\’Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning\’ Review: This Is Why We Go to the Movies

Reviews /

I\’m going to state my biases upfront: I think Mission: Impossible is, without a doubt, one of the most impressive film franchises of all time. If you listened to the latest episode of Talkies, you already know I think it\’s only gotten better with age too. We recorded that episode the day after watching all seven previous movies back-to-back in a single day, a 16.5-hour marathon with only brief breaks for snacks and bathroom trips. Worth it!  Based on the 1960s TV series, the first Mission: Impossible film hit theaters in 1996 and marked a major turning point for Tom Cruise. Not only did he star in it, but he also took on the role of producer for the first time in his career. What’s made this franchise stand out over the decades is its evolving creative leadership. Each of the first five films had a different director: Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams, Brad Bird, and Christopher McQuarrie. Starting with Rogue Nation, McQuarrie took the reins as both writer and director, a role he’s continued through to today’s entry: The Final Reckoning. The mission we\’ve chosen to accept here at Screen Love Affair is to give you a spoiler-free review that still delivers the key takeaways. So if you\’re worried about plot reveals, rest easy, no intel will be compromised here. And for those eager to dive deeper into the classified stuff, don\’t worry! We’ve got a full spoiler-filled episode of Talkies on the way, where Brandon, Adriana, and I break it all down.  So without further ado: does The Final Reckoning light the fuse and go out with a bang or just fizzle out? My Thoughts Unsurprisingly, I have a TON to say about this movie and I\’ll save most of it for our spoiler chat on Talkies, but let\’s kick this off with the obvious part: the big set pieces.   Holy moly. I\’m not going to even talk about what they are (though if you\’ve seen the trailers or the posters, you\’re probably aware of at least one), but the first major set piece really surprised me. I didn\’t expect this particular sequence to even really be such a significant one. Oh, what a fool I am. Frankly, I should\’ve known better. As someone that lives and breathes the franchise, I\’ve listened to hours and hours of interviews with Cruise and McQuarrie about their approach to these films.  One such point was how they challenge themselves through challenging the characters. For example, in Dead Reckoning, there is a car chase sequence in Rome. But in classic Mission fashion, we can\’t just have a great car chase sequence in Rome. Ethan (Tom Cruise’s character) has to be handcuffed to another person as well! That, in essence, is how Crusie and McQuarrie approach Mission. Anyway, you\’ll know the sequence when you see it because it will absolutely fry your nerves. Adriana and I both watched it while holding our breath and wincing. And this isn\’t even the sequence that\’s all over the marketing materials! I have to admit, by the end of that first set piece, I was welling up too. Something about Ethan Hunt’s sheer determination fused with the movie magic unfolding on screen hit me hard. This is why I go to the movies! My only real gripe with the set pieces is that there just weren’t enough of them. For a movie that runs close to three hours, I wouldn’t have minded one or two more standout moments. That’s probably just me being greedy, though because the two we do get are arguably among the best in the franchise, and honestly, some of the best ever put to film. I mentioned Dead Reckoning earlier, and that brings up another point worth clarifying for those that might not be aware. Initially, the title of the last film was Dead Reckoning: Part One, but eventually the “Part One” was dropped. However, that doesn\’t mean these movies aren\’t still part of the same story, because they very much are. From the key that was the focus of Dead Reckoning, to the Entity and Gabriel, all of those elements are back. But it\’s not *just* a Dead Reckoning sequel. It\’s very much focused on the whole franchise, and I think this is where the movie stumbles a bit for me.  In those hours of interviews and podcasts, one thing I\’ve heard McQuarrie say is that he never wants an audience member to have to experience other movies in order to enjoy this one. With Mission 5-7, I think this was executed brilliantly, but in The Final Reckoning, they struggle to fit all of these links to the previous films in a more organic way. Especially in the first act, the movie really feels bogged down by the implications of its title and it struggles to weave a natural thread through all seven previous movies. Many of the previous movies are very distinct in their own right, and are part of a franchise that has resisted the urge to be a more serialized entity (pun intended).  There\’s even a montage of the earlier films near the beginning and much of the table setting in the first act is to ensure a new audience could be brought up to speed for The Final Reckoning, even if you haven\’t seen the seven other movies that preceded it. Unfortunately, this is the first time I felt like my experience as a longtime fan was compromised in favour of accommodating a less invested audience. Now, I will say, as clumsy as some of this table-setting is, some other aspects callbacks are perfect. On the bad side, this amounts to a bit of a bloated first act and a moment in particular that just didn\’t work for me, that felt more akin to an MCU-esque moment that surely only old fans of the franchise would even care about (which I guess makes my MCU comparison even more apt). On the positive side, the use of

\’Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning\’ Review: This Is Why We Go to the Movies Read More »

