jellyneckr

Borderlands has been out in theaters for a day, and already it has the worst critical and box office reception of any movie of the summer, if not of the entire year. On a purely financial level, it's bound to lose at least $100 million and be considered an enormous flop. Having never played a Borderlands game in my life, I sat down for the movie with this knowledge in mind, expecting the absolute worst. Amazingly, I ended up enjoying Borderlands quite a bit, certainly way more than any critic did. Maybe it's just impossible for me to hate any movie with Jack Black as a talking robot, but I had a good time throughout the duration of its run time.

Judging Borderlands as a comedic sci-fi actioner rather than as video game adaptation, there's much to admire here. The cast has just enough chemistry together to make the potentially cliched story work. The humor mostly hits, even some of the more juvenile bits. The action scenes, despite seemingly edited to get a PG-13 rating, are legitimately exciting at times. The sets are visually appealing, with some apparent Blade Runner inspiration in a couple early scenes. The special effects are cool and not overdone. They might not be mind-blowing, though they are no better or worse than those in most big budget blockbusters these days. Importantly, those special effects don't take over the movie. There was never a point at which I was bored from CGI overload, something that happens often with genre films recently.

Unfortunately, despite there being a lot of interesting and fun elements to the film, there simply isn't enough character development for the movie to be anything beyond merely entertaining. None of the characters are three dimensional, while some are barely even one dimensional. This isn't the fault of anyone in the cast; everyone does their best with the material and manages to make their characters likeable enough that it's easy too look past some of the thin characterizations. If there was more character stuff here, it has seemingly been mostly cut out to keep the film right at 90 minutes before closing credits. Given the extensive production history, I'd imagine there was a ton of extra footage that was excised. However, unlike a lot of films that don't have troubled production histories, Borderlands is at least coherent. Even if rushed at times, the plot is easy is to follow and takes a few turns I didn't expect along the way.

Borderlands clearly isn't reaching its target audience in the way the filmmakers or studio had hoped. It's never going to join the ranks of the great sci-fi classics. But, Borderlands is by no means the disaster it's gaining the reputation for being. Perhaps if I had any familiarity with the games then I would find this to be an abomination of an adaptation and hate it. As simply a fan of goofy action sci-fi, I had a good time. 6.5/10.

Twisters seemed to have very little chance of actually being good. A sequel coming two decades too late to a movie that story-wise absolutely did not require a follow-up, Twisters looked like it would be yet another barely watchable disaster flick. Surprisingly, Twisters is, thus far, one of the better movies of the summer, one that, while certainly flawed, mostly exceeds expectations.

Perhaps one of the smarter decisions screenwriter Mark L. Smith and director Lee Isaac Young made in making Twisters was to have it be a stand-alone, pretty much in-name only sequel to Twister. There is no need whatsoever to watch or rewatch Twister before seeing the sequel. There are no returning characters, no lingering story threads, and no real connective tissue between the two movies. This allows Twisters to stand on its own, and not constantly invite comparisons to the original. There are some similarities in story structure and plot to Twister, but never to the extent that it feels like a completely lazy retread along the lines of recent sequels like Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F. There are few real surprises in Twisters, yet there are no super annoying, eye-rolling cliches that become a drag on the plot either. The overall writing is better than expected, and the story is never boring. If there's a major flaw in the writing, it's that the supporting characters are underwritten (or perhaps their parts were cut down in the editing room), though that is the most typical problem with big budget summer blockbusters like this.

As effective as the writing may be, the main reason Twisters works as well as it does is its star, Daisy Edgar-Jones, in the lead. It's rare that I say a summer blockbuster like this has a legitimately great performance, but Twisters has a legitimately great performance in Edgar-Jones: smart, occasionally funny, and moving at times without being overly dramatic. The performance is better than audiences are used to seeing in the genre, and, frankly, better than a sequel like this deserves. While co-star Glenn Powell may be getting almost all the publicity for Twisters, and while he does fine in his role here, he's done this type of a role before. His character doesn't have as much an arc, so he's the less interesting one of the two characters overall. That's not meant to be a knock towards Powell; it's just that he's not the main focus of the movie, and that's probably right decision for the story.

Most importantly, the special effects never take over the story. There are lots of twisters as the title necessitates them, though there's never a point at which the special effects and CGI dominate everything. There's nothing that looks cheap, or is likely to look super dated a few years from now. The effects are excellent without being distracting or there simply for the sake of being cool.

