Luther: The Fallen Sun (2023) Review

Time: 129 Minutes
Age Rating: R16 – Violence, cruelty & offensive language
Cast:
Idris Elba as John Luther
Cynthia Erivo as DCI Odette Raine
Dermot Crowley as Martin Schenk
Andy Serkis as David Robey
Director: Jamie Payne

A serial killer terrorizes London while disgraced detective John Luther sits behind bars. Haunted by his failure to capture the cyber psychopath who now taunts him, Luther decides to break out of prison to finish the job by any means necessary.

I watched the tv series Luther starring Idris Elba, a dark and gritty detective show about a police detective who solves crimes (usually serial killers). I really liked it and I was disappointed when it was cancelled, especially after its cliff-hanger ending. So I was intrigued when it turned out that it was getting a sequel in the form of a Netflix movie. While it doesn’t reach the heights of the series, I still liked The Fallen Sun.

Neil Cross, creator of the Luther show, returns to write the script for the movie. The story and writing are fine. The biggest question that some will have is whether people can watch the movie if they haven’t seen the series. And the answer is yes, there are only two characters who return from the series, and the story doesn’t require you to know the events of the show beforehand. At the end of the tv series, Luther is arrested and while that’s how the movie starts, there are some retcons surrounding that aspect to link it with the movie’s story. Overall, I found The Fallen Sun to be entertaining, it works as an isolated crime thriller, and is very dark and unsettling, much like the show. People who watched the show probably know that it started out grounded but became silly in the later seasons, and the movie is definitely on the far-fetched side of things. It can get outlandishly silly at times, mainly with how absurdly powerful and well connected the villain is. The movie moves at a fast pace despite the long runtime, but in some ways it feels like a season of Luther crammed into a 2 hour long movie, and some aspects like the villain don’t get enough build up. It might’ve worked better as a tv mini series.

The acting is pretty good. Idris Elba as usual is great as John Luther and slips back into arguably his most iconic role with ease. He has a strong screen presence which elevates every scene he’s in. The rest of the cast is pretty good, including Cynthia Erivo. It was also great to see Dermot Crowley reprise his role as ex DSI Martin Schenk, it was good that they were able to bring back at least one of the supporting characters from the show. Andy Serkis however is the standout as the main villain and serial killer. The character is over the top and absurd (down to even his hair) but is depraved and dark. Serkis is fantastic and clearly having fun chewing up the scenery. This part is only relevant to those who watched the series, but Alice Morgan played by Ruth Wilson doesn’t appear in the movie. Considering the end of the show, it makes sense why she’s not here. Still, it doesn’t feel the same without her.

Jamie Payne directs the movie, his work here is fine. It does well to translate the Luther show to a movie and gives it a more cinematic feeling, despite looking like a Netflix movie. There are some good and memorable sequences, if over the top. 

Luther: The Fallen Sun is not one of the best stories in the Luther series but I still really liked it. The story was intriguing enough and the performances were great, especially Elba and Serkis. If you liked the show, I think you’ll find some enjoyment in the movie. If you haven’t seen the show, I think you’ll find a decent enough crime thriller.

Advertisement

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 VI (2023) Review

Time: 122 Minutes
Age Rating: graphic violence & content that may disturb
Cast:
Melissa Barrera as Sam Carpenter
Jasmin Savoy Brown as Mindy Meeks-Martin
Jack Champion as Ethan Landry
Henry Czerny as Christopher Stone
Mason Gooding as Chad Meeks-Martin
Liana Liberato as Quinn Bailey
Dermot Mulroney as Wayne Bailey
Devyn Nekoda as Anika Kayoko
Jenna Ortega as Tara Carpenter
Tony Revolori as Jason Carvey
Josh Segarra as Danny Brackett
Samara Weaving as Laura Crane
Hayden Panettiere as Kirby Reed
Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers
Director: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett

Four survivors of the Ghostface murders leave Woodsboro behind for a fresh start in New York City. However, they soon find themselves in a fight for their lives when a new killer embarks on a bloody rampage.

Recently I watched through all the Scream movies and was finally prepared to check out Scream 5. While not one of the better movies in the franchise, I did enjoy it, and it was pretty good as far as legacy sequels go. The Ready or Not directors would also be returning to direct the sixth movie, and I was ready to watch my first Scream movie in the cinemas. Scream VI ended up pretty good, and a notable improvement over the last movie.