\’Clown in a Cornfield\’ Review – A Slasher That’s More Corny Than Clever

Reviews /

It\’s no secret that I love the horror genre. From classic slashers to the more modern era of “elevated horror” (not my favourite term), there\’s so many interesting and unique things to experience in the genre.  When I saw the trailer for Clown in a Cornfield at the theatre I was intrigued, but skeptical. I was a big fan of Tucker and Dale vs Evil, a horror comedy directed and co-written by Eli Craig, who is the co-writer and director for this. But the trailer lacked some of that originality or self awareness that Craig\’s previous movie had and looked like a very generic horror slasher with a clown.  The film stars Katie Douglas, Aaron Abrams, Carson MacCormac, Kevin Durand, and Will Sasso. Douglas is our lead, Quinn, who moves from Philadelphia to the small town of Kettle Springs, Missouri. The psuedo town mascot is Frendo the clown, the actual mascot for the Baypen factory that historically has been the economic lifeblood of the community before it recently burned down.  So, is Clown in a Cornfield a-maize-ing fun, or just another corny catastrophe? My Thoughts Unfortunately, some of my instincts about this one were spot on. It\’s not all bad though, and I\’ll start with what I liked!  The Fendo costume and the kills were solid. They were a bit more gnarly than I was expecting (complimentary) and a bit more bloody too. So much of the movie takes place in the dark though, so much of that gore is hidden away by that.  There were also some jokes I liked throughout. There were flashes of smart humour, particularly around the Gen Z and baby boomer divide that were funny.  The cast in this was fine, too. Nobody stood out as incredibly good or bad, but this is also where I\’m going to pivot to the negatives. While I didn\’t think performances were bad, the characters on the page were definitely worse. The dialogue, especially at the beginning, was super clunky and inorganic, and the characters we\’re introduced to really are paper thin and cliched horror movie characters.  Speaking of cliches, this script was absolutely FILLED with them. Now, I admittedly haven\’t read the book this is based on to have an opinion on it as an adaptation, but as a movie on its own, I struggle to think of experience I\’ve had that was more basic and by the numbers than this was. The narrative “twists” (and I never had used that term this loosely before) are so obvious and apparent from the outset basically that it gave me the feeling as if I had actually read the books and knew what to expect. Beyond that though, it\’s all in here. We got city folk moving to the small town, we got the rowdy young kids and the grumpy boomers, we got a killer clown, we got a final girl that was forced to move here against her wishes (which of course is causing conflict with her dad), we got weird neighbors, we have sudden emotional backstories delivered via exposition, we\’ve got small town parades, we\’ve got a mayor (I think, anyway) delivering the big speech about small town values, we\’ve got jocks, highschool bullies, and yes, parties in a barn out by the cornfield. By no means is this list comprehensive either. I\’m intentionally not listing other cliches that would spoil parts of the film.  However, this on its own isn\’t a point of negativity. Lots of movies, especially in the horror genre, are formulaic. However, the biggest sin this movie commits is that it does absolutely nothing, outside basically a single throwaway line, to acknowledge this or do anything with it. Tucker and Dale vs Evil was so funny, particularly in the first two acts, because it played with those stereotypes in a unique and fun way. My only issue with that movie is that the third act becomes a very generic horror movie, and unfortunately that\’s where Clown in a Cornfield starts and ends.  As always, I want to keep details as vague as possible so as to not give things away, but the last point I needed to mention is the Gen Z vs Boomer dynamic of it all. I\’m a millenial, so I\’m not in either camp here, but the heavy handedness at points about this dynamic made my eyes roll out of my head. Delivering a big speech about how a generation is destroying the planet while the other has no respect for tradition at climatic moments just didn\’t work for me at all and it screamed inauthentic, surface, and hollow.  Verdict Clown in a Cornfield has a few solid kills and the occasional laugh, but it\’s buried under so many clichés it might as well be six feet deep. Unless you\’re brand new to horror, you\’ve seen this all before. Still, if you\’re Gen Z and the premise still grabs you, it\’s playing in theatres now!

\’Clown in a Cornfield\’ Review – A Slasher That’s More Corny Than Clever Read More »

