ATLAS (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
If Ayn Rand were still alive, she would have shrugged with Atlas too.
Let's just get this out of the way: I don't care how others rate movies because usually they have some sort of agenda behind it; be it movie ticks, commissions, clout with publications, or $20 for a 5 star review on certain aggregate websites. I don't get any of that shit, so my opinions are purely unbiased. I stopped listening to what everyone else thinks a long time ago, so I could not tell you who or why anyone liked this film. That being said, this movie sucks.
I went into it the same way I do most movies I know nothing about: I will try to find something I like, no matter what, and that was the special effects were pretty damn good. I think if the director had a better screenplay to work with, it would have been a much more interesting film because the first 5 minutes were pretty damn good! The Rock's favorite director, Brad Peyton, tries his hand here with a script written by a guy nobody has ever heard of, so I don't think this entirely his fault. Then J Lo sticks her head in and the rest of the 120 minute run time is you looking at her tired, resting bitch face with flashing lights of the console reflecting off her frizzled, nappy ass hair and cracked foundation make-up enough to give a blind man epilepsy.
This movie was a chore to get through, needless to say.
The story is basically the same as any “Jenny From Da Block” movie you've ever seen: she is a scorned woman (this time by Artificial Intelligence) who has to overcome her differences to find love (this time with Artificial Intelligence) after fighting an uphill battle and discover more about herself than she thought was possible. This time, it's set in space! This also might be the third or fourth time a movie has straight up ripped off Exo Squad, that I continue to howl at the moon for since my childhood.
In all seriousness, I don't think Artificial Intelligence works that way, nor in the way they try to make it work in this movie. Of course, one could say that it “evolved o'er time” or whatever. Whenever I hear that, it reeks of lazy storytelling.
With all the bullshit hitting the fan with J Lo as of recent, I don't think anyone is asking for her to star in anything, but I'm sure she has mansions to pay for and publicists to ignore, so this must be par for the course with her career on stilts. She has to give away tickets to her own shows, so she definitely should not be resting her laurels on her acting career instead because those have never been all that great.
This $100 million shart went straight to Netflix, so as always, you will never get full disclosure on how much it made. It's easy to assume that it would have bombed if they released it in theaters, but let's steer away from hypotheticals and just call it a shitshow of a washed-up narcissist who liked being in that robot cockpit so she could smell her own farts. There are much better things to watch on Netflix, especially if you have 2 hours to kill.
1.5 out of 5
IF (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I think Hollywood is still trying to figure out what to do with Ryan Reynolds. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of the actor, but after they tried him out in rom coms and bewildering dramatic roles (Women In Gold, I'm looking at you) it seemed as if they wanted to try him out as a superhero which ended up working out just fine. The little stutter steps of Blade:Trinity and Green Lantern are forgivable, but not a lot of actors make it back from two huge flops like that. Three, if you count X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but he was such a fan of Deadpool that he snagged it before anyone else could. I can't really blame him though because Deadpool has always been my faves since appearing in the Rob Liefeld's X-Force when I was a kid, but I digress.
I bring that up because I don't remember a whole lot of this film, even though I saw it in the theater, but because I keep thinking of scenes from Free Guy instead (it was a much better movie). While I can understand the desire for his kids to see his movies, I can't help in thinking that he has slipped into that watered down version of his schtick to sleepwalk through some very expensive roles. Again, I am not mad at him for that, or anything else really. It just may or may not already be an old trope for him that he can float along to for the rest of his career.
In this one, John Krasinski wrote, produced, and co-starred in this live-action/animation family comedy, so apparently that is his new thing now. The story seems a little contrived, as the script kind of goes in all sorts of directions after establishing young Cailey Fleming as his daughter dealing with the loss of her mother and his upcoming heart surgery. Reynolds plays her neighbor who shows her all of the imaginary friends (IFs) that only certain people can see (played by a cornucopia of celebrity voiceovers). As he is wore out and apathetic at his age after decades of helping find them real life friends, who discarded them once they got older, his plan is to hand the reigns over and her to serve as his apprentice while she deals with the dark sadness looming over her own life. You can kind of see where this is going.
As far as the animation to live-action effects are concerned, it is done well enough to where sometimes you don't even notice it and the characters interact with the live actors seamlessly enough. That is definitely a plus.
I was worried that I was taking my 8 year-old niece to the theater to watch the Blumhouse horror movie Imaginary that came out a few months earlier, but that one wasn't scary anyways, so that's just whatever. That being said, this one felt like a mix of Fantastic Beasts and Big Fish not only in tone, but overall nuances and lessons learned which are perfectly fine and somewhat important for a certain niche of younger viewers who may or may not be going through something similar.
It may be a little early to gauge how this one fared in the box office, but it should be in its last weekend in theaters, so it might be able to call it at $173.6 million against a bloated $110 million budget allowing for Paramount and both Reynolds and Krasinski's production companies to almost break even. It is definitely re-watchable, but you did not miss anything by skipping it in its theater run.
Anyways, you should 100% watch this instead of the Blumhouse one I almost watched a second time. Maybe I will do that one somewhere down the road, as well, or maybe not because that movie kind of sucked. Oh well.
3 out of 5
CIVIL WAR (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I want to get this straight before I start this review: this movie is not a “war movie”, but there is one going on in the background of the “Civil War” variety. This movie isn't about politics at all, in fact. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure what this movie is about…
I guess what this whole eponymous “Civil War” is all about is a break-up of the United States in a dystopian universe where California and Texas have decided to leave the nation because the president has taken a third term in what a lot of political theorists call a “nightmare scenario” for democracy. Yes, you heard that right. Only California and Texas have teamed up, then there's the Florida group, then the Portland territory, ughhh... Have you ever looked at a map of this goddamn movie?!
Pretty fuckin nuts, right? I honestly feel like you have to keep this map on you at all times just watching this movie.
I have always enjoyed Alex Garland's work. He not only wrote 28 Days Later and worked on the sequel, but wrote and directed Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Dredd to which I enjoyed them all. Devs has some decent reviews and Men was kind of weird, so maybe that is where we can start to see some cracks showing. This one truly did throw me off though. I honestly could not pick this out of a line-up of Alex Garland movies, it made that little of an impact on me.
