Darvis
Michelle Rodriguez as Holga Kilgore
Regé-Jean Page as Xenk Yendar
Justice Smith as Simon Aumar
Sophia Lillis as Doric
Hugh Grant as Forge Fitzwilliam
Chloe Coleman as Kira Darvis
Daisy Head as Sofina
Director: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley

A charming thief and a band of unlikely adventurers embark on an epic quest to retrieve a long lost relic, but their charming adventure goes dangerously awry when they run afoul of the wrong people.

I’m not familiar with Dungeons & Dragons, I never played it, but I definitely heard about it. The last attempt at making a movie based on the popular tabletop roleplaying game was back in 2000, and from what I heard it was to less than stellar results. 23 years later however, they are giving it another go. Despite a cast led by Chris Pine and being helmed by the writers and directors of the underrated Game Night, I had my reservations going into Honor Among Thieves. The trailers weren’t the best and made it look like a generic fantasy action comedy with typical MCU style quips. However, it turned out to be one of the more surprising movies from this year.

As someone who hasn’t played Dungeons & Dragons, I can’t speak with high creditability as to how accurately it captures the game, but from my limited knowledge, the movie did feel like a D&D game. The plot really isn’t anything special, so it is just as well that the writing is as great as it was. The story is cliché and predictable but is nonetheless well handled. It plays like an old fashioned fantasy adventure and strikes the perfect tone. It is fully aware of the genre it is in and doesn’t take itself so seriously, and its quite charming. There’s a lot of good and clever humour, and most of the jokes land. High fantasy action comedies are hard to pull off, but Honor Among Thieves does a wonderful job at it. For those who have seen Game Night, it is more in line with that movie than you would initially think, especially with the comedy. Despite all that, there are some surprising emotional story beats and character development that play at the right level, it’s not too serious and retains the self-awareness, but is genuine and earnest enough for you to care about the characters and what’s going on. With this being a fantasy movie, there’s a lot of worldbuilding and plenty of backstories given to characters, items and fantasy races, which is probably why the end film is 2 hours and 14 minutes long. The movie entertained me from beginning to end, but perhaps they could’ve cut down a little on the exposition.

So much of the movie is helped by the great and likable cast of characters, who have really good chemistry together and help to sell the comedy. You can tell that everyone was having a lot of fun making it. The central band of characters in Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith and Sophia Lillis are great and fun to watch. Regé-Jean Page is a standout and steals the scenes he’s in, I’d watch a whole spin off movie focussing on his character. The villains really are pretty generic, but that’s fine for this story. Still, it helps that one of the villains played by Hugh Grant is very entertaining and funny in his scenes, even if he’s not in the movie as much as you’d like.

John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein directed this well. The visuals are good with some very nice scenery and good sets. There was a surprising number of practical effects, including animatronics. Occasionally the CGI can look really off, but that is easy to look past, and it looks really good for the most part. The action is also strong, whether it be smaller scale fights between Michelle Rodriguez and multiple people at the same time, or much larger set pieces involving dragons. There’s a lot of creativity in these scenes, especially when it comes to the camera movements. Lorne Balfe’s score is also great and fits the movie and its tone really well.  

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is a surprisingly fun, cleverly written and entertaining fantasy action comedy, with great and likeable performances and characters. I wouldn’t mind if we got more of these movies, whether it continues the story of these characters or focus on a different set of characters in the universe. Even if you were turned off by the trailers, I think Honor Among Thieves is well worth checking out, especially in a cinema with a crowd.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023) Review

Time: 130 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence
Cast:
Zachary Levi and Asher Angel as Billy Batson/Shazam
Jack Dylan Grazer and Adam Brody as Frederick “Freddy” Freeman
Rachel Zegler as Anthea/Anne
Grace Caroline Currey as Mary Bromfield
Ross Butler and Ian Chen as Eugene Choi
D. J. Cotrona and Jovan Armand as Pedro Peña
Meagan Good and Faithe Herman as Darla Dudley
Lucy Liu as Kalypso
Djimon Hounsou as Shazam
Helen Mirren as Hespera
Director: David F. Sandberg

Bestowed with the powers of the gods, Billy Batson and his fellow foster kids are still learning how to juggle teenage life with their adult superhero alter egos. When a vengeful trio of ancient gods arrives on Earth in search of the magic stolen from them long ago, Shazam and his allies get thrust into a battle for their superpowers, their lives, and the fate of the world.