\’Final Destination Bloodlines\’ Review – Death Is Back and Better Than Ever

Reviews /

It\’s been 14 years since the last Final Destination movie and I, for one, thought the franchise was dead and buried. Thankfully, Final Destination Bloodlines, the sixth instalment in the series, brings some fresh blood to the lineage. I have a fondness for the Final Destination films, particularly the first three. As a kid, I spent a handful of summers at a cottage near Otter Lake. There was a small convenience store nearby that rented out DVDs. Our cottages came equipped with a DVD player, so us kids would trek over to the store and peruse the shelf and bring back the latest horror movies they had. This is how I watched most of the Saw franchise and the first three Final Destination movies. I was definitely too young to be watching these movies, and the gruesome mass accidents stayed with me. For the longest time, I couldn\’t pass by a log truck on the highway without flashing back to the opening sequence of Final Destination 2. The idea that you could die horrifically in a freak accident tapped into some primal fear that I, and probably many others, had about the arbitrariness of death. Don\’t get me wrong, these are not \”good\” movies. There\’s nothing elevated about the horror in the Final Destination films, but that\’s what makes them so fun. If you\’ve seen one, you know exactly what you\’re going to get with the rest. Someone gets a premonition of a gnarly freak accident with mass casualties and then stops it, narrowly evading Death, who subsequently comes knocking to claim the lives of those who escaped him one by one in increasingly elaborate and unlikely Rube Goldberg-like machinations involving everyday objects and scenarios. Bloodlines doesn\’t reinvent the formula, but it doesn\’t have to. After 14 years, something as silly and fun as this is a welcome change in the horror landscape. It scratches a similar itch as The Monkey did, which I aptly compared to Final Destination in the over-the-top silliness and gore of its deaths. If anything, Bloodlines feels right at home in the 2000s sensibility of the early Final Destination movies. It lacks any sense of specificity, and I say that as something that works in its favour. If the movie mentioned a specific city in which it was set, I can\’t remember it. Aside from modern-looking cell phones and cars, there\’s little sense that it takes place in a specific time, either. But it all works, because no one is coming to Final Destination for astute socio-cultural commentary—we\’re here to see a bunch of people we don\’t really care about die in creatively gruesome ways. The biggest compliment I can give Bloodlines is that it understands the assignment. The opening sequence is excellent, right up there with the best of the franchise, with a cheeky knowingness and humour that sets the tone right off the bat. While I said there\’s nothing revolutionary here, what Bloodlines does bring is a sense of self-awareness that brings the franchise into a new era and makes it fit for horror audiences who have seen it all. The movie plays with expectations in a way that feels satisfying for both fans and newcomers, with a number of great pay-offs and subversions. The cast is also refreshingly made up largely of unknown or little-known actors, who all do a solid job. Among them, Richard Harmon\’s Erik stands out as the snarky piercing-laden, tattoo-clad comic relief character. The late, legendary Tony Todd (Candyman, Final Destination), in his final film role, also brings some gravitas in his brief but memorable appearance. If I have one gripe, it\’s that the movie could have benefitted from a slightly tighter runtime and a less rushed finale, but it never felt like it dragged too much. Ultimately, this is just a very fun movie. It\’s not too serious, it\’s clever and funny and gory, if a little too reliant on CGI blood. While it tries to make us care a little about the characters and their dramatic backstories, it undercuts those moments of seriousness in just the right ways. It\’s been a long time since I\’ve seen any of the other films in the franchise, but if anything, Bloodlines might even be the most polished movie in the series to date. Verdict Go see Final Destination Bloodlines with a group of friends in the most packed theatre you can find, and I guarantee you\’ll have at least a fun time. For a largely dead franchise\’s sixth entry, Bloodlines is surprisingly on the ball, with a fresh take on the formula, a great sense of humour and of audience expectations, and a game cast that gets to die in ridiculous(ly fun) ways.

\’Final Destination Bloodlines\’ Review – Death Is Back and Better Than Ever Read More »

\’Sharp Corner\’ Review – Ben Foster Shines in This Solid Slow-Burn Thriller

Reviews /

Listen, when I read about the premise of this movie on Twitter, I thought it seemed silly, but when I realized Ben Foster was the lead, I was much more interested.  Sharp Corner is about a family that moves into a new home located right on the bend of a very, wait for it, sharp corner where horrific car accidents keep happening. As many of you may know, I try to get as little information as possible about a movie before going in and I really don\’t like trailers, but to help set some expectations, this is much more of a descent into madness type of thriller that\’s darker tonally than the silly premise might suggest.  Ben Foster, like I mentioned before, is what really drew me to this movie. You may have seen Foster in movies like the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma or Hell or High Water. He\’s fantastic in everything I\’ve seen him in, but especially in Hell or High Water and this role gives him a chance to play someone unlike other people he\’s played.  So does Sharp Corner deliver thrilling turns, or should you steer clear before it wrecks your night? My Thoughts Let\’s start with the obvious part. Foster absolutely kills it in this movie. He plays Josh in the film, a mild mannered guy with a wife and son (played by Cobie Smulders and William Kosovic, respectively) that seems very happy to more or less sit back in life. Foster sells this meekness so well in the earliest parts of the movie and gives an authenticity to a character that we\’ve seen plenty of times before.  As he becomes increasingly affected by these accidents that are happening at his home, he shines with subtle changes and tweaks to the performance that feel true to the character were introduced to. While he doesn\’t get much in the way of any crazy over the top kind of moments, which I really love, I also really appreciated the restraint to not go in that direction.  Foster really is the star of the show for this movie and it relies heavily (or almost even exclusively) on his shoulders, and he more than makes this movie worth a watch for his performance alone.  Keeping with the positives, I really loved the sound mixing in this movie! After the first accident we see, a lot of time is spent in the house and the background noise from the road is constantly heard. We could be eating dinner, talking in the kitchen, or whatever, but we hear every time a car approaches that corner. This builds a sort of tension, where at any minute an accident can plausibly occur.  Having only seen the movie once, I\’m not sure if it was something they did, or if I just noticed it more as the movie went along, but I felt like it became more prominent as Josh’s obsession with these accidents grows. Whether it was because it was getting louder or more noticeable or because I was becoming more focused on another potential crash, this was an amazing touch that really made the movie draw stronger feelings out of me.  Moving on, I felt it was paced pretty well overall, but it definitely felt a bit slower as we approached the ending. I felt like this could have worked even better with 10 less minutes of it. It\’s not even 2 hours long, so the pacing issues didn\’t hurt it too badly or anything.  Once the movie gets going though, you immediately know where things are going and more or less how they will end up. For this movie, I think that\’s fine. It doesn\’t need some crazy twist or reveal or something weird for it to work. Between the interesting set-up and the performance from Foster, it\’s enough to keep you engaged even if you\’re not going to be surprised along the way.  Ultimately, what held me back the most from this movie was that despite the great performance, I just never got to a level where my emotions felt very strong about the movie itself. The stakes are relatively small throughout and we don\’t get enough from the family at the beginning, or really as the movie progresses, to bring out any strong emotional attachment to them. So when things start going bad, I felt that I was more interested in it than I cared about it.  Verdict When it\’s all said and done, I liked this movie! While it didn\’t reach any kind of emotional highs, I was compelled enough by Ben Foster\’s performance to be interested in the story and Josh’s obsession and descent into madness as the movie went on.  The technical side of the movie was very solid and enhanced the immersion effectively. This is only the second feature film for Canadian director Jason Buxton, and I was wholly impressed by him.  Sharp Corner is in theatres now, so grab your tickets and check this one out! 