With the exception of Scream 3 and 4, most of the Scream openings are great. However, the beginning of Scream VI rivals the original for the best beginning scene. A notable part of the movie which has been hyped up is the fact that it doesn’t take place in Woodsboro, but instead in New York City. This really isn’t the first time a Scream movie has taken place outside of Woodsboro, since they did that for its second and third movies. However, you do feel a greater scale in Scream VI, and you get environments and set pieces not seen in previous movies. Scream VI benefits from its strong focus on the story and its main characters. The story itself is fast paced enough, but spends enough time with its characters. An aspect present throughout the movies was the meta commentary, but there doesn’t appear to be much of it here. Most of it is relegated to Mindy (Jasmin Savoy-Brown) talking about horror movie tropes in a few scenes, otherwise its not present much. Scream VI is really more a commentary of its own franchise and I was actually fine with it. The third act here isn’t as crazy as 2022’s but is more controlled and character motivated, and I enjoyed it. I think that a lot of people will have problems with the Ghostface reveals. While I admit my predictions weren’t entirely correct (compared to most people online who apparently figured it out quickly), it did feel somewhat underwhelming. Still, it does make sense in the story and is better fleshed out than most other Ghostface reveals. It doesn’t just pull a Scream 3 and introduce a long-lost secret brother of the protagonist and just expect the audience to roll with it. Something that’s always been a thing in the Scream movies is the high number of close calls during Ghostface attacks. Despite it being more grounded in realism compared to other modern slashers, there’s many instances of characters being attacked in ways that should kill them, yet they somehow survive. While this isn’t exactly a new thing, with the increased brutality over the first four movies, it really makes it harder to take seriously. Scream VI takes this to new levels of ridiculousness, and it can take you out of the movie a little. On a larger problem though, it does feel very safe for all its increased violence and a Ghostface who’s apparently “one like you’ve never seen before”, especially looking at the death. While some of these movies opt to move in bold directions, Scream VI aims to honour the series instead. While my instinct is usually to go against this, it still works for what it is.  

There are some returning actors from the original 4 Scream movies, but not many. Of the main trio, it’s just Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers who appears here, playing a very small supporting role in the plot. The more prominent returning actor would be Hayden Panettiere as Kirby Reed who was assumed dead at the end of Scream 4. However, she was brought back for this movie, and it was great seeing her again; she plays off the other characters really well. The four surviving characters from Scream 5 return as the leads, and if there’s one thing that Scream VI gets right, it’s that it shows that even though the movie doesn’t have Dewey or Sidney and not a whole lot of Gale, these four can carry a film themselves. They have such great chemistry together and felt convincing as friends. Melissa Barrera is much better here as protagonist Sam Carpenter, and the movie fully takes advantage of the darker aspects with her being the daughter of Billy Loomis, which does well at setting her apart from Sidney Prescott as a protagonist. The only bad thing I can say about her character is that the film keeps adding in hallucination scenes with her dead father, which the movies really could’ve done without. The other three characters also get expanded on more. Jenna Ortega continues to give one of the best performances in the Scream movies (especially during the horror scenes), and the twins Mindy and Chad played by Jasmin Savoy-Brown and Mason Gooding also get to do a lot more here. Other actors like Dermot Mulroney, Jack Champion, Josh Segarra and Samara Weaving work in their parts too.

The Ready or Not directors (Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett) are back, and their work in Scream VI is a notable improvement over Scream 5, even though that was already a well-made movie. It has some great camerawork and cinematography with really good uses of colour. There are some strong set pieces, sequences and locations, and the setting change certainly allowed them to do a lot more. While Scream 5’s tension wasn’t that great, Scream VI is much better at this, with some genuinely suspenseful scenes. Brian Tyler returns to compose the score after his work in Scream 5, and again it’s pretty solid.

Even if it’s a little safe, Scream VI is another entertaining and strong entry in the franchise, with some memorable horror set pieces, and a great cast and direction. With 6 entries in the franchise, Scream seems to be one of the only horror franchises that remains strong on the whole. While I do wonder how long it’ll sustain this streak, I’m definitely open to watching even more of them.