I remember liking the first Shazam when it released back in 2019, yet I felt rather reluctant to watch its upcoming sequel. The trailers looked fairly average, and certain other elements didn’t help, like the looming James Gunn DCU reboot on the horizon. Still, I decided to watch it in the cinema, and for what it’s worth, I enjoyed it more than I expected to.  

The plot is very average and formulaic, just another average superhero plot. It’s very safe, and nothing much of consequence happens. There are some bland mythology and worldbuilding and that’s it. Much of the story feels rushed, like this was a first draft, and the conflict, stakes and emotional beats feel off. While the overall plot of the first movie wasn’t special, there was a family dynamic aspect which made it work. However, its sequel doesn’t take advantage of this, and there’s no development or change whatsoever. Any potential emotional beats here are just obligatory, and the big heart and emotions in the first movie doesn’t feel genuine. While the comedy in the first movie mostly worked, it is really mixed here. It is funnier than most MCU movies nowadays, but for every joke that hits, there’s another joke that misses (usually ones involving Shazam himself). There is an appearance of a notable DCEU character, and all I can say is that I hope the actor was paid well for it because it’s the worst appearance of that character in the DCEU, even worse than the Joss Whedon Justice League from 2017. The mid credits scene is absolutely terrible, and the end credits scene felt almost like a parody of credits scenes, so I liked the last one at least.

Asher Angel and Zachary Levi return, with Angel reprising his role as Billy Batson, and Levi playing the grown-up superhero version of him, Shazam. As I was watching the movie, I wondered why I liked Zachary Levi in the first movie at all. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that so much of my enjoyment of the sequel was taken away by Shazam’s characterisation and Levi’s performance. There is such a disconnect between the two actors its weird, you can hardly buy that they are meant to be the same person. It’s especially a shame because Asher Angel does seem the better actor but has less than 5 minutes of screentime. The strangest thing is that the other kids in the Shazam family are more mature, and at the very least their older actors are believable as the superhero versions of their younger selves. Billy is around 17 years old, but it’s like his brain reverts to that of a 10-year-old whenever he becomes Shazam. I can only conclude that Zachary Levi worked as Shazam in the first movie because there they divided the screentime between him and his younger version decently, and it is easier to buy into his childish behaviour because its believable that a kid who suddenly gained superpowers would act like that. The first movie is about Billy Batson, but the second movie leans into Shazam, and unfortunately we have to sit through many of his childish antics. Supposedly he went through some sort of arc in this movie, but I didn’t really see that at all. Compared to the first movie, he just doesn’t go through any sort of progression, terminally stuck in default goofy mode.  

The rest of the cast are pretty good. Jack Dylan Grazer is again a standout actor reprising his role of Freddie Freeman, and Adam Brody is believable as an older superhero version of Grazer. A surprise returning actor is Djimon Hounsou as the wizard, who had an important but small role in the first movie as he granted Billy Batson superpowers. He gets to do a lot more in this movie and was one of the highlights. The villains are played by Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu, good casting let down by their bland characters. At the very least though, they seem to be having fun in their roles; Mirren especially hams it up and is fun to watch.

David F. Sandberg returns to direct after the first movie. The visuals are a very mixed bag and the quality of the CGI changes depending on whether the scene was set at night or at day. The CGI is pretty good when the lighting is darker or it takes place at night, but whenever it looks terrible at daytime. It is quite lurching watching a dragon initially look decent and straight out of a fantasy movie with a good budget, to looking like its from a CW show. The action is passable, same as the first movie, but its nothing that impressive. It is entertaining enough, especially the last act.

As far as “bland and generic superhero movies that don’t do anything special” go, Shazam 2 is one of them but its not one of the all time worst. There is more enjoyment to find here than in say Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. It is entertaining enough, and there are some good performances (aside from Levi). Regardless of the coming change in the DCEU, Shazam 2 just isn’t that special, and is pretty much just a worse version of the first Shazam. Still, if you liked the first Shazam, Fury of the Gods might have enough for you to enjoy it.

Scream 4 (2011) Review

Time: 111 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence, offensive language & horror
Cast:
David Arquette as Dewey Riley
Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott
Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers
Emma Roberts as Jill Roberts
Hayden Panettiere as Kirby Reed
Rory Culkin as Charlie Walker
Director: Wes Craven

At the end of her book tour, Sidney visits her home town after ten long years. As she catches up with old friends, her return not only brings back memories but also beckons the return of Ghostface.