\’Sharp Corner\’ Review – Ben Foster Shines in This Solid Slow-Burn Thriller Read More »

\’No Experience Necessary\’ Review – Everhard’s Talent Isn’t Just Emerging, It’s Arrived

Reviews /

I’ve got a confession: I used to scoff at short films. I never even watched the Oscar-nominated ones. But writer/director Emily Everhard has shown me how wrong I was. Shorts aren’t just stepping stones, they’re vital training grounds for fresh voices and bold ideas. Whiplash, The Babadook, and Napoleon Dynamite all started as shorts. In a world where every seemingly every movie costs $150 million, short films are where creativity thrives. And thanks to Emily, I’m officially done sleeping on them. You might remember Emily from my previous review of Special Delivery, an incredibly funny short film about a foley artist that falls for porn star during an ADR session. I absolutely loved it and when I was given the chance to review No Experience Necessary, Everhard’s latest short, I couldn’t say no.  No Experience Necessary premiered at the 35th Aspen Shortsfest, an Oscar-qualifying film festival recognized as one of the premier short film festivals in North America, and received the Jury Special Mention in Comedy! Does it reaffirm my newfound love for short films though, or was it a short-lived affair? My Thoughts No Experience Necessary, stars Brenda Wehle as Agatha, an elderly widow with two left feet (literally) who rediscovers joy when she enrolls in a dance class.  There’s two things that stick out to me most in Emily’s work: how funny they are but also how sincere they feel. The humour in this is a bit more understated than in Special Delivery, coming mostly from the radio or her answering machine in this one, but what it lacks in big laughs, it more than makes up for with genuine heart.  Brenda Wehle is excellent as Agatha who can convey so much emotion with just a look. Despite being a certified grandma’s boy, the fact I was so bought in was all due to the performance and the perfectly crafted moments in this short. Speaking of the craft, this looks top notch. Some shorts can lack visual polish just by their nature, but this just looks so clean. Emily’s confidence behind the camera is evident and it allowed me to quickly jump into the story without being distracted by any technical issues or imperfections.  I’m also impressed with the writing here. It’s not super flashy or anything, but my god is it clever and effective. It’s crazy how effortlessly I can completely fall into the wavelength of both of Emily’s shorts. It avoids feeling too melodramatic, which is often something that short’s rely on to try and draw out some feelings from the viewer, but in No Experience Necessary, the sincerity and authenticity shines through. It also manages to perfectly balance the sincere moments with the humour, so you don’t experience any tonal whiplash, which is all the more impressive when you remember this is a story where the main character has two left feet and signs up for a dance class. More than anything else though, I’m just so glad to watch something so genuine, optimistic, and uplifting.  Verdict Someone give Emily Everhard some money and let her COOK! I’ve seen two of her shorts now, and both blew me away. As someone who watches hundreds of movies a year, I’m constantly craving something that feels fresh, and Emily delivers it like it’s effortless.  I’ve talked a lot, both in reviews and on Talkies, about movies that give us a flash of boldness but fall back on clichés and manufactured emotion that create something that ultimately feels disjointed. Emily’s work avoids these issues completely though. She seamlessly weaves absurdity, comedy, and heart with a confidence that feels rare, even amongst big budget features. No Experience Necessary isn’t just a strong short, it’s proof that Emily Everhard is ready to take the next step into features. And when she does, I’ll be the first in line to watch it!