The story goes, as follows: in the near future, America falls into a “Civil War” for whatever reasons that they refuse to get into, so let's just assume it does not really matter. Kirsten Dunst plays a plank of wood subbing as a war journalist that is so desensitized to the whole thing that she reacts to absolutely nothing and looks like she is asleep the whole trip. Wagner Moura plays a poor man's version of Pedro Pascal as her writer/accomplice who is drunk and stoned more than any normal person, but maybe that has to do with character's coping. Cailee Spaeny does an ample job of playing another two-dimensional character who is a novice photojournalist that ends up joining up with them and becoming an apprentice to Dunst's protagonist. Nick Offerman, as a president, is far too hilarious of a thought to even take seriously and Stephen McKinley Henderson has a throw away part as a mentor to the group. Jesse Plemons shows up uncredited as a racist, ultra-national militant because he is married to Dunst in real life and basically steals the show with maybe the scene or two he is even in. It should show you a little bit of the depth these characters have if that can happen.
I think the edgy premise of such a background kind of betrays the basic story here which is hardly even about the politics involved in why this country is war torn. You are just sort of thrown into this so hard that you may think you got whiplash, even after the cold opening of the president addressing the people which even in itself is just surreal because the president scenes are what book end this affair.
If you completely forget about the “Civil War” in Civil War, it will make a lot more sense to you. This is a message about human nature and how we glorify the most depraved parts of humanity in whatever chance there is to gain publicity at the expense of others. It's more about responsibility with journalism itself and how ethos and morality play into it and I can admire that a little bit. It's just that message gets bogged down and diluted when the backdrop is something more interesting that is barely even discussed while they suffer through it. In the end, you are left with the question of “okay... but why?”
A24 continues to make intriguing decisions with the choices of film they decide to go with, but some of them are more questionable than they are legitimate hits. What they do have going for them, in their endeavor to give the non-mainstream, indie films and filmmakers a platform, is that they do not poor more money than is needed into each film which will in turn either make their budget back or blow it out of the water. At $50 million, this was definitely a subtle hit pulling in $114 million world wide.
It has been given some very kind reviews from the usual suspects, but this one left me bewildered and kind of just “meh”. So that's where it sits with me: right in the meh-ddle.
2.5 out of 5
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
I remember distinctly the first time I saw the trailer for Last Voyage of the Demeter and just shaking my head as they butchered Bullet With Butterfly Wings with some stupid techno downbeat. Why do they do that shit? They take a song that everybody knows, then shoehorn that shit in so hard that it's comical. “The world is a vampire” with a bunch of reverb and synth drums while a monster stalks his prey is so corny and lazy that I want to punch a kitten. “Oh, it's a movie about vampires? Ohhhh let's put that one Smashing Pumpkins song in it and make it suck.” Talentless, generic hacks are behind that brilliance on every level, I'm telling you.
After seeing the 1931 Tod Browning movie as a kid, I immediately wanted to read the 1897 Bram Stoker novel from where it originated, and I have to say that it was not the kind of read I was expecting. The entire novel is told through letters, journals, and newspaper articles which is not the kind of thing one would expect when it comes to one of the first horror stories, but that also was what gave it its appeal, I think. It was different... Just because something is different does not make it good; however, this one was good enough to be adapted into a stage play in 1924 by Hamilton Dean & John L. Balderston. Hey, that was 100 years ago!
I bring the whole Dracula origin because that is the part in the novel (Chapter 7, to be exact) where it is told through the Captain's Log which I found the most tedious and somewhat boring. When they said that they were doing a film based on that, I was very quick to dismiss it when it finally arrived, but watching it gave me a different feeling altogether. Was it a good feeling? Meh.
What I did enjoy about this movie was how they were able to somewhat build a narrative out of a nothing burger in the novel. The gore is adequate for CGI, so I don't worry too much about that because there are some okay close-ups that make up for it practically. The acting is on point too with Liam Cunningham as The Captain, David Dastmalchian as his first mate, and Corey Hawkins as the ship's doctor. The only problem I have with having a black doctor on the boat in the 19th century is that there were not a lot of black doctors (Cambridge alumni or not) around at that time, so it's shoved in there pretty hard with no real reason. They acknowledge it, but that does not change the conveniency of the writing. Then there is the Transylvanian woman who was placed on the boat for Dracula to snack on, so those boxes got ticked for the suits because everyone needs to have representation in every movie nowadays.
What did not work was mostly the lack of gore or “Dracula” himself. We are used to seeing ol' Drac as a beguiling count who borders on romantic, then crosses that border. Also, the fog and mist coalescing with the lack of lighting and flowing motions of the camera makes this difficult to see, much less watch. Although the acting is great, the characters and dialogue between are not interesting enough to truly value and what would stand as a story is very flimsy; but again, there was not much to work with in one chapter of a novel that is basically just a captain's log. When you have tentpoles so weak to build upon, I guess what you want is something outrageous to gain some weight.
What is the story, you ask? A 19th Century English supply ship named the “Demeter” is coming from Romania to Britain and its contents happen to contain a monster that feasts on human blood. Chaos ensues, as the crew not only try to make it to shore, but also to save their lives. Maybe even their souls!
The Last Voyage of the Demeter is an interesting look at the most overlooked part of the source material, but nobody really has any original ideas anymore, so might as well. Released by DreamWorks Pictures, it pulled in $21.8 million against a $45 million budget, so I would not expect to see a sequel that was teased at the end. This is the end, for this movie, anyways. With all the other “Dracula” movies out there, I'd say go with one of those instead if you are looking for the classic Dracula character. It's literally just a giant CGI man-bat version of it, which works and doesn't at the same time.
2.5 out of 5
ABIGAIL (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's astounding how these kind of movies are the ones that get the green light these days from major motion pictures, but hey, I ain't complaining! This nice little romp is just what the world needed to wash the taste of all those reboots and sequels with thousands of pencil pushers changing a fun picture into something it is not. That is EXACTLY why I said it's astounding that it got the green light.
It would not spoil anything to tell you what this movie is about because it basically tells you going into it, even in the trailers, which some people took exception to. In this case, I do not think that is the case.
A team of six mercenaries with their own separate abilities kidnap a 12 year-old ballerina and are tasked with watching her for 24 hours, then they will be paid a $50 million ransom. Sounds simple, right? Well, not if the 12 year-old ballerina is a centuries-old vampire! What ensues is a cat and mouse game covering a mansion that twists and turns more than the plot even attempts to do.