Twisters could have been terrible, and still would have made a ton of money. It's rare for a sequel, especially a sequel made way too late, to be as entertaining, effective, and well made as Twisters. It's one of the best sequels in a long time, and one of the biggest surprises of the year. Recommended. 7/10.

Despite being an Albert Brooks fan and loving documentaries about Hollywood and comedians, I hadn't watched Albert Brooks: Defending My Life until this week, over six months after it premiered on HBO. Watching documentaries about specific celebrities often makes me lose respect for those celebrities due to staggering amount of pretentiousness and ego that's on display in such docs. Watching Albert Brooks: Defending My Life is one of the only times I've actually gained respect for a celebrity after watching a documentary about them. There is no ego on display here. Throughout the sadly somewhat short 90 minutes of the movie, Brooks comes across as 100% honest, arguably even to a fault. He shares almost everything about his life from his father's death and relationship with his other to why he was remained unmarried for so long. It probably helps that the director is Brooks' best friend Rob Reiner, but there never seems to be a moment in which Brooks is trying to evade or hide from a particular subject or topic. Of course, along the way, Brooks talks about his television work on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Simpsons", as well as most of his film work as a director, screenwriter, and actor. The result is one of the best movies both Rob Reiner and Albert Brooks have made in a long time, and one of the better documentaries to come out in the last year. Even for those who are somewhat unfamiliar with Brooks' filmography are likely to enjoy this well made, funny, interesting, and occasionally moving film. I'm sure there was a ton of great footage left on the cutting room floor and that footage would be great to see on hopefully an eventual DVD/Blu Ray release, though, as is, Albert Brooks: Defending My Life is a 9/10.

For a movie executive produced by LeBron James and featuring a few celebrity named as interviewees, it's rather strange that there has been almost zero publicity or awareness for Who Is Stan Smith? I saw it at my local theater a few weeks ago, and I was the only one there. I never saw a TV spot, print ad, or other promotion for it. All I saw was the poster. Maybe it's because Stan Smith doesn't have the same name recognition as an athlete like LeBron James or John McEnroe (somewhat prominently featured in the documentary), or maybe it's simply the distributor doesn't have the means to advertise the picture, but for whatever reason, the movie has essentially been given a non-release. This is a shame as, although not perfect, there isn't a better documentary I've watched this year than Who Is Stan Smith? I knew nothing about the man prior to watching this. I just knew his name was on shoes, and that he was a tennis player. Stan Smith himself is featured throughout here, and the audience is given much of his life story in decent detail. Smith himself is an engaging speaker, and full of wisdom, a little regret, and lots of great stories. Whenever he is onscreen, the film is at its strongest and entertaining. However, although Stan Smith is inarguably the main focus, there are times when the movie seems to drift somewhat from section to section. The film covers Stan Smith, but also Vietnam, apartheid, the Civil Rights era, Arthur Ashe and his career, Run DMC and the rise of hip hop, the rise of sneakers in fashion, along with other topics. All of these are interesting and even fascinating at points, yet all the attention given to these other topics do occasionally take away from Stan Smith and his story. The filmmakers are always able to tie these threads back to Smith, although not always in the most satisfactory of ways. Despite this somewhat distracting lack of focus, the movie is never boring and is definitely worth seeing. Hopefully, Netflix or some other streamer is able to pick it up, so it can get the wider release it deserves. 7.5/10.

I've said it before, but the most disappointing thing about being an avid filmgoer in the past decade has been the near complete disappearance of theatrically released comedies. 90% of comedies these days premiere on streaming services, and are generally nothing to write about. Most comedies as of late seem half-heartedly put together, and have very little, if any, replay value. By contrast, Bad Boys: Ride or Die, which definitely is better categorized as an action-comedy, is a movie that plays like every frame of it was made for the theatrical experience. Both the action and the comedy bits, which blend together almost seamlessly, are carefully crafted to be visually appealing while never overshadowing the obviously cliched yet entertaining storyline.