\’No Experience Necessary\’ Review – Everhard’s Talent Isn’t Just Emerging, It’s Arrived Read More »

\’Opus\’ Review – Malkovich Mesmerizes, but Does the Movie?

Reviews /

Opus is the directorial debut for writer/director Mark Anthony Green and stars Ayo Edebiri as Ariel Ecton, our main character and an aspiring writer, and John Malkovich as Alfred Moretti, a musician with a Prince-esque aura and the global popularity of Michael Jackson.  The synopsis reads: “A young writer is invited to the remote compound of a legendary pop star who mysteriously disappeared thirty years ago. Surrounded by the star\’s cult of sycophants and intoxicated journalists, she finds herself in the middle of his twisted plan.” The film is still listed on Google as a musical/horror which it most certainly is not. There are no musical numbers in the traditional sense, but there is music throughout the movie. I’d personally classify this as more of a thriller but I’ll talk more about that later.  So, is Opus as compelling as John Malkovich? Let’s talk! My Thoughts First, let’s clear the air about the genre. I went into this movie without seeing a trailer or anything and all I knew was that Google listed it as a musical/horror. I love horror movies but I’m decidedly much less enthusiastic about traditional musicals and I was expecting that I’d strongly dislike the movie as a result. I said if I had to pick a genre, I’d call it a thriller but even that feels like a bit of a stretch because there aren’t many thrills to be had here either.  That’s probably my biggest issue with the movie overall too. You’ve probably seen movies like this a ton, especially in the last handful of years even. We’ve got it all including a cult compound in a remote area, creepy people, odd quasi-religious ideas, and even murder to make a point about something. Some movies can afford to be formulaic if they have a standout element, and Opus achieves that with the perfect casting of John Malkovich. I’m a known Nicolas Cage fan, so odd, eccentric performances really work for me and from the first moment we see Malkovich, you could tell he was having a lot of fun with this role. Because of his unique aura as an actor, you immediately are able to buy in that he’s a global phenomenon with a magnetic amount of charisma, or rizz, as the kids say these days.  I was even enamoured by the music. They definitely had Malkovich work on the songs and I have been listening to them so much I won’t be surprised if some of them end up in my Spotify Top 5 this year. I admittedly started listening as part of the bit, amused hearing Malkovich sing these songs, but before I knew it I was just enjoying them for what they are.  On the other hand, Ayo Ediberi was just fine for me in this. I usually like her, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that she was just playing the same character from The Bear. She definitely isn’t bad, it’s just that she didn’t stand out enough for me in this.  The supporting cast was also largely forgettable unfortunately, with most of them being largely silent cultists or hollow stereotypes. I also blame this mostly on the script though. In Ayo’s case, we don’t really get to dive into her character in a more meaningful way. There’s a scene right at the beginning where we get some idea of her aspirations, but then it’s mostly just her moving through the different plot beats. The rest of the characters feel more utilitarian than anything, and even the reasons for their existence within the narrative are mentioned in a single line at the end of the movie.  This lack of depth also extended to some of the themes in the movie too. I won’t get into spoilers (but listen to our podcast episode about Opus here for our spoiler-filled thoughts), but the whole religion/doctrine of this cult is barely explored and I felt like this really blunted the impact of the ending. This is extra disappointing because I did like the ending enough and the potential to be a bit more impactful was there, they just didn’t reach deep enough to get there.  There is some decent visual style to the movie, including this cool thing they do to characters\’ eyes when they’re watching Moretti perform. There’s some decent laughs throughout too and I loved all the Better Call Saul/Breaking Bad overlaps.  Verdict Maybe it’s just because my expectations were at rock bottom, but after much deliberation, I’m giving this a slightly positive score. The overdone plot and shallow characters hold it back, but I still had a good time, mostly thanks to Malkovich who single-handedly keeps this movie afloat. Without him, it would be a score lower easily. That said, it’s a solid first effort from Mark Anthony Green, and I’m curious to see what he can do with more experience under his belt!

\’Opus\’ Review – Malkovich Mesmerizes, but Does the Movie? Read More »