I didn’t remember too much about Scream 4 going into my rewatch of it, I just knew that it was made 11 years after the franchise’s original intended ending with Scream 3, and it is Wes Craven’s final movie. I liked it way better than I expected, in fact it’s my second favourite in the series.

Kevin Williamson has returned to writing for the franchise after his absence from Scream 3, and gives another witty and sharp script, which manages to be the most interesting of the Scream movies. The one thing I can say I really didn’t like was the opening, with a number of fake outs. Everything else is good though. Craven and Williamson keeps the charm of the previous movies, while reinventing itself as it moves into more modern times. The fun meta humour is back and has the sharp dialogue you’d expect. The satire has actually aged very well, and it probably has the most thought provoking themes and commentary of the franchise. Scream 1 focused on horror movies generally, Scream 2 was about sequels, Scream 3 was about trilogies, and Scream 4 satirises the cliches of modern horror movies, and with focus on horror remakes and reboots. But it doesn’t stop there, as it pokes fun at modern pop culture, fan culture and social media. It was particularly ahead of its time with that last one, and how people will do anything to get famous. I was entertained and engaged with the plot, and the twists worked well. It also has a bitter of a meaner edge to it, with a darker tone and more brutal kills. Additionally, Scream 4 probably has the best suspense of the franchise, and also has my favourite version of Ghostface.

The cast are great, with Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox slipping back into their roles seamlessly, and as usual the continuation of their stories being one of the highlights of the first four movies. The newer cast are also good, with the standouts being Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts.

Wes Craven directs Scream 4 incredibly well. The chase and attack scenes are really well done with a lot of suspense. The kill scenes are also a lot more gnarly and creative, definitely in line with the darker tone. Marco Beltrami also delivers another reliable score. One criticism that people had was of the bright look and the weirdly shiny and glossy cinematography. I can’t tell if it was a deliberate choice to mimic the lighting of other horror movies of the day, but it didn’t bother me too much.

Scream 4 was a real surprise, it has some great suspenseful set pieces combined with sharp and biting writing and solid meta satire. I found this to be the best of the Scream sequels, and likely the most fun I’ve had with the franchise. The series wouldn’t receive another sequel until 11 more years but if they decided to not make any more, Scream 4 would’ve been a good place to end it.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2022) Review

Time: 124 minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man
Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne/Wasp
Jonathan Majors as Kang the Conqueror
Kathryn Newton as Cassie Lang
David Dastmalchian as Veb
Katy O’Brian as Jentorra
William Jackson Harper as Quaz
Bill Murray as Lord Krylar
Michelle Pfeiffer as Janet van Dyne
Corey Stoll as Darren Cross/M.O.D.O.K.
Michael Douglas as Hank Pym
Director: Peyton Reed

Ant-Man and the Wasp find themselves exploring the Quantum Realm, interacting with strange new creatures and embarking on an adventure that pushes them beyond the limits of what they thought was possible.

The Ant-Man movies aren’t among the best movies in the MCU by any means, but they were fun, charming, and worked as pallet cleansers following major Avengers movies. I rewatched the two movies for the first time since I saw them in cinemas, and I appreciate them a lot more now, especially compared to much of the MCU nowadays. So with that in mind, making the third Ant-Man movie the introduction of the MCU’s next major villain (named Kang) was certainly a strange decision. I had doubts that it would work, but I thought that it would end up working itself out. Turns out I was a bit too optimistic.