You see, in movies like this, you are always facing an uphill battle because the story and characters are what are deemed paramount. Or universal. I should say “universal” because they are the ones that distributed it. You could say that this movie suffers from that, but I don't think so because once you realize what kind of movie this is, it really does not take anything away from it. The characters are not very rich or deep, but they solve that in the very beginning of the script when it is revealed that the six mercenaries do not know each other, so back stories are not really important. They are all just greedy. Problem solved!
Once this movie gets going about halfway in, it really is held together with a lot of fun in ways the 5 most interesting characters make this whole thing work. The dialogue is drab, but poignant, sometimes hilarious. The acting is sub-par, but that is not why one would sit down and watch this. The special effects and gore are top notch though, so once that kicks in, you won't even know where the time went.
Radio Silence Productions initially started writing the film almost immediately after the SAG-AFTRA strike in April 2023, then casted and started filming almost immediately afterwards. The excellent director duo of Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett were tapped, as well as screenwriter Guy Busick, who had all worked on Ready or Not and the new Scream movies to great acclaim.
With a budget of $28 million against a box office of $35.6 million, it would be a huge stretch to call this one a success, but I have a feeling this one will have some legs in the horror, cult classic circles for a long time.
The final words in the film are a simple “What the fuck?” Yes. What the fuck, indeed, movie. What the fuck, indeed.
3.5 out of 5
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
I really, truly do try not to destroy movies anymore, or at least, not as much anymore. This one is going to be a bit of an anomaly for me, however, because this movie is built for anyone to just hate right off the bat. That sort of shit actually serves to entice me to watch some of these lesser-known or seen movies, so that is not a turn-off for me. Not at all.
Okay. Let's talk about the good things first. It is an A24 screenplay that was acquired from a spec script written by Kristen Roupenian, then rewritten for the screen by Sarah DeLappe, who both have some very interesting credits as writers. Halina Reijn was then tapped by David Hinojosa to direct the film after her first English-speaking film following her work on the industry-adored Dutch film, Instinct. Not a bad group on paper, if you ask me.
Now, let's talk about what does NOT work for me.
To be as nice as I can be, this movie is not meant for everybody; in fact, I am not sure this movie was even meant for anyone in the very niche was shooting for. The characters are as unlikable as the script itself that teeters on nonsense. If “Oh shit, we're gonna die!”, “Oh, let's stop the tears and wait for the newest song to pop off”, or “Oh wait, you had sex with who?” with some of the worst acting and dialogue you could not even feign, even if you had mediocre actors. By the way, the biggest name on this marquis is Pete Davidson, and thank fucking Christ he dies so early on, that he remains a plot point and not a character in the film afterwards. Did I mention the acting was horrific? Yes. When it is this fragile, you care nothing when a script comes your way, so don't be mad about an actor not being believable or even likable. It's just gone through too many hands at this point and you could possibly even blame the studio for how transparent of an idiotic movie this turned out to be.
This movie garnered waves for how brilliant it was because of it's societal look at how a new generation identifies together, but I don't see any of these characters as relatable at all. We can face facts that it was catering to a certain crowd that may or may not stick up for it.
Apparently, the reviews are in, and the fans say this one was a triumph, which makes absolutely no sense to me. The music is even lauded for how progressive it is, but it just sounded like mushmouth garbage done on Frooty Loops. Maybe, perhaps, I have no idea what is entertaining anymore or maybe watching a bunch of narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies play narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies just isn't my cup of tea. I'll look into that one day. In the meantime, fuck this movie.
1 out of 5
INFESTED/(vermines) (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
This one has flew so far under the radar, that I didn't even know it existed until a few days ago when we watched it together in our Monster Fam group. Gone are the days in the early 2000's where French horror stretched the boundaries of what is “acceptable” on screen. While this 2023 creature feature by Shudder does not quite do that, the atmosphere is so palpable that you feel like you are right there with the characters of the film.
Speaking of the characters, none of them are all that fleshed out, or even likable, but that is par for the course in movies like this. The main character is explicitly despicable, as from the very start he is trying to switch from selling drugs to the people in his apartment complex to selling them faux designer shoes. I won't go into how his hair gives away how big of a douchebag he is, but he really is the only one with anything resembling a character arc. I guess maybe his best friend does too because he is scared for most of the film, then does something heroic at the end, but I don't think that spoils anything. The cute French Palestinian girl is a bit of a weird one because she is supposedly a cop, but that part of her character is lost very quickly and never explored. Her boyfriend also has an interesting introduction, as he is against killing any animals, but when he shifts his values in the matter of a minute, we discover more about the spiders themselves.
Oh... I'm sorry, this movie is about mutated spiders from the desert that the protagonist gets from buying his cheap knock off shoes from. I honestly thought the movie was going to be about shoes for the first half hour because of how much they talked about them. When the spiders start taking over the building though, all that nonsense is out the window. Think Arachnophobia meets Rec. That's a pretty good description.
On a side note, I found this peculiar: the name of the movie in French is “Vermines” to which I had to posit a thought. Most likely, we associate “vermin” to be rodents that inhabit such apartment complexes, and even though it could be said the same for the spiders as an invasive species, perhaps it meant more of the humans inhabiting the domicile itself. I only preclude this from the measure to which the police force sent to control the outbreak only wanted to keep them from leaving as to not spread, which could be a metaphor for how society views the lower class... Just a thought.
Being all en francais, it may be a bit difficult for anyone that hates subtitles in their movies, but even then, I think it is enjoyably enough to where you don't even really pay attention to it. Speaking to the atmosphere of the film, director Sébastien Vaniček does an incredible job of bringing you into the very space that these venomous arachnids take up in. He is going on to head up the next “Evil Dead” spin-off, so that will be a treat! I know, I know... But I will definitely watch it.
It's difficult to say how well this movie did financially because it was sent straight to Shudder (which, by the way, is the only streaming platform I feel okay paying for), nor how much was spent on it, but given the release and production, it was definitely on an indie-scale budget. If you enjoy a good currently-made creature feature with arachnids, and you don't mind the subtitles, this one is definitely for you.
3 out of 5
THE CROW (1994)
a review by Evan Landon
I suppose, since we are discussing a classic film that should not be remade, repurposed, reimagined (yet is), we should start here. Why the fuck do we keep doing this? I honestly haven't seen any of the actors in this movie speak to it because we, as they do, know it will fail. Put Post Malone tattoos all over Bill Skarsgard's face and it's still the dumbest way to beat up a dead body (no pun intended) that we have been watching for the past few decades. Y’know what was fucking cool? The first movie. But Hollyweird is so bereft and bankrupt for ideas, that we are getting a new one that absolutely nobody asked for. So, you ask...?