\’Novocaine\’ Review – Jack Quaid Takes a Beating in This Fun Action Comedy

Reviews /

R.E.M. told us that everybody hurts, but do they? Jack Quaid, who plays Nate in Novocaine, the latest release from Paramount Pictures, certainly doesn’t.   Nate is a lonely, mild-mannered assistant manager at a local bank who has a rare disorder that prevents him from feeling pain. After falling for his co-worker Sherry, played by Amber Midthunder, their bank is robbed and Sherry is taken hostage. Fueled by love, Nate sets out on a mission to rescue the girl of his dreams. That’s all you really should know going into this movie. As always, I checked out the trailers after watching the movie and I definitely suggest you avoid them if you’re interested in checking this one out. It’s not the kind of movie with massive twists and turns, but so many moments that I enjoyed while I watched are shown in the trailer that I’m grateful I was able to experience the whole movie without knowing certain moments were coming. If you need a taste of the marketing, the best promo for this movie came from Jack Quaid himself at a Clippers game, where he looked more beat up as the night went on. The film was directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen and was written by Lars Jacobson. Quaid and Midthunder are joined by Ray Nicholson, Jacob Batalon, Betty Gabriel, and Matt Walsh who flesh out the supporting cast in this action comedy film. Nicholson (yes he’s Jack Nicholson’s son) plays one of the bank robbers, while Batalon plays Nate’s gaming buddy, and Gabriel and Walsh play detectives working to solve the case.  So, did Novocaine leave me love-struck or did I wish I was numb to the whole thing? Let’s dive in! My Thoughts Honestly, it might have been a general lack of awareness about the marketing and pretty minimal expectations, but I had a lot of fun with this movie!  First off, I’m a sucker for a good needle drop and this movie has some absolutely fantastic ones, including right at the beginning of the opening credits. From the opening titles though to one of my all time favourite songs from The Darkness, they absolutely nailed these song choices and they work so well at these certain points in the movie. It’s not a make or break kind of thing, but it can’t be overstated how much fun a stellar soundtrack can be.  Anyway, song choices aren’t the only parts I liked. Jack Quaid as Nate was so perfect. I first saw Quaid in The Boys and most recently in Companion (not ‘The’ Companion, Brandon) and he definitely knows how to use his physicality (or, I guess, lack thereof) to his advantage in these different roles. In Companion he plays a dweeby bastard to perfection, but in Novocaine he’s much closer to his performance as Hughie in The Boys. He’s definitely a sheltered dork, but he has an undeniable charm and likability to him that made me immediately drawn to him and invested in his well-being.  It’s because of this care I had for his character that makes what he endures so impactful as an audience member too. He may not be able to feel pain, but I felt some of that pain on his behalf as the movie progressed. This was another high point of the movie for me, too, because I was really impressed with how well they play with the premise and how well they build up the moments that genuinely had me and others in our audience audibly groan in anticipation of what’s going to happen or wincing when it finally does. Whether I was laughing, wincing, or groaning though, I was constantly engaged and invested in these moments and really had a lot of fun with them. I was a bit more mixed with some of the writing though. There were some nifty little moments that I won’t spoil here that surprised me and felt like clever little departures I didn’t expect the movie to make, but there were also moments where the cliches and some cheesy melodramatic lines made my eyes roll a little bit. It’s definitely a more middling script, but the main cast and their chemistry in particular elevated the material. Speaking of the main cast, I was blown away by how much I enjoyed the first act of the movie, particularly with how much I bought into Nate and Sherry. The chemistry between Quaid and Midthunder was fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed their dynamic. I think this was so important for making the rest of the movie work, because if you really want him to save her, it makes you more engaged as the adventure unfolds. It’s not like I was deeply emotionally invested or anything, but I was eager as I was watching it and it definitely made a big impact on my viewing experience. I can’t say the same for all of the supporting cast though. At best, I thought Walsh and, to a lesser degree, Gabriel were fine as the detectives investigating the robbery. They don’t have crazy prominent roles or anything, I just didn’t really care for them much when they were on screen. I was also mixed on Jacob Batalon, as Nate’s gaming buddy. He had some good moments, but I found his comedic relief character was more distracting and less funny in a movie that didn’t really need his character to add more comedy. Nicholson unfortunately did absolutely nothing for me as the main bad guy. He didn’t draw strong feelings out of me either way, so I didn’t really hate his character or anything, but I also didn’t think he did anything to stand out as an over the top villain either. These gripes are all fairly minor though as Quaid and Midthunder were the most prominent roles and they definitely both nailed it.  The only other real issue I had was with the runtime and pacing. The movie sort of stumbled into the credits as it lost some

\’Novocaine\’ Review – Jack Quaid Takes a Beating in This Fun Action Comedy Read More »

\’Mickey 17\’ Review: Essential Sci-Fi or Expendable Mess?