The first 5 minutes of Quantumania resembles the Ant-Man films with a light and comedic tone. From the moment the main characters are transported into the Quantum Realm however, everything falls apart. Gone is the familiar charm and humour, as it moves from familiar locations into a sci-fi setting. It even lacks some of the supporting characters and cast from the previous two movies, including Michael Pena, Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale, which is a little disappointing. A lot of what made Ant-Man appealing was his operation in a normal sized world, whether he shrunk down or grew larger. Setting the movie in an already microscopic world removes the uniqueness of those abilities. Not only that, but instead of focussing on relatively smaller stakes, the film is at an Avengers level scale with higher consequences. If Quantumania is meant to be a trilogy ender, then it’s a terrible note to end on. So as that, it’s very disappointing. However, even on its own, it is a very generic sci-fi movie. The familiar plot involves a revolution against a dictator (Kang) and it’s just so hard to care about anything that’s going on. There is barely any development to any of the characters, and not much for Ant-Man or The Wasp to actually do. Honestly, they could’ve swapped Ant-Man out for any Avengers character, and it would’ve worked the same. Much of the movie feels dull and on autopilot. I tolerated the first two acts because of the mystery it was building, but I would struggle to get through it a second time since it’s a whole lot of nothing. Most of it consists of people moving from place to place with a lot of exposition dumped about the Quantum Realm or Kang, and then occasionally something somewhat exciting happens. The third act did have a somewhat entertaining climax, at least in contrast to the aimless first two acts. Even the Quantum Realm is a very dull and standard sci-fi setting. Much of it plays like a bad Star Wars knock off. The creatures and ships are weird, but in a half-hearted way, as if the visuals and the writing were generated by an AI. It has some humour, but it’s less like the comedy in the Ant-Man films and is more of the obligatory Marvel humour in most of their movies nowadays, which misses more than it hits. For what its worth though, it doesn’t drop to the level of the humour in Thor: Love and Thunder. Quantumania is essentially a 2 hour trailer for what’s to come with the Kang era. The “setup for the next movie” criticism can apply to many of the past MCU movies, Iron Man 2 being an example. The difference is that you can still find an actual story and movie in that, and you feel that things are at least moving. Quantumania however feels hollow, not much of consequence happens, and not much of significance happens with these characters. And while it aims to get audiences interested in what’s to come, I don’t think it really succeeded.

Paul Rudd once again plays Scott Lang/Ant-Man and as always, he’s effortlessly charming and delivers in his scenes, whether it be with the comedy or the drama. As I said earlier though, it feels like there’s not much for his character to do. Despite being a third of the title, ironically The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) doesn’t play that significant of a part, and doesn’t leave any impression on the movie. Kathryn Newton plays Scott Lang’s now grown-up daughter Cassie, and I don’t think she was very good. That being said, the writing given to her was terrible. The dynamic between Cassie and Scott looked like it was going to be a major part of the movie, but this arc is sorely underdeveloped that you could practically miss it. It doesn’t help that Newton and Rudd have virtually no chemistry. Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer reprise their roles as Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne, and they are mostly just fine. Pfeiffer at the very least had a much bigger role in this movie compared to the last, and does handle her part well. Douglas however seems like he doesn’t want to be in these movies anymore. Bill Murray is in the movie for a bit, but he leaves so little of an impression that they really could’ve hired anyone for the role.

So much of the movie is hyping up the main villain and next major antagonist of the MCU, Kang. To be fair, actor Jonathan Majors is doing some heavy lifting and makes the character better than it was written. The movie picks up somewhat whenever he’s on screen. It’s just as well that they got an actor on his calibre considering that Kang’s first appearance (outside of the Loki show) wasn’t the greatest. Quantumania’s idea of building up Kang comes from people talking about all the things he’s done, despite himself not actually doing anything significant in the movie. Contrast this with Thanos; multiple films had characters talking about the things he’s done and how dangerous he is, and then when he finally served as a central villain of a film, he killed significant MCU characters and erased half of the universe. I can assure you that nothing of the sort happens in this movie with Kang. It really doesn’t help that they keep him hidden for much of the movie, with characters referring to him as “him” or “the conqueror”. While I get that they wanted to build suspense, his character ended up being really underdeveloped and with unclear and generic motives. Any depth that was given to the character was provided by Majors. As for how they convey how dangerous Kang is, any possible threatening factor he has is nullified by the fact that his first opponent in the movies is Ant-Man, and he isn’t able to instantly kill him without a second thought. Honestly, he made a much bigger impression in the Loki Season 1 finale. There’s another villain worth mentioning, Kang’s henchman in the form of MODOK, who’s pretty much a guy with a giant head and a small body. He’s a ridiculous character in the comics and so a ridiculous character here, and they really lean into the silliness and comedy. The writing isn’t really that funny, so it’s just as well that actor Corey Stoll performs it in such a way that it is funny. For what it’s worth, the movie does actually pick up a little whenever he’s on screen.