The fact that Bad Boys: Ride or Die works at all is a minor miracle. Very few fourth entries in any film series are watchable, yet alone a franchise best. What makes Bad Boys 4 so remarkable is that it is able to sell the absurd ridiculousness that much of the franchise is built upon while still maintaining what seems like genuine concern and apathy for the main characters. Realistically, there is zero chance for Mike Lowery (Will Smith) and Marcus Barnett (Martin Lawrence) to survive pretty much any given scene of this movie. Yet, the filmmakers make everything just believable enough and keep the characters likeable enough that I wasn't about to dismiss the movie as absolutely impossible schlock. Credit to Will Smith and Martin Lawrence for keeping the buddy part of a buddy action-comedy as true to life as possible amongst all the rapid gunfire, multiple explosions, and alligator attacks that would result in instant death if the audience was expecting realism.

There are several valid complaints that can be lodged against Bad Boys: Ride or Die. The plot is never not predictable. The ugliness of some of the violence and bloodshed doesn't entirely gel with the mostly comedic nature of the film at times. The kidnapping of loved ones in the third act is typical of Jerry Bruckheimer-produced formula we've seen many, many times before and seems super lazy. All of these criticisms are justified. Ultimately, I can excuse all of these criticisms by saying that, simply put, this movie made me laugh more than any theatrically released comedy in the past five years. Martin Lawrence is still as hilarious as ever. There are several solid visual gags throughout. And, most importantly, the movie feels like it was made by filmmakers who care about shot composition, editing, pacing, character, and entertaining the audience. Even if it is the fourth in a series, Bad Boys: Ride or Die doesn't seem like a cheap cash grab. It seems like something crafted by action-comedy fans for action-comedy fans, with genuine love and respect towards both the genre and its audience. 7/10.

Meg 2: The Trench opens with what seems like a fun scene that would have been deleted from a Jurassic Park sequel for being too ridiculous and overly CGI heavy. It's followed by what seems like a hilariously goofy deleted scene from the first Transporter movie, with Jason Statham beating up nameless bad guys on a container ship. At every opportunity, Meg 2 is trying hard to please the audience with action beats, character archetypes, and scenarios that they've seen before. Half the time, this sequel simply hits similar notes as its 2018 predecessor. Despite this laziness and lack of originality, the movie still has its odd charms, making it pretty hard to hate, even if it's hard to fully appreciate on any real artistic level.

As with the first film, the best thing Meg 2 has going for it is Jason Statham. Even if he may not be the best judge of scripts, Statham is still the absolute best action star Hollywood has. He has the physicality, acting chops, and charisma to make even the weakest of his films worth watching. Without Statham, Meg 2 probably wouldn't rank above a 3 or 4 out of 10, but Statham gives it his all with a so-so script and manages to make the overly long two-hour creature feature better than it would have been otherwise. The rest of the supporting cast does what they can with their roles. Nobody outright embarrasses themselves with the mediocre material.

Story-wise and artistically, The Meg is the superior entry in the Meg franchise. While not necessarily a bad film, Meg 2 definitely has its fair share of dead spots, with a lot of the first hour seeming like it could have ended up on the cutting room floor. The second hour is much stronger, emphasizing the (PG-13) carnage and attacks the audience wants out of a shark flick. The film is never an absolute bore, though it's disappointing that director Ben Wheatley didn't lean more into the B-movie nature of the first ten minutes. Both Meg movies would have benefited greatly from an R-rating, though the fact that both are super CGI heavy and relatively bloodless without ever playing like Syfy originals is probably a minor miracle.

Ultimately, Meg 2: The Trench isn't super memorable. It doesn't tell a particularly strong story or ever really justify its existence as a sequel. However, the opening scenes and the second half delivers the kind of mindless action spectacle one would want from a cheesy sci-fi adventure like this. In the end, it's strictly for Statham and creature feature fans only. Anyone else is likely to find it a complete waste of time. 5/10.