Reviews /

It\’s been quite a few years since Parasite swept the Oscars, but director Bong Joon-ho is finally back, with a return to his genre roots. Based on the novel Mickey7, Mickey 17 is a comedic science fiction story set in a near-future in which humans have begun to explore and colonize other planets. Escaping financial difficulties on Earth, the hapless Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) signs up for one such expedition as an \”expendable\”—a job that involves dying for the cause only to be re-printed as a clone with the same memories over and over—selling not just his time and labour but his literal life and body. This is the endpoint of capitalism: human life made expendable for colonization and profit. The body under capitalism is no longer your own—it\’s the property of the corporation, to be consumed over and over. And the corporation is not just the corporation, but also church, state, and military all rolled into one. If the anti-capitalist bent sounds a little heavy-handed, that\’s because it is. That\’s kinda Bong\’s whole thing, but the sledgehammer is particularly unsubtle in Mickey 17. For instance, while Mark Ruffalo isn\’t quite doing a straight-up Trump impersonation, it\’s close enough (his character\’s fanatical followers all wear red hats, for one). He walks that line very well, though, giving a performance that just about reaches the same level of fun he was having in Poor Things, his unhinged energy matched perfectly by Toni Collette, who plays his sauce-obsessed trophy wife. In general, this is a much more comedic and over-the-top movie than Parasite. While some of the goofiness and quirk probably won\’t work for everyone, it is an utterly unique movie nonetheless. There are quite a few laughs to be had here, even if the crowd I saw it with felt a bit muted. I can see the experience really being elevated by a good crowd. That\’s not to say I didn\’t have fun, because I did. It\’s hard not to get a kick out of Robert Pattinson\’s excellent chemistry with Robert Pattinson. He is, by far, the best part of this movie, giving a fantastic performance as Mickey in all his iterations. He\’s one of the most compelling working actors we\’ve got, and the physicality and voice work he does here is some of the best he\’s done yet (with an assist from the excellent VFX and body double work that went into cloning him on screen). If nothing else, the movie is worth seeing for Pattinson alone. But there is a lot more to this film than that central performance, for better and worse. The movie has some interesting world-building and raises a lot of very meaty philosophical questions, but where it falls short is in actually diving deeper into its themes and resolving all of its many threads. There are subplots and side characters that don\’t really go anywhere very satisfying, and the pacing feels somewhat off. While not the most egregiously paced film I\’ve seen, I could definitely feel the 2 hour 17 minute runtime and felt like the movie could have shed a few subplots to really explore some of the more interesting philosophical and political questions it raises. While far from terrible, this is not nearly as sharp or tight as, say, Parasite or even Snowpiercer, which feels a lot more focused despite treading in similar genre territory and having a similarly on-the-nose approach to its thematic concerns. Despite these flaws, I still had a good time with this one. The cast is amazing across the board, the creatures and humour and oddness mostly all work, and it\’s all anchored around a standout performance(s) from Pattinson. I just wish it had all come together a bit more neatly. Verdict Mickey 17 has all the hallmarks of a great Bong Joon-ho film: in-your-face anti-capitalist messaging, cute/terrifying CGI creatures, oddball non-sequitur humour, and a snowy sci-fi backdrop. Robert Pattinson acts the hell out of a multi-faceted role, and the movie explores some very interesting themes and ideas, which all makes for an enjoyable experience. However, its lack of sharp direction and slightly bloated pacing situate this as a lower-tier entry in Bong\’s filmography.

\’Mickey 17\’ Review: Essential Sci-Fi or Expendable Mess? Read More »

Companion Review – A Killer Weekend Getaway with a Few Bumps in the Road

Reviews /

Companion is a movie that I think is best enjoyed if you know absolutely nothing about it. I watched the trailers after I saw the movie and I implore you to not watch them if you plan to watch this movie, because it gives too much away.  I managed to dodge the trailers, but just before I went to see the movie, a friend of mine texted me what the premise was and it ruined a reveal that happens in the first quarter or so of the movie. Thanks Kevin!  All you need to know going in is that Companion is a black comedy thriller that stars Sophie Thatcher and Jack Quaid as Iris and Josh, a couple who are on a weekend getaway with friends at a remote cottage, and bad things start happening.  This was written and directed by Drew Hancock, in his feature film debut. The marketing also leaned into the fact that Zach Cregger, the director of Barbarian (a movie I adored), was the producer on it.  So with that out of the way, is Companion worth bringing along for the ride, or should you leave this one behind? My Thoughts First things first, I want to say this was a very solid debut film for writer/director Drew Hancock. The film was competently directed, and if you watch it a second time (or know what the premise is) there are some clever hints and nods to the big reveal in the first act. While they wait to make the first reveal clear, there are some pretty fun and clever hints about it for viewers to pick up on.  That also leads me into more of my problems with the script though. Even if you don’t see this early twist coming, what disappointed me most was how untrusting the movie feels of the audience. When things go bad, it’s immediately clear who did something to cause the issue, even if it’s not 100% obvious what was done. This sort of heavy-handedness permeates throughout the movie and while it doesn’t take away from the movie completely, it absolutely impacted my enjoyment.  However, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that I disliked this movie, because I didn’t. These are ultimately minor bumps in the road for what was a well-acted and fun little thriller.  The cast is fantastic. This is the second movie I’ve seen Sophie Thatcher in recently, the first being last year’s Heretic. I’ve been very impressed with her in both of these movies and I thought she balances the challenges of this role incredibly well. Jack Quaid was also great as a less-than-likable boyfriend, too. I haven’t seen him much outside of The Boys, where he plays a much kinder person. The line between a nice guy and an entitled douchebag is thin, though, and he absolutely nailed this role. The supporting cast is also solid, even if they didn’t exactly standout in any real big ways.  The comedic elements of the movie really landed for me throughout the first two acts, but as we get into the third act, the comedic tone is mostly abandoned for a bit more of a serious one. It was a bit jarring for me, especially considering how much fun I was having at the beginning. I will give it credit because the movie doesn’t get as over-dramatic and serious as other movies, but it did lose a bit of steam for me as the jokes subside for a more cliched ending.  I’m a bit cautious to say much more than this here because I really think this movie is best enjoyed knowing as little as possible. Verdict I definitely recommend you give this movie a watch, preferably with some friends at the theatre if you can! I saw this with Sam and Adriana and I definitely think the humorous moments land even better when you’re sharing a laugh with others. While I didn’t love it, I definitely enjoyed it. The first two acts were great and even though the third act faltered a bit for me, it was still solid and delivered a great payoff that I was waiting basically the whole movie to experience.  If you want to hear more of my spoiler-filled thoughts, be sure to check out Talkies wherever you get your podcasts, because Adriana, Brandon, and I will be talking about this in our next episode! In the meantime though, bring your own companions and see this one soon!