Let's talk about the good parts of my pick for one of the movies that defined my generation, shall we?
Before anything else, let's examine one of the Greatest parts of this movie: this movie broke the mold as far as graphic novels go, especially when it comes to translating to the silver screen. Written, painted, and drawn by James O'Barr back in the early nineties to bring peace to his mind after paintings and illustrations of his time in the U.S. Marines. He made certain illustrations to accompany the music for the band through comic books that was soon bought up by Caliber Press, then packaged by the band Trust Obey signed to Trent Reznor's label. After being passed through many hands, the treatment for a screenplay went to splatterpunk writer, David J. Schow, and John Shirley (of Blue Oyster Cult fame), and Miramax Studios.
The premise, as simple as I can make it, is that a crow will be sent to ferry those wayward souls into the afterlife. Sometimes, the crimes against them are so far gone that they have to atone for all of the wrongdoings that besmirched them in order to make it to the other side. Basically, like a revenant. What ensues is not hard to figure out, but I don't think it needs anymore of an explanation than that.
I think when the hats at Miramax had this cross their desks, it was not something they were looking for. You could say, at the time, that Paramount Studios were not too keen on such an unsecured property. There was no guaranteed money. That was part of the Miramax appeal though: small endeavors through major distribution never gets anything accept for awards and large ticket sales. Not too bad of an idea, if you ask me.
If'n we all want to get blurry-eyed, we can discuss the mishap onset that left us with only questions as to how great Bruce Lee's son could have become, but I will not do that. It has been talked about at nauseum for the past quarter of a century and I had a close friend of mine that used to dress just like him and repeat his lines, word-for-word. Even pro-wrestler Sting took up the persona as a gimmick that seemed to work in WCW, until it didn't, just because it was so popular. Shit, he even dawned the Joker vibe when that wore off.
Director Alex Proyas did an amazing job with what he had here. He went on to make a lot of other movies, most notably Dark City, but I should save that review for another time. Of course, the acting is also way better than expected; we get, not only, Brandon Lee (in his final performance), but Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the dude from The Warriors pulling off some magnetic dissonance.
The soundtrack was definitely some of the greatest songs ever, at the time when soundtracks meant as much as the movie itself, with not only Trent Reznor’s Nine Inch Nails, but also original music such heavy-hitters of the time as The Cure, Helmet, Stone Temple Pilots, and Rage Against The Machine. It truly did revolutionize music.
The truth is that we will never have a movie such as this. The way we go about trying to make something out of something out of something that happened before... it does not matter when shit is this fucking good. Instead of bottom-feeding off of intellectual property that came from an amazing space, why steal from nostalgia, aside from destroying it? Isn't that the real gamble? Trading memories for monetary gain?
I have no answers for that.
The Crow cleaned up $94 million on a $23 million tab worldwide and is considered to be one of the greatest films of a generation. It has gone on to do more than anyone involved in its creation could have ever thought possible. This is the definition of what anybody who creates could possibly comprehend being around to see it come to fruition.
R.I.P. Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
4.5 out of 5
IDENTITY (2003)
a review by Evan Landon
In 2003, my mom and I went to go see this movie in the theater not knowing a thing about it, except that it was a mystery crime thriller.
What was a big deal to me was that the trailer gave you very little information and gave nothing away except for the premise: ten strangers find themselves in a rundown motel in the Nevada desert at night and in the middle of a storm: an ex-cop turned limo driver; his passenger, a Hollywood actress; a cop transporting a convicted murderer; a Vegas sex worker; a newlywed couple; a family consisting of a mother (who was hit by the limo driver and is dying), the father, and son; and the man running the motel. One-by-one, all of the characters are killed off, just like in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None to which served as an inspiration for this film and has had its own issues with the title. Twice, in fact. If you want, go ahead and look that one up, but don't say I didn't warn you!
What I find wonderful about this movie, is that it all takes place in one location, for the most part, which is always a difficult thing to pull off. The set of the motel itself was created and filmed on Studio 27 for Sony Pictures, the very same that Wizard of Oz was filmed on. Producer Cathy Konrad had first let her husband, James Mangold, read the screenplay by Michael Cooney, who immediately wanted to direct it. As for underscoring, they tapped Angelo Badalamenti, but was replaced by Academy Award-winning composer, Alan Silvestri, giving it a very ominous tone that works on many different levels.
The casting is top notch too: John Cusack is amazing as the limo driver/ex-cop who brings a certain gravitas to the film, also serving as the main protagonist. Ray Liotta (R.I.P) gives the film a volatile element, as the cop transporting Jake Busey's character to another prison. Amanda Peet pulls most of it together, portraying the sex worker, who is quite possibly the most wholesome character. John Hawkes plays the motel manager, who has had a very good career this past decades with a lot of great indie films. John C. McGinley, Clea DuVall, Alfred Molina, and Rebecca DeMornay round out the cast that makes it easy to identify with every character. They are all fantastic.
As far as the writing goes, I think the strength of the characters is a bit weak, in the beginning. However, once the third act unfolds, it makes a lot more sense why they lacked a certain depth. I won't ruin that for you because you should definitely check this gem out.
Raking in $90 million worldwide against a $28 million budget, this flick was definitely a well-deserved success. I could watch this one over and over again and still pick up easter eggs that fly under the radar. This is how you make a taught thriller.
4 out of 5
MARLOWE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
Who doesn't love a good noir? I know I do.
I also love a good Liam Neeson popcorn flick, but those are few and far between these days. I could not even tell you what any of his vehicles were about this past decade. He really has found his niche though, you have to admit that much!
This movie is not one of his usual movies as of recent, however, which made me want to see it. They do not make many noirs these days and Neeson is definitely a great fit for the role of private investigator in Prohibition Los Angeles, but that also serves as one of its drawbacks. When an actor is so fitting for a part, it can almost seem like they are sleepwalking through the picture.
The film's titular protagonist is actually one from whenst crime noir films were extremely popular; where one would light everyone else's cigarettes, nor matter which the danger. The character of “Marlowe” actually comes from a pulp comic from the prohibition era by an author named Raymond Chandler, who in turn co-wrote the great classic noir screenplay Double Indemnity in 1944 with Billy Wilder based on a novel by James M. Cain. This story was partitioned from the 2014 called “The Black-Eyed Blond” by John Banville, essentially keeping the character alive after the passing of its creator.