A documentary about David Johansen co-directed and produced by Martin Scorsese should have easily been one of the coolest, most interesting films of the year. Johansen is probably best known for his cover of the super catchy song "Hot Hot Hot" under his alias Buster Poindexter, but he's had a much larger career both as a musician and as a fun character actor appearing in such cult favorites as Scrooged, Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, and "The Adventures of Pete & Pete." Johansen himself as always been an interesting and funny personality, something made clear early on in the documentary when a clip of him telling a particularly odd story about vomit on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" is featured. Unfortunately, that clip is the most amusing and captivating moment featured in the whole film and Scorsese himself is never able to capture the energy, charisma, and storytelling capabilities of Johansen in any of footage shot for the film itself. Maybe it's because Johansen is much older now or maybe it's because Johansen admits to being a reluctant documentary subject, but whatever the reason, the movie never picks up steam in a way that makes the whole picture work as a whole. There are still great individual moments, though, like Johansen admitting that "Hot Hot Hot" is the bane of his existence or him telling the story of an audition for a Milos Forman movie that went sideways. Sadly, Johansen doesn't seem to want to get into any true detail about his life or his Buster Poindexter persona. Most disappointingly, with the exception of the aforementioned Milos Forman story, his film career isn't touched on at all. In a film that runs over two hours, there seems to be very little about the man and his work other than he loves music and has been producing it a long time. This easily could have been cut down to 85 minutes or so and nothing would have been lost other than some good music. Still, for those who are curious about Johansen and Scorsese completists, this may be worth a look. It's by no means terrible, but it could have been much more. 6/10.

A new Liam Neeson movie in January or February is pretty much a staple of a new year. For roughly the past decade so, a new Liam Neeson thriller has premiered in theaters during the first few weeks of the year often to box office success. Marlowe is a bit different than all those films in Neeson's recent filmography, both in terms of is tone and critical/box office reception. It's an uneasy cross between the Liam Neeson action audiences have come to expect with the traditional film noir the character Marlowe is known for with mixed results.

Set in 1930s California, Marlowe is a slow-moving period piece that likely will put those who loved the Taken trilogy to sleep, though likely to interest those who enjoy the classic film noir of the 1930s and 1940s. The slow pace is alternatively both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Initially it's refreshing and interesting to see a Hollywood mystery take its time developing the story, similar to something like Chinatown or The Two Jakes. Neeson seems an unconventional, though inspired choice to take over the role of Marlowe, and he is a joy to watch as always. The supporting cast from Diane Kruger as the traditional femme fatale to Alan Cumming as one of the story's many antagonists, are intriguing and fun in their respective roles. And, most importantly, the mystery itself is fairly interesting, at least early on. But, eventually, the slowness of the mystery becomes at odds with the obligatory scenes of Neeson having to punch someone in the face or shoot a gun.

The action scenes themselves are well shot and Neeson is still a thoroughly convincing tough guy at 75-years-old. The problem is that these scenes seem like the results of studio-mandated notes awkwardly shoe-horned into the story for the benefit of having action beats in the theatrical trailer. Director Neil Jordan himself seems somewhat uninterested in delivering these action beats, as they are generally super short and, in some instances, awkwardly cut away from just when the real action seems to get going. In the end, Jordan seems to be stuck with a conundrum. His film probably could have worked (and made much more money) as a more traditional Neeson action vehicle with more fighting and gunfire, but then it would have worked a lot less as a Marlowe movie. However, by mostly sticking with being a film noir mystery with action awkwardly thrown in, the whole thing becomes a bit of an uneven mess at times.

Despite the overall uneven tone, there's still enough good material to recommend Marlowe to both Neeson fans and Marlowe fans. There's enough entertainment value, enough mystery, and enough humorous film noir one-liners delivered by Neeson to keep the uneven nature from ultimately sinking the production. Ultimately, general audiences didn't seem to think this new iteration of Marlowe was worth their time, as it flopped at the box office and is definitely considered a dud. Maybe in time, Marlowe will develop a cult following amongst Raymond Chandler devotees. For now, though, it's one of the most largely ignored releases of 2023. It may not be the best Marlowe movie ever made, but it's still a decent mystery. 6/10.

Like with Liam Neeson, Gerard Butler's recent filmography is its own subgenre: the dad who has to step up and save the day despite impossibly incredible, unrealistic odds. While Liam Neeson is unquestionably the better actor, Butler has found his niche as the action star in a super specific type of genre picture. Plane, his latest entry in this category, is neither the best nor the worst of Butler's. It is, however, probably the most average.