Companion Review – A Killer Weekend Getaway with a Few Bumps in the Road Read More »

Grand Theft Hamlet Review – To Play or Not to Play?

Reviews /

I admit, when I heard of Grand Theft Hamlet, I thought it was a joke. It was described as “an immersive take on William Shakespeare’s Hamlet shot entirely in GTA 5.” For those who may not be gamers, Grand Theft Auto 5 is one of the biggest and most profitable games of all time. A bulk of this money came from the online side of the game, aptly titled GTA Online, and this film is recorded entirely in that virtual world. If you’ve ever tried it before, you would know GTA Online is a chaotic and often ruthless place to be, which makes it all the more impressive to see what was done here.  Grand Theft Hamlet was directed by Sam Crane and Pinny Grylls and chronicles the experience of Sam and his friend Mark Oosterveen as they attempt to cast and produce a live, virtual production of William Shakespeare\’s play Hamlet in GTA Online during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.  The last thing I’ll say to preface this review is that it’s more of a documentary than a showcase of the actual production. The initial tagline I mentioned meant I was more ready to watch their version of Hamlet, which you get glimpses of, but we don’t see the whole thing.  So, was Grand Theft Hamlet a noble effort or was it madness, method or not? My Thoughts I watched this movie a few weeks before I sat down to write this review. I wanted to stew on this a bit more because I was admittedly conflicted after my initial watch and part of that was about my own expectations. I really don’t like when people criticize something for it “not being what they expected” because it’s not the movie’s job to be what you expect. This is a big reason I do my absolute best to avoid trailers and marketing materials before a movie is released because I don’t want to create a picture in my mind before I get to see it. In this case, I was expecting to actually watch the production of Hamlet they performed, but this was not that. But, with that said, after giving myself a bit more time to digest it all, I’m pleased with what was delivered instead.  What we got instead of that performance was a documentary about how they made their version of Hamlet, the cast of characters they met along the way to make it happen, and all the ups and downs that came with that. That’s what Grand Theft Hamlet is on a surface level, but more than that, I consider this up there with Bo Burnham’s Inside as one of the most poignant things to accurately capture the feelings of the pandemic era.  What really stands out to me all these weeks later were those human moments of struggling with the despair and isolation that came with the pandemic and how they managed to create a small community of people that shared the same goal and ambitions to get this done. But of course life didn’t wait for all of this to happen and I was surprised by how emotionally impactful one moment in particular was when the real world forced the team to regroup about the whole project after losing a key cast member. The impact this had, particularly on Mark, was significant, because unlike Sam and Pinny, Mark was living alone and this project was the only way he was really able to experience any human connection during lockdowns.  Another positive highlight was the GTA of it all. Constant random encounters with other players, many of which ended in death, the quirky costumes, and even the emotive acting from the cast using different gestures and such at key times was fantastic. I genuinely laughed a few times at these moments and they added an undeniable charm to the whole thing.  The only thing that holds me back from an outright glowing review is that I didn’t feel the same fulfillment that I would’ve hoped. All of this work and build-up leads to the big performance, which we see in bits and pieces in almost a montage type fashion, but I never felt as fulfilled as I wanted to after such a fantastic build-up. This lack of deeper emotion towards the end of the movie left me feeling a bit mixed overall as the credits hit. However, as time has passed, I feel that the journey was ultimately more important than the destination, and the journey in Grand Theft Hamlet was absolutely something special.  Verdict I never expected to feel this deeply about Grand Theft Hamlet, but here we are. What started as a concept that made me laugh at first glance turned into one of the most unexpectedly poignant films I have seen lately. Not only does it brilliantly capture the surreal isolation of the pandemic era but it also pushes the boundaries of what filmmaking can be, proving that even in the most unlikely places, like the chaotic world of GTA Online, art and human connection can thrive. It is worth watching for the sheer uniqueness alone, but I suspect its true impact will only grow with time. As we look back on the stories that truly encapsulate the pandemic’s emotional toll, Grand Theft Hamlet stands as an inventive, heartfelt and deeply human testament to making art against all odds. You can watch Grand Theft Hamlet right now on Mubi!

Grand Theft Hamlet Review – To Play or Not to Play? Read More »