In fact, this could be considered a “standalone sequel” from the 1969 version starring James Garner and Bruce Lee; the only thing that keeps it on its own merit is that it is not a continuation of that story, titled “The Little Sister”, but is a different case altogether that did not even exist yet.
With this case, Phillip Marlowe is now a retired Los Angeles detective turned private investigator who is commissioned by a sultry, young lady to find her lover who was a prop master for one of the major motion picture studios just starting off. Well, this dude got his head ran over outside of a Bourgeoisie Hollywood country club and now this lady is saying it was not him because she saw him driving around a week or so later. What unfolds is a series of twists and turns that will turn not only the impact of the case and those involved, but the innocent lives surrounding them.
To be fair, I always hated these kind of stories that unapologetically point out that the entire story revolves around people writing a story. Stephen King (for as much as I love him) is one of the most guilty of this. I always enjoy a thematic, articulate story, but what takes me out of it is when the writer puts themselves so far into it that it takes away from the story itself. It would be like me writing about a guy who loads tractor trailers for a living, then blogs on the side on Twitter as your main character. Oh, “you're a writer?” No fucking shit. Not everyone is, so apparently, you are trying to write for writers.
Marlowe, in itself, is a wonderful noir. It beats the belts off of sub-par ones that take no notice of the afflictions, not tones, of their predecessors. I honestly like this movie a lot more than the other Neeson films that have run rampant the past decade.
This one almost offers an homage to the “Greats” that came beforehand, yet its subtlety almost rings of rewrites by studio executives that hoped for a Redbox release. Too many fingers in the pie, as Marlowe would say himself.
3 out of 5
THE WHALE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
When we discuss films, it is usually easier discussing ones that a lot of people have seen or are continuously mocked, so a lot of reviewers go for those kind of flicks as clickbait. They are “flickbait” and I am coining that term right now!
I immediately wanted to see this movie because it had three points that set it off for me: 1) It is an A24 movie, and yeah, I am an admittedly huge fan of their movies, 2) It is a Darren Aronofsky film, who is very polarizing as a filmmaker. I think I like as many of his films as I dislike, so there is my connection/disconnect, and 3) It is a grand return to his old leading man days for Brendan Fraser that I do not think anybody was expecting. He ended up winning a bunch awards for it too, which means fuck all to me, but you could see it meant a lot to him.
Written by Samuel D. Hunter as a stage play in 2012, Aronofsky had tried to get the movie made for a decade until he found the perfect actor to play “Charlie”. Since the original play was set in 2009, Aronofsky wanted it to seem like a seismic shift in our culture, so it takes place before the pandemic around 2016. I am not sure if that setting would have changed the aspect he would of wanted, but the end product is nothing short of seismic. Maybe he thought it would take away from the concentration of the story itself, but that I do not know.
In case you have no idea what the story is about, a morbidly obese teacher in Idaho's life is rapidly coming to a close, so he tries his bestest to redeem his past actions with the daughter he abandoned 8-years-before. She is not quite accepting of his apologies, to say the least. His nurse is the only person he sees frequently, aside from a missionary who gives a great subplot that involves his theological beliefs. His ex-wife comes by to see him after she realizes the only reason he was able to get his daughter over there was because he promised to give her the inheritance he had built up. The reason he was not in their lives anymore is he left them for another man who passed away from suicide via the local religious sect's judgment of his sexual preference, which in turn was the cause of Charlie's overeating.
There is a strong theme of depression, abandonment, spiritualism, and redemption that truly makes this story enthralling enough to watch, even if the movie itself can be difficult to watch. When he eats to find whatevs he considers comfort, it truly did remind me of all those Mukbang videos that completely took over social media during the pandemic crisis, but this was written way before that craze was even a thought.
This one left me spellbound, as it did many others with all of the awards and what not, making $57.6 million against a $3 million budget. It probably would have made a lot more, but it was released during a time where nobody was really going to the theater. What is good is that you can now catch it along with others over streaming platforms.
It did drive me crazy how much his dialogue is apologies, but it is offset by the other character's dialogue and performances. That is my only gripe, but it does add to his character because there are so many insufferable people just like that.
4.5 out of 5
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
Holy shit, I just realized Stephen King has no idea how to spell “cemetery.”
Y'know, when I was making my list of “Top 10 Worstest Films of 2023”, I did not get a chance to put this one in because I had not seen it yet. I had a sneaking suspicion that this one would not cut the mustard, though, but it is only fair to assess the movies I have seen. Well, surely enough, I finally watched this turd and I can easily say it would definitely had made that list.
First off, I know that some sequel bait can be fun to watch in the “oh how bad can it be?” way, but this is not that movie. Remaking old IP's is also getting tired, but that is just how Hollywood is too lazy to come up with something original. Even when it is original, they pad it with so many writers that it does not make a lick of sense. So what do they do? The newest form to save their pocket books: AI and I can almost assure you that this is a prime example. Hell, the name of the writer/director is Lyndsey Anderson Beer and I am almost positive her name is Lyndsey Anderson drinking a beer while AI does the rest. It is her first outing though, so thankfully it cannot get any lower.
There is not really anything else to say about this movie except it is a prequel to the remake of the original that was based off of a novel by Stephen King that even he disowned. The characters are so meh that you are never excited for the kills, nor rooting for any of the characters that are so forgettable that I honestly cannot tell you any of their names, even tough most of the dialogue is them saying another person's name. David Duchovny, Henry Thomas, Pam Grier, and Samantha Mathis are all in this movie too, but I could not tell you why they are there or what they are doing, much less what happens to their characters.
This actually could have been saved with some gore or interesting kills, but there is none worth even discussing because the ones you want to see have cutaways to the next scene that is so jarring, you think you missed something. *Spoiler Alert: at any time you think you missed something, you did not.
However, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that movies of this caliber go straight to streaming these days. The bad news is that this one is getting a follow-up prequel.
0.5 out of 5
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2014)
a review by Evan Landon
When I was a kid, way before I got into science fiction or horror, I was really big into Tom Clancy and Richard Marcinko books. Of course, all of the kids these days have first-person shooters like Call of Duty or Overwatch, so they don't really get into books when they can virtually live it out over a gaming console. While there are some benefits to that, it kind of dullens their minds. That being said, just because they might be interested in the subject, the majority of them would never think to even pick up a book about it. However, they would watch a movie like this.