Peyton Reed returns to direct the third Ant-Man movie. While I liked his work in the previous two films, his work in Quantumania is severely disappointing. His direction worked for the smaller stakes and identifiable setting, but it didn’t work so well for a sci-fi epic. The action is fine but very generic and basic. Quantumania very likely tops Thor: Love and Thunder as the worst looking MCU movie. The visuals are beyond terrible, so much of it looks fake, and there are multiple points where it straight up looks like Sharkboy and Lavagirl (which came out nearly a couple decades ago). I lost track of the number of times actors would be standing in front of blatantly obvious greenscreen, with nothing in the scene looking real. Even Ant-Man’s ability to shrink and grow isn’t that special this time around. As I said, making Ant-Man grow large to the size of a building or shrink down to the size of an ant worked in his previous appearances, because there’s identifiable scale. When it happens in the Quantum Realm, it just doesn’t have the same effect. The creatures and alien designs are certainly strange, but almost ripped from aliens in other sci-fi movies. And if that’s not enough, there’s also the look of MODOK, which is quickly one of the biggest jokes from those who have seen the movie. I get that he’s supposed to look weird like he does in the comics. However, instead of coming across as creepy or gross, in Quantumania he just looks like a guy who just can’t get enough of a wide angle lens snapchat filter, or a villain in a rejected straight to dvd sequel to Sharkboy and Lavagirl. However, I’m not going to harp on MODOK’s design too much despite how hilarious of a misfire it is, because it did provide some unintentional entertainment.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is yet another low point for the MCU. A product that is lacklustre, dull and generic with terrible visuals, and was mostly a slog to get through.  It sacrificed the fun and charm of the previous Ant-Man movies for a bad sci-fi flick to set up future films in the MCU, and it didn’t even succeed at that. There are some enjoyable moments, some of the action is entertaining enough, and the performances from Paul Rudd, Jonathan Majors and to a degree Corey Stoll elevated the experience somewhat. Overall though, it’s at least in the top 2 worst movies from the MCU alongside Thor: Love and Thunder. That being said, despite being a worse movie, at least Love and Thunder wasn’t trying to be “The Beginning of a New Dynasty” as Ant-Man 3 so boldly claimed it would be. While I liked most of its movies, Phase 4 was a meandering mess for the MCU, and Quantumania was meant to kick off Phase 5 with a bang. Alas, it looks to be even worse.

Turning Red (2022) Review

Time: 100 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Rosalie Chiang as Meilin “Mei” Lee
Sandra Oh as Ming Lee
Ava Morse as Miriam Mendelsohn
Maitreyi Ramakrishnan as Priya Mangal
Hyein Park as Abby Park
Orion Lee as Jin Lee
Wai Ching Ho as Wu
Tristan Allerick Chen as Tyler Nguyen-Baker
James Hong as Mr. Gao
Director: Domee Shi

A thirteen-year-old girl is torn between staying her mother’s dutiful daughter and the changes of adolescence. And as if the challenges were not enough, whenever she gets overly excited she transforms into a giant red panda.

I remember Turning Red in the lead up to its release. It came out much earlier in 2022, however I just never got around to watching it. After it got nominated for best animated movie, I thought I might as well check it out, and I thought it was good.

Admittedly when the movie started, I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about it; it does have a bit of a rocky opening. From the moment protagonist Mei turns into a red panda however, that’s when it really picked up. There are plenty of animated family dramas and coming of age stories, but something about this movie makes it stand out. There’s something so genuine here; it’s very earnest and is a relatively grounded and smaller movie, with some earned emotion. This is a personal story, with it being inspired by the director’s experiences growing up, and you can really feel that throughout. It balances the humour with the emotions, and it tells its story about growing up very well. It’s also helped by the pitch perfect cast (including Rosalie Chiang and Sandrah Oh) who play their distinct characters very well. The third act does have a very by the numbers and generic climax, but it still has an emotionally satisfying conclusion for the film.

The movie is directed by Domee Shi, who previously directed the animated short film Bao, and her work here is great. The animation is unique and vivid, separating it from other Pixar movies. It’s very detailed and stylistic, with sharp editing, fluid sense of movement, and a constant amount of energy throughout. While much of the climax is generic, it does get particularly visually stunning there.

Turning Red is enjoyable, energetic, genuine, stylistically and gorgeously animated. It was a real shame it wasn’t distributed that well and was dumped onto Disney+, because it would’ve benefited from being shown on the big screen. It’s really well worth checking out.