Creed III (2023) Review

Time: 116 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence & offensive language
Cast:
Michael B. Jordan as Adonis “Donnie” Creed
Tessa Thompson as Bianca Taylor-Creed
Jonathan Majors as Damian “Diamond Dame” Anderson
Wood Harris as Tony “Little Duke” Evers
Florian Munteanu as Viktor Drago
Phylicia Rashad as Mary Anne Creed
Director: Michael B. Jordan

Still dominating the boxing world, Adonis Creed is thriving in his career and family life. When Damian, a childhood friend and former boxing prodigy resurfaces after serving time in prison, he’s eager to prove that he deserves his shot in the ring. The face-off between former friends is more than just a fight. To settle the score, Adonis must put his future on the line to battle Damian — a fighter who has nothing to lose.

I was looking forward to Creed III. I had only watched Rocky but found the first Creed to be a great film, and Creed II to be a solid follow up. Creed III particularly had some interesting things going for it. Not only will be the first movie in the franchise to not have Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa, but it would have Creed actor Michael B. Jordan directing (like how Stallone directed some of the Rocky movies). The latest film in the franchise did not disappoint.

While the previous two Creed movies were based off things that happened in the Rocky movies, Creed III is the first movie completely about Adonis Creed. The story is unsurprisingly straightforward and formulaic, you can pretty much tell what will happen before going into the movie, nonetheless it is done very well. There is a strong focus and emphasis on character, and it succeeds at telling a personal story. Much like the series in general, Creed III is very heartfelt. There’s a lot of vulnerability and emotional nuance, particularly when it comes to the connection between Creed and Damian (Jonathan Majors). As you can expect, it all builds up to the boxing match in the last act, which is immensely satisfying to watch. At 2 hours, Creed III is a little short, and it could’ve done with an extra 15-20 minutes to flesh out some of its story and characters. There are some undercooked relationships which didn’t have much payoff in the second half. For example, in the first half there are some scenes showing Adonis’s daughter wanting to learn to fight like her father, and it seemed like it was going to be an ongoing story thread, but doesn’t even become much of a subplot. Also, it’s not a big deal, but you really feel the absence of Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky Balboa (which is possibly due to some behind the scenes issues). The story works perfectly well without him and Rocky’s arc seemed to come to a close in the previous Creed movies. Nonetheless, I feel like there’s a couple of moments where he could’ve played a small part.

The acting is great as to be expected. Michael B. Jordan once again shines as Adonis Creed, and he delivers on the physicality and emotion of his character. Tessa Thompson reprises her role as Bianca and is good as always, although I wish there was a little more of her. Another good performance is from Mila Davis-Kent as their daughter Amara. There is a strong and genuine family dynamic between these three, and I wish we got more of it. However, Jonathan Majors was the standout as the main antagonist, with his character having a personal connection to Adonis from when they were kids. Majors gives an intimidating yet layered and nuanced performance here, he brought so much to the role, and has a very convincing dynamic with Jordan.

I was most intrigued by the fact that Michael B. Jordan would be directing, considering that it would also be his directorial debut. With Creed III, he has already proved himself to be a great director. From what I can tell, it’s stylistically different to any Rocky/Creed movie that came before, making it a unique entry in the franchise. One of the most interesting things to hear in the lead up to its release was that Jordan said that much of his style was inspired by anime, and watching the movie you can see that. It is hyper stylised but refreshing and doesn’t feel too out of place. It is visually gorgeous and very well put together. You mostly see the anime influence in the boxing scenes, which are intense and exhilarating to watch. The style added so much flare and energy, the fight chorography is excellent, the camerawork is exciting and quick, and some distinct choices including slow motion and quick pans really add a lot. The final fight is particularly electric and was something special to watch on the big screen.

Creed III is another great entry in the franchise, and an incredible character driven boxing drama, well directed with strong stylistic and creative choices, stellar fight scenes, and great performances. While it works as a trilogy, if they decide to do a fourth Creed movie, I’d be on board to see that too. I would also love to see Michael B. Jordan direct more movies because he’s done a fantastic job here.

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.

Plane (2023) Review

Time: 107 Minutes
Cast:
Gerard Butler as Brodie Torrance
Mike Colter as Louis Gaspare
Yoson An as Samuel Dele
Tony Goldwyn as Scarsdale
Director: Jean-François Richet

Pilot Brodie Torrance saves passengers from a lightning strike by making a risky landing on a war-torn island — only to find that surviving the landing was just the beginning. When dangerous rebels take most of the passengers hostage, the only person Torrance can count on for help is Louis Gaspare, an accused murderer who was being transported by the FBI.