“13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” is a 2014 historical book based on the September 11th, 2012 attack on an American consulate in Libya. It was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Zuckoff (I hope I said that right), along with the security team members involved in the attack. He also wrote a historical book about Shangri-La that looks pretty decent, but let's not get too far off topic here.
Directed by Michael Bay, this definitely carries the same kind of feel that Bad Boys or The Rock has, but this one almost gives a hallmark to such films as Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, which has the same sort of gravitas that it even speaks of it twice. John Krasinski continues to be a formidable force as a leading actor in this one, much more in movies like A Quiet Place and less like the American version of The Office where he played a sappy, sad sack in love. That is some good range, actually.
To be fair, the reactions to this movie when it came out was more for the overall theme of the novel itself and the glorification of covert black ops in the middle east. It is easily thrown into the same soup as Lone Survivor or No Easy Day being a factual book conveyed by the soldiers themselves trough the use of a journalist. In movies like this, you barely get a chance to get to know the characters, but that really is par for the course in these types.
As a person who loves horror movies, these are the ones that really dig deeply into the soul, as you are seeing the horrors of man directly in front of you. It is very, very different when you realize what the true menace of warfare and fear is in the certain face of doom that no thing can prepare you for.
I could not take my eyes of it once it started. That is saying something.
4 out of 5
HOUSE (1985)
a review by Evan Landon
I think it is safe to say that the poster for this 1985 comedy horror film from New World Pictures is more iconic than the Steven Miner directed picture itself is! I stand by that statement, too.
Deep down, I have a very strong familiarity with this movie. I was obviously scared of the cover that I saw on the shelves in our local Blockbuster (I think I still have my card somewhere), but when I saw the movie, I laughed at it more than I ever imagined. It's almost like if you crossed Ghostbusters, Evil Dead, and Jacob's Ladder together for a movie that is unexpectedly fun and should have been rated PG-13, but was given an R rating for no real reason I can see. I would let my child watch it, but I do not have children, so that problem works itself out. That being said, most of the crew themselves worked on the Friday the 13th film series, so they could have added a little more of that in this one.
There really is something to be said about the special effects; they are very much of the practical kind, almost in a comical way. Even the small amounts of fledgling CGI and green screen effects, it is used so sparingly that when it is implemented, it enhances the entire story. You can see it reflected in its budget, as well, to where they made $22 million against a $3 million budget. Maybe there is something to be said about that. Hmmm...
The story premise is simple: a very popular author who inherits his aunt's house after she offs herself via hanging is now troubled by the same supernatural beings she claimed to be. What ends up happening, while is writing about his experiences in Vietnam (as opposed to his usual horror novels), is multitude of experiences that not only trigger his PTSD, but memories of his dissolved marriage and longing to see their child again.
William Katt turns in a great performance as the film's protagonist, whose filmography has happily made a huge upturn over the past couple of years. Richard Moll is always a hoot for me in every B-movie, but most people recognize him from Night Court where he played “Bull” the bailiff. George Wendt plays his bestest role I can think of as a neighbor who befriends Katt as soon as he moves in. There is even a cameo from Steven Williams as a police officer there to check out who was shooting a shotgun in the area, but we all saw his ex-wife that turned into a ghoulie.
Again, I have a lot of love for this film, but there are some huge missed opportunities inside the story that gives it a profound sense of longing that is hard to pinpoint exactly. It is always there though.
House faired so well that it landed three more sequels that are very much in their own universe and have nothing to do with the original. Maybe I will review those sometime soon too, but in the meantime, if you like comedic horror movies from the 80's. Definitely check this one out. It is an unexpectedly fun time.
3 out of 5
Ghost Town (2008)
a review by Evan Landon
I am not sure how to approach this one because it could possibly be the first romcom I have ever reviewed, but I am always up for new things. Let's just say that I watched this one on accident, thinking I was recording Ghost World which is a completely different film that I should probably do after this one.
Anyways, this movie perked my interest as soon as I saw Ricky Gervais was in it, who I absolutely adore. Even if you have not watched any of his comedy specials, I am absolutely certain you heard of The Office which he created and starred Britain (then America made their own version) or his multiple award show appearances as a host where he rips in to the very stars they are celebrating. His comedy is pure genius and I love it.
This was a little strange for me because I am almost certain I have never seen him in any movie, much less the lead. I could be wrong, but I don't care enough to look that up. You can if you want.
I sounds even weirder that he chose a romantic comedy (of sorts) to be his vehicle. I say “of sorts” because it does carry a lot of darker, philosophical themes that you do not usually find in your rando rom com. Death, dentistry, the afterlife, self-realization, and redemption are at the forefront of this tale that is very spiritual in a way that is surprising, given the topics that Gervais usually brings up. That could be via the co-writer/director David Koepp, who wrote Jurassic Park, Carlito's Way, and Spider-Man to name a few, but also directed Mortdecai, Secret Window, and Stir Of Echoes to which I really liked. Gervais would have never signed up for it unless it was worthy of his time though and he turns in a stellar performance.
Ricky Gervais plays a man named “Bertram Pincus” who is an angry, bitter man who goes in for a routine colonoscopy that goes hideously wrong when he takes the anesthesia not usually given during such a procedure. Unfortunately, he finds out later that he had passed away for seven minutes because of the anesthesia, which in turn gives him the ability to see ghosts. One of the ghosts, played by Greg Kinnear, tells Pincus that he can keep all the other ghosts away if he breaks up an engagement between his widow and a human-rights lawyer who we discover is not such a bad guy. What ensues is Pincus learning to become a better person through the trials and tribulations between himself, the ghosts, and the task at hand, all while falling for the widow he is supposed to be breaking up.
Sure, that last part is definitely cheesy af, but its sincerity, stoicism, and introspection sets apart from the usual drab motif that is usually paraded around in movies of this genre.
I enjoyed this a lot, but audiences were kind of mid on it – it made $27 million against a $20 million budget that had a worldwide release, so you could say it was a bomb, unfortunately. If you like romcoms and are a deep thinker, this movie might be just right for you.
3 out of 5
The Passenger (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
It is extremely easy to get let down by movies, especially these days.