The one immediately noticeable aspect of Plane is that Butler uses his natural Scottish accent for his role. This may seem like a small detail, but there is something admirable about allowing Butler to use his natural, non-American voice in what is, in every other way, a very typical American action movie: generic villains, stock characters, and cliches galore. Butler is an actor who is seemingly perpetually stuck in the typecast role of generic action hero. To Butler's credit, here he is able to deliver probably the best possible performance from what is a ridiculous script. Somewhat unfortunately for Butler, co-star Mike Colter upstages him at every turn as the untrustworthy convict who must help save the day. As Marvel's titular "Luke Cage" in the short lived Netflix series, Colter proved he is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. Here, in another star turn, Colter's performance makes Plane both better than it should be and disappointing in how it underutilizes him. Any time Colter is onscreen the movie has unexpected energy; any time he's not onscreeen, the movie feels like a direct-to-DVD, subpar thriller from 2009. Saying this may seem like an insult to star Butler, but the ultimate problem is that all the characters, especially Butler, seem underdeveloped and cliched. There is rarely a moment where the audience is surprised by the motivations or development of the characters. While the film is never terrible by any means, it's hard to heartily recommend a movie that has such paper thin characterizations.

Plane has its charms. If nothing else, it's consistent in tone as an action thriller. It is never too campy or too self serious. At the same time, it never rises above a mid-tier, middle budget adventure. The action is competently shot yet rarely very exciting. The supporting performances from reliable actors like Tony Goldwyn, Joey Slotnick, and Paul Ben-Victor are better than the film probably deserves. The plot is never surprising. As a Netflix release, this probably would have been the talk of Twitter for a few days. As a 2023 theatrical release, however, it's rather underwhelming. I don't fault anyone for wanting to seek out Plane, and I think everyone involved wanted to deliver an entertaining flick, but the end result is a strictly mediocre time waster with just a few moments of genuine excitement. 5/10.

I have to admit that I had low expectations for M3GAN. Between the dumb title, the release being during the dump month of January, and the fact that recent Jason Blum-produced disasters like Halloween Ends and Firestarter are the two worst horror films in recent memory, I fully expected for M3GAN to be subpar at best. To my surprise, not only is the movie way better than 95% of genre fare these days, it's also undoubtedly the most creative, fun killer doll flick since Child's Play back in 1988 and indeed there are certain parallels, intentional or not, to that brilliant gem. However, M3GAN actually has far more in common with the 2019 Child's Play remake. While it would be unfair to say that M3GAN is a rip-off of the remake, having seen that film so recently definitely gave me a sense of deja vu whole watching this. But, whatever M3GAN lacks in originality, it makes up for with a wicked sense of humor, strong performances, and a few unexpected twists.

If there is one thing that the film has going for it that so many recent horror entries lack, it's a sense of humor to go with the proceedings. There is no way to make a movie about a killer doll not be at least a little stupid, something that the filmmakers acknowledge at almost every turn with just the right amount of laughs thrown in when necessary. The story itself is ridiculous but, while the premise may be silly, the characters and performances are appropriately dramatic while still being perfectly suited to the horror/dark comedy nature of the script. Allison Williams as the lead is obviously the stand-out, giving a memorable grounded performance throughout, even as the ridiculousness mounts. There are a few moments towards the end where the finale goes off the rails and a bit too-over-the-top given what came before it, though for the majority of the running time, the tone fits just right.

A scary doll flick lives and dies based on the effectiveness of the doll in question, and the titular doll in M3GAN is certainly creepy. Looking like a cross between a Barbie and an Olsen twin, the doll here is just normal-looking enough to believably be something that a toy line would put out while also being unsettling in almost every scene. With a reported $12 million budget, all the special effects are well done; the film almost perfectly blends CGI and practical effects. There's nothing here that looks cheap, unlike most recent Blumhouse productions. The filmmakers never hide the fact that this strange doll will eventually become evil but they are able to keep the suspense going even when every member of the audience can see what is coming.

Despite being mostly predictable, the filmmakers behind M3GAN do manage to deliver on a few unexpected twists. Maybe it's because I wasn't expecting the envelope to be pushed much with a PG-13 rating but a few of the generally excepted rules of studio horror films are broken here. Without giving too much away, the body count is not just limited to the obnoxious adult characters the audience knows are going to be picked off from the moment they pop up onscreen. A few of the kills were legitimately surprising to me, which made them all the more startling. Even with a PG-13 rating, M3GAN still manages to shock at times.

Ultimately, it seems that M3GAN will start a new franchise that will probably run out of steam pretty quickly. At 90 minutes, the film is reasonably well paced and doesn't overstay its welcome. However, I can't see the premise or the title character herself being able to work for more than one movie. As a standalone, this is a stupid, fun, humorous little thrill ride that absolutely doesn't need a sequel. Recommended for horror fans. 7/10.