Plane looked like another Gerard Butler action flick, yet the aspect that gathered the most attention was its weirdly simple title. However, there were some people who were pleasantly surprised by it, and that was my reaction when I checked it out. Not that it’s anything great, but it’s a lot of fun and works well for what it is.

Plane is a very straightforward action thriller. Despite its title, it’s only really the first act that involves a plane. Most of it is a hostage situation on an island, as Gerard Butler and Mike Colter try to rescue hostages and survive. Sometimes it cuts to a government group attempting to rescue them, but it actually works as it raises the tension and isn’t a boring subplot like it is in other action movies. Plane has a fairly predictable and generic plot, there are plenty of cliché moments and lines, and there’s not much depth to the movie. However, it was very easy to watch. It doesn’t take itself too seriously (as you can expect with the movie being called Plane) and isn’t very realistic, and its better for that. From beginning to end, it is entertaining and suspenseful. It’s nicely paced and breezes through its runtime.

The cast play their parts well. Gerard Butler has helmed many of these types of movies and as expected gives a similar action movie performance, but he does it well. He’s a solid lead and even gets some dramatic moments. Mike Colter was also really good, probably the standout character of the movie. Despite being the second major character, I wish there was more of him. I know that there’s deliberately an air of mystery around him, but I wished we got to learn more about him. There’s some great chemistry between the Butler and Colter, there isn’t much depth given to their characters, but they do a lot with the limited material and were a likable duo. Other supporting actors played their parts well. Part of what makes the government scenes not boring is Tony Goldwyn, who is a lot of fun in his role. The main villains are very generic and forgettable, but work well enough for the movie.

Jean-Francois Richet directed this well, and was part of a key reason why it worked, elevating it above most straight to streaming action thrillers. The action is entertaining, with some riveting, tense, and great sequences. Plane isn’t as action heavy as you’d expect but that just makes it’s action scenes stand out a lot more. The CGI has some glaring issues, but for a mid budget flick, the visual effects were serviceable enough.

Plane is a straightforward and familiar yet very entertaining action thriller with very little surprises. However the simplicity of it along with the duo of Butler and Colter and the entertaining action sequences made it quite a fun ride. Worth a watch.

Knock at the Cabin (2023) Review

Time: 100 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence & offensive language
Cast:
Dave Bautista as Leonard
Jonathan Groff as Eric
Ben Aldridge as Andrew
Nikki Amuka-Bird as Sabrina
Kristen Cui as Wen
Abby Quinn as Adriane
Rupert Grint as Redmond
Director: M. Night Shyamalan

While vacationing at a remote cabin in the woods, a young girl and her parents are taken hostage by four armed strangers who demand they make an unthinkable choice to avert the apocalypse. Confused, scared and with limited access to the outside world, the family must decide what they believe before all is lost.

Over time, I think M. Night Shyamalan is gradually becoming one of my favourite directors. While there are definitely a few movies in his filmography which don’t really work, he usually is making an interesting movie in a distinct way that has my curiosity. His next movie looked intriguing, a home invasion thriller starring Dave Bautista, Jonathan Groff and Rupert Grint. I made sure to watch only the first trailer and went in fairly blind, and I was thoroughly impressed.

Knock at the Cabin is based on a novel called The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul G. Tremblay, which I haven’t read myself. Shyamalan is known for twists and complex plots, and so most people are going into the film expecting that. However, there’s little of that and it’s a fairly straightforward plot. Within the first act, the central dilemma is clearly presented to the main characters and the audience. The lack of a twist might bother people who were expecting it, but it worked for the story. The runtime certainly is in line with the complexity of the plot, with it being only 100 minutes long. It’s a very lean film that just has the essentials yet doesn’t feel underdeveloped. This is Shyamalan’s most contained film, with it focussing on just these characters at the cabin.  Every so often the movie will cut to a flashback of the main characters, and it not only did reveals things and provides context to them, it also gives welcome breathers between the tense present day scenes at the cabin. I found the movie to actually be quiet hard hitting and emotional. The central family’s story is handled quite well, and is quiet possibly the most human story that Shyamalan has made. There’s plenty of thematic stuff at play, belief, doubts, faith in humanity, and it almost seems reminiscent of the themes of Signs. Shyamalan’s writing has been criticised for being awkward, mainly with the dialogue. While I somewhat agreed with those criticisms, by the time Old came out, I just sort of took it as a part of his style that made his movies distinct. There is some stiff and awkward dialogue in Knock at the Cabin, but I got used to it after a while. From what I can tell, the novel it’s based on had a much different ending and so I can imagine that readers of that book might not like the direction the movie takes at the end. However, I think it works for what Shyamalan was going for.