Most of everyone has been beleaguered with remakes, reshoots that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even poorly written films because the writers that were never meant to be included had to be from studio interference that gives the film a stink of apathy and disdain that clearly conveys not only the actors, but the entire studio themselves while the ones counting the money care very little over a budget or art.
Me too. I like to find solace in the little known movies that are able to fly under the radar enough to where we can all relax and let good filmmakers do what they do best: create art. You do not need a huge, million dollar endeavor to do that. I guess the closest thing to something like that could be the new Dune movies, but I am in the middle of my thesis-esque statement on that, which I am sure will be either overlooked in its entirety or considered impressive by fans of both the films and the lore when it comes out. I am getting a bit off track here, so let's examine The Passenger for now.
It is easy to shit on “bad movies” and I know this because I made an entire podcast around it. I have even written about them because low-hanging fruit is easy. This is not that kind of movie.
I will spell out the premise for you, without spoiling anything: a young man named Bradley lives in a small town where he works at a fast food place that hardly has any business. He is asked by his manager if he wants to be an assistant manager because of his work ethic and quiet demeanor. Upon hearing this, he stands up to the bully at work who in turn makes him eat a hamburger that had been sitting there overnight. The quiet co-worker he works with then goes to the trunk of his car, grabs a shotgun, and executes everyone except for Bradley. What ensues is the two embarking on a psychological, coming-of-age trip with all of the hallmarks of a thriller that only Blumhouse can provide.
In a world of movies that refuse to miss the mark, this one them in almost every single way; I said, “almost.” There are a few glaring plot hole that stand out, but the exposition is quick to expound on. The world the characters inhabit is very much like our own and that truly brings it into focus.
What really sets this whole movie off is Kyle Gallner, who in my mind, has truly captured the taste of a great indie movie actor. He is constantly hitting it out of the park! The pacing by Carter Smith (The Ruins) is absolutely superb and every slight nuance is caught in measure, so that goes very far for him as a passionate director with a nose for what works in a movie.
I bit my thumbnail down to the bone with the experience, so this is definitely an overlooked, taught thriller if I have ever seen one. Definitely check it out!
3.5 out of 5
DEAD-ALIVE (braindead) (1992)
a review by Evan Landon
My life is split into two pieces: before I saw Dead-Alive or Braindead and after.
I don't even know how to explain just how much this little movie made by an unknown kiwi director named Peter Jackson has made my life so much better. Some peeps would go so far as to say the Lord of the Rings trilogy is his hallmark, but it's kind of been dragged through the mud with DEI and Rings of Power, so the less said about that, the better. Y'know what movie is his untouched gem? THIS ONE.
I know this gory classic as Dead-Alive because that was what it was in the neighborhood Blockbuster here in America, but it was originally titled Braindead in 1992 New Zealand. I think when you have such a fresh outlook on anything, it might be best to wander into something a little more altruistic like True Detective, but this is not that kind of popcorn flick.
There are a couple of scenes that stand out to me: obviously, the kung-fu priest has to be the greatest of all time, the basis for “Ricky” in Trailer Park Boys has to be the asshole uncle who you really want to die, yet doesn't (he does), and the entire last half hour of splatter gore that really needs to be seen in order to truly appreciate it. He uses a lawnmower face up at the end, so it gets down and dirty: BELIEVE THAT! This incredibly off-putting, controversial film its that when it comes to great special effects, you cannot get any better than the practical kind. When the peeps on staff stand at attention on set, you have something special!
The premise of it is fairly simple: Lionel lives with his over-possessive mother and she get bit by this rat-monkey, then chaos ensues. Is there a story? My words do not do this movie justice; just stop reading this now and watch the fucking movie… Oh, there is also a Kung Fu Priest fighting zombies in the name of the Lord that should always be discussed in any film. Also the dinner scene. After that, the gore is too much to even put on paper. Literally.
It was called Dead-Alive in the United States after being banned in South Korea, Singapore, and Finland because of the amount of splatter gore because a film released around the same time had the rights to “Braindead” making only $242,623 against a $3 million budget. Even though the movie bombed, it is a bonafide cult classic and launched one of the most succesful director careers of all time. If you cannot stand the most over-the-top, outlandish splatter gore, definitely take a hard pass on this one. Don't say I didn't warn you, dear viewer!
4 out of 5
CONSECRATION (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
It is always easy to make a horror movie out of religious practices. By that, I mean, the things in most organized religions, there is a case of how a person's soul is much more fragile than the corporeal body. You can see it in such movies as Rosemary's Baby, the entire The Conjuring or Exorcist franchises, probably 40-50% of horror movies, probably more, etc. But what is the link between religion and horror?
Instead of writing an essay that some prick from University of Phoenix (apologies UoP students) will rip off to pass their final essay, I will just focus on 2023's Consecration.
You can request a well made essay later in the dm's though.
Our interest in the occult of religions begs the question of what it is to be a human being; I mean, I am sure my beautiful cat, Sasha, couldn't give a fuck less about metaphysics. What we do, as human beings, is ask the question of what happened before, &/or what will happen after. Thus, our want/need to explore such topics of what we understand, or what we have been bred over time to understand. I might be taking this too deep.
This 2023 supernatural horror-thriller is set in the Scotland, on the Isle of Skye, which does give a lot to the setting and the overall mystique of the atmosphere; even though you are not there on the Moors, you know that it is right outside the doors (hehe) which also plays into the plot itself. It opens with a nun holding a gun to a random woman named “Grace” to which she starts to have weird flashbacks of nuns falling off of a cliff. What is strange is that her brother was found dead from the same kind of jump in her dreams and she goes to investigate. Upon going to investigate, she finds more and more about her estranged brother and the convent itself.
I won't give up anymore of the ghost, but it unravels very quickly & thus lets itself become nothing more than a quick “nun horror” movie that seems to be plaguing our mainstream horror movies. It's strange how very little of plot can send little or nothing as far as a story just to make a film that is easily forgettable.
It does have some good qualities though; it is definitely not under budget with the production, as it spent most of its $2 million budget on wandering around, trying to figure out a mystery that makes little to no sense. Jena Malone is always amazing to me, so I will always buy a ticket and Danny Huston is compelling as an actor in everything he does. It doesn't really even pick up steam until the last 20 minutes, so I would suggest to just start there and skip a snoozefest.
It is extremely well shot, but not very well-paced, which kind of makes you think about what else you could be doing whilst watching it. Like I stated before, this trope is very tired, yet I do not think they will abandon themes such as these any time soon.