To me, the saddest element of the ever-changing film industry of the past decade or so has been the near complete disappearance of theatrically released comedies. They really don't exist anymore, almost at all. That's not to say comedies don't get made anymore, but they are made for Netflix or other streaming services. Needless to say, almost none of these are very good or even entertaining. Prior to seeing The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent in theaters, the last time I saw a full-on comedy movie in theaters was Good Boys three years ago. Having said that, I don't think my want for seeing a great comedy in theaters necessarily makes my opinion of The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent biased: this is an incredibly funny, imaginative, entertaining, and overlooked gem that is not only the best comedy of the year, but also the best movie Nicolas Cage has made in over a decade.

In 2022, it's easy to view Nicolas Cage as just an actor who launched a thousand memes or internet jokes, but regardless of how many ill-advised or bad direct-to-DVD films the guy makes, the fact remains that, when given a good script, the man is capable of pulling off extraordinary performances. As last year's little seen drama PIG demonstrated, Cage can still surprise with fresh, amazing (if still odd) performances that can't be found from any other actor. That's hard to emphasize when the guy is a constant fixture of Redbox kiosks everywhere, though it also makes it more surprising when he pulls off something like what he does with The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. There is no more overused and annoying cliche these days than a celebrity playing a fictionalized version of themselves in a movie or TV show. I don't when exactly to pinpoint when this started, maybe the success of "Entourage" almost two decades ago. It's a staple of movies and TV shows now that I truly hate, and just find desperately lazy. So, it was to my total surprise that when Nicolas Cage makes an entire movie playing a fictionalized version of himself that he makes it feel original and heartfelt. The Nicolas Cage as played by Cage here is not a glamorous movie star with a cult status, but a sad down-on-his-luck has been who despite having a (again, fictionalized) wife and daughter, feels emptiness. He imagines an alternate version of himself and drinks in order to cope. This does not feel like the set-up to a hilarious comedy. Describing this, it makes The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent seem depressing. But what these opening scenes do is create an enormous amount of sympathy for the version of Nicolas Cage that the rest of the story will follow. And, in the process of this set-up, Nicolas Cage completely sells it. He is able to create an actual character out of this movie's version of "Nicolas Cage," which I can only imagine is insanely hard to do as an actor with 40 years of film work in the public's consciousness. His performance requires both self-awareness and a need to separate what the general public thinks of him, something that Cage pulls off masterfully.

Once the set-up is out of the way, the film really leans into the comedy aspects. Most of the laughs come almost entirely from great laugh-out-loud lines, though there are a lot of jokes about Nicolas Cage's career and specific references to his filmography. If there is a flaw in the design of the film, it's really that it make be somewhat inaccessible to those who aren't super familiar with Cage's work from the last 25 years. There are plenty of great jokes that don't rely on knowing Cage's films by heart; it just is way more enjoyable experience if you know what is being referenced. That said, there are some structural flaws as well, specifically in the way Ike Barinholtz's is character is introduced seemingly to be a major part of the movie only to all but disappear later on, almost as if there was a sudden scheduling conflict that required on-the-fly script changes. The third act also seems somewhat hastily put together, even it does seem like it's satirizing the trajectory of many Nicolas Cage movies that have come before. Nonetheless, the film is completely entertaining throughout, with great timing/pacing in almost every scene.

Despite these flaws, there's no denying that The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is unique. It manages to take what should be a tired over-done concept of a actor-as-himself and legitimately turn the idea into something that works comedically, thematically, and dramatically when necessary. That's a hard trick to pull off, especially these days. While I would never argue this is a brilliant masterpiece, this is way better than it has any right to be, and tied with PIG as the most memorable work Nicolas Cage has done in forever. In a year of disappointments, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is one of the few releases of 2022 that feels different, funny, and well worth checking out. 8/10.