There is a limited cast who all deliver excellent work here, in fact I think it’s the best overall collection of performances in a Shyamalan movie. The major family as played by Jonathan Groff, Ben Aldridge and Kirsten Cui are great; the family dynamic is one of the key parts of the movie and is beautifully written, and is only further strengthen by their performances. Groff particularly ends up being the heart of the film. The actors who played the 4 invaders in Dave Bautista, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Abby Quinn and Rupert Grint are all good, presenting their characters and their feelings well. Dave Bautista who shone the most in the whole movie, giving probably his best performance yet. As the leader of this group that gives the family a moral dilemma, he infuses so much humanity in this role. He could’ve just been a menacing villain, which we could easily play. Instead, he is earnest, sincere, soft spoken and reserved and you can really tell that he doesn’t want to do the things he’s doing.

While people are mixed about his writing, I feel confident in saying that M. Night Shyamalan is a really solid filmmaker. He does well with filming suspense and has a distinct style. Knock at the Cabin just might be his best direction for a movie yet. It is absolutely his best shot movie, the camera movements are creative and fantastic, the angles generate the right feelings needed, and the close ups of faces really helped whether it was increasing tension or capturing the emotions of the characters. Between that, the editing and the score, Shyamalan does well at creating a strong atmosphere.

Knock at the Cabin is a tense, lean, intimate and gripping thriller, outstandingly directed and with fantastic performances. Regardless of your thoughts on M. Night Shyamalan’s past movies, I think it is well worth checking out, and I consider it to be amongst his best.

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023) Review

Time: 114 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, sexual references & offensive language
Cast:
Jason Statham as Orson Fortune
Aubrey Plaza as Sarah Fidel
Josh Hartnett as Danny Francesco
Cary Elwes as Nathan Jasmine
Bugzy Malone as J.J. Davies
Hugh Grant as Greg Simmonds
Director: Guy Ritchie

Elite spy Orson Fortune must track down and stop the sale of a deadly new weapons technology wielded by billionaire arms broker Greg Simmonds. Reluctantly teamed up with some of the world’s best operatives, Fortune and his crew recruit Hollywood’s biggest movie star, Danny Francesco, to help them on their globe-trotting mission to save the world.

Operation Fortune was one of my more anticipated movies of 2022. Guy Ritchie was on a pretty good streak recently with The Gentlemen and Wrath of Man, with those being among his best films. His next movie would be a spy film starring Jason Statham and it was intended to release in 2022. However it was delayed to the next year seemingly because of the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, since the movie features villains that happen to be of Ukrainian nationality. As a consequence however, it ended up being dumped in cinemas at quite possibly the worst time: in January and a month after an Avatar film was released in cinemas. Which is a shame, because for all of Operation Fortune’s faults, it is still an entertaining movie.

Operation Fortune is a pretty standard spy flick, with a plot that isn’t anything special but is passable and serviceable. That being said, its never boring. There is some snappy humour with great comedic timing, witty and biting dialogue, and benefits from a fast pace.

The characters are pretty forgettable and aren’t memorable, but the cast are very entertaining and definitely help the movie. Jason Statham plays Jason Statham yet again, but he is very good at that. He is enjoyable despite not having a very interesting or dynamic character, and delivers on the action and comedy with ease. Cary Elwes and Josh Hartnett are really good, but the two standouts were Aubrey Plaza and Hugh Grant, both funny and were scene stealers.

Guy Ritchie work as director is pretty good, definitely less stylish compared to his other movies, but still has an effective style that makes it fun to watch. The action is entertaining and well-choreographed, and the cinematography is pretty good. Chris Benstead, who composed Ritchie’s past two movies The Gentlemen and Wrath of Man also composes the score for Operation Fortune, and again it adds a lot to the film.

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre isn’t one of Guy Ritchie’s best movies, it’s the type of movie that he could make in his sleep, which is a little disappointing. Its not even that much better than his other spy movie The Man from UNCLE. Still, it is a decent and entertaining spy flick, with fun action and an enjoyable cast, and might be worth checking out for that.