2 out of 5
HAUNT (2019)
a review by Evan Landon
In a lot of ways, haunted house movies that are actually haunted are a bit of a tired trope, but this definitely is NOT that kind of movie. You can never tell what kind of horror movie you are going to get when it has an obscure title like Haunt (unless you watched the trailers, which I did not) because that could mean anything: a ghost, a person who thinks they are a ghost, a group who is haunted, etc. This one falls under the category of a “haunted house”, to which I suppose it is.
I'll give you the *spoiler free version because this movie is so much better if you watch it with no knowledge of what it is actually about: a group of college kids go to a Halloween party, then when it is over, they decide to hit up the only haunted house with a one star rating. Turns out that was a bad idea because this house is haunted… with demonic killers!
After the first 20 minutes, the cat is out of the bag that this is NOT your usual “haunted house”, however it is an “extreme haunted house”, to which it is referred to multiple times throughout. It turns out it really is not that either as the film progresses because it turns into a macabre game of “cat and mouse” with physical grotesqueries and some awesomely gruesome kills.
At first, I thought this would turn out to be some found footage bullshit knock-off of Hell House LLC, so my expectations were very low, but this one turned out to be a Saw or Hostel-type movie that makes a lot of since because it is produced by none other than Eli Roth. Newcomers Scott Beck and Bryan Wood take the directors seat for their second time as writer/directors after 2015's Nightlight which actually was a found footage film. The tandem did write 2018's A Quiet Place in between which was helmed by John Krasinski to critical and audience acclaim. They did not follow up very strong with 2023's 65 starring Adam Driver which I kind of assumed was the film version of the game Nintendo 64 game, “Turok”, but that has never been confirmed. They did write the screenplay for 2023's The Boogeyman based off a Stephen King story which I have not seen yet, so stay tuned for my thoughts on that. They will be back to write and direct another feature later this year called “Heretic” that does not have a release date yet.
Like I said, this one ticked all of my boxes for everything except a few things: the story is pretty weak because you can pretty much figure out what is going to happen from the first scene and the characters are not fleshed out very well. Katie Stephens does an alright job as the protagonist, “Harper”, and the other actors do just fine for what they have to work with, but again, it would have benefitted the movie much more if we were more invested in the characters overall. There was a character named “Evan” (which always throws me off a bit) who is dressed up as the front of a human centipede for Halloween that made me chuckle. Despite the glaring plot holes, such as how they find the haunted house in the first place, or why the killers are doing what they are doing to random people, it is worth the watch for the killer setting and cinematography, not to mention the gory deaths.
With a budget of $5 million and only turning in a worldwide gross of $2.4 million upon limited release, Haunt did not light up the box office, thus making it a box office bomb. You get that with limited releases though. Despite that, this Iowa born-and-raised duo are in talks for a sequel, so that is definitely something to look forward to. Hopefully, it gets a much better turnout than its predecessor in the multiplex or streaming. Definitely worth checking out.
3 out of 5
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
The last Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie I reviewed was actually the latest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie that was made, “Out Of The Shadows”, to which I do remember that I did not like. It's weird how many different iterations there have been made from this treasured franchise, now that I think about it. I think there are the three live action movies, those two CGI Michael Bay disasters, two animated features, four animated series, a short-lived live action show, a live concert with them playing music (seriously), not to mention god knows how many video games and comic books they have released throughout the years. So that is a lot of product off of one intellectual property. Now, there is this animated feature to add to that extensive list.
Let's just focus on this one for now.
I have my own gripes with Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg's slew of nonsensical, arbitrary movies going back like twenty something years, however I don't feel that ever-looming, non-entertaining, unfunny cloud is hanging over this one. It is animated and they let actual teenagers have a little free reign when it comes to the script, and it shows. Throw in some heavy hitters like Jackie Chan, Ice Cube, John Cena, and Paul Rudd to round it out and you have yourself a very diverse cast with a lot of promise. Speaking of diversity, they made the awkward decision to make April O'Neil a chunky, black teenager with dreads, but I won't get into that because it really is not worth it. That's just par for the course in Hollywood or Disney these days and believe it or not, after the first initial shock, it kind of ends up fitting into the narrative they are trying to tell. In a way, it harkens back to what her character was in the original Eastman & Laird comics. If Kevin Eastman can even show up in this movie himself, who are we to bitch or complain about it?!
Here are the things I liked about it: Big shout-out to the animation here because it is like nothing else and it really reminded my of how they did the animated Spider-man movies or that Puss In Boots flick that were both very well-liked. All very original, in that regard. Again, I liked the use of actual teenagers to voice the turtles giving it the focus on the “teenage” part of the monicker. They never really put that much focus on their level of adolescent immaturity that every teenager comes complete with in the past incarnations. The soundtrack is pretty awesome with a few remixes of popular songs against some choice hip hop tracks from the past and present to give it a certain gravitas that fits like a glove. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame even fills in the rest of the score making it almost seamless between those needle drop songs. It also focuses on the technology of our time with Splinter texting the turtles from his smart phone, which was a very bold choice, to say the least.
What I did NOT appreciate was the liberties they took with the story (i.e, that April O'Neil thing), but changing the Baxter Stockman story to where he created a humanoid fly creature called “Superfly” instead of turning into it for some reason that really did not make a lick of sense to me. There also was not a very clear cut narrative to follow, but that was never a strong suit for any TMNT to begin with, but they do have a subplot from the very start about how they wish to be above ground with the population of humans and being accepted that I think is a little bit of a tired trope these days. Aside from the way the turtles look, there is not really any character traits to tell the turtles apart either. They literally all act the same way, say the same things, so any line of dialogue could be drawn out of a hat as to which one is going to say it. That sort of thing kind of makes it bland to me, but the four kids voicing them seem to be having a good time vibing off each other, so that makes it feel earnest.
The critical response is almost identical as the audience that is generally favorable. Resting at ninety-nine minutes and pulling in $180 million against a $70 million budget, it did fine enough to entertain a sequel which is good because they teased it at the end anyways. Who knows if that will ever happen though because sometimes a lot of so-called sequels never make it out the door. It is an easy watch for both kids and adults at the same time, especially if said adults want a trip down nostalgia lane. Just watch out for how contemporized they made it for a modern audience. It is definitely way better than those Michael Bay renditions that seem to have scrapped their third entry and choosing to go in this direction instead. Good call.
3 out of 5