At first, it seems redundant that a documentary about Kevin Smith would even need to be made. More than any other living filmmaker, Smith has documented almost all of his life and work through blog posts, books, podcasts, stage shows, interviews, and videos. From the 1990s until now, seemingly every aspect of Smith's life has been put into the public record. This is what makes Clerk ultimately a big surprise. While there isn't a ton of new information, viewers are given the chance to hear from people that rarely publicly comment on Smith's work, including family members like his mother and his brother, actors like Judd Nelson and Justin Long, and filmmakers like Richard Linklater and Jason Reitman. Yes, there are all the Smith regulars like Jason Mewes and Brian O'Halloran, but it's the comments from those that are mostly outside the View Askewniverse that make the doc really interesting and different from what I was expecting. I didn't know the story of how Smith came to work at the Quick Stop or that Jason Reitman was a big Kevin Smith fan. These new tidbits make the whole movie worthwhile for longtime fans, while those unfamiliar with Smith will learn just about everything they would want to know about his career. It covers every movie in his filmography, the highs and the lows, and the his influence on film culture. For those who aren't fans of Smith or his work, it's highly unlikely Clerk is going to change minds. However, for those who dig the View Askewniverse as a whole or even just individual Smith films, Clerk is a must-see. Highly recommended. 9/10.

Nearly twenty years after VH1's "I Love the 80s" first aired, cable television is still celebrating the decade with mini-series exploring the culture, fads, and fashions of the time period. Because the analysis of 80s pop culture has been done to death at this point, I expected Nat Geo's "The '80s: Top Ten" to be boring, repetitive, and not very interesting. To my surprise, not only did I enjoy the six episode mini-series, but I found it to be the most entertaining show I've watched on TV in quite some time.

Hosted by Rob Lowe, each episode looks back at a very specific aspect of 80s pop culture: watercooler moments, streetwear, commercials, fast food, gadgets, and toys. One would think that it would be extremely hard to fill up a 45-minute episode talking about just fast food trends or commercials from the 80s without making everything seem padded, though somehow those two episodes end up being the high points. Getting the directors of 80s commercials, including Ridley Scott, to talk about the commercials that they made from both a filmmaking perspective and a marketing perspective is fascinating, and something rarely seen when discussing pop culture. Likewise, the episode that focuses on fast food is captivating in how it balances portraying both the positive and negative aspects of what the popularity of fast food has done to American society since the 80s. There are many times when the series seems like it could fall into being either too critical or too celebratory of the decade; in the end, the show finds just the right balance between the two.

If there's one flaw to "The '80s: Top Ten", it's that there aren't enough different commentators featured throughout the six episodes. While I love Kevin Smith and Tiffani Thiessen, it occasionally seems like the show cuts back to them simply because there wasn't footage of someone more directly involved with the topic at hand to cut to. Ultimately, this is a minor complaint when 95% of the mini-series is entertaining, informative, and all around enjoyable from start to finish.

Even for those that weren't around in the 1980s or those who don't have much interest in the decade, "The '80s: Top Ten" should, at the very least, teach viewers a little something. For me, this was one of the most fun and surprisingly binge-worthy series I've watched in years, and I absolutely loved it. I only hope "The '90s: Top Ten" is not far off. 9/10.

Horror movies almost never get good reviews. Horror as a genre is almost universally frowned upon by critics, so it's no surprise that Fantasy Island, the horror movie version of the classic 1970s/1980s television series, has opened with some of the worst reviews I've ever read for any film of the past decade. What is surprising is that general audiences, for the most part, seem to be agreeing with the critics. People just seem to not be responding to the movie much at all. Maybe it's because I don't have particularly high standards for horror movies these days, or maybe it's because I enjoy the fun stupidity of the Fantasy Island franchise in general, but I find this to be a whole lot better than most are giving it credit for.

No, Fantasy Island isn't going to win any awards or be remembered as a horror classic for years to come. It's not going to launch the film franchise that I'm sure the filmmakers are hoping that it will. But, despite the flaws the film may have, Fantasy Island is, at the very least, a ton of fun to watch. Despite an arguably too-long two hour running time, I was engaged in Fantasy Island from start to finish. Almost everything from its dopey jokes, silly island horror cliches (no phones!), and ridiculous plot twists may make most general audiences groan, though I had blast with all of it. The movie is, for both better and worse, exactly what I imagined a horror version of Fantasy Island to be from the moment it was announced. I don't know what critics were expecting from this. In me eyes, it delivered what I expected.

Admittedly, a lot of my enjoyment out of Fantasy Island comes from the fact I like everyone in the cast. This is the closest to an ensemble horror film that we've had in a while. The time devoted to each of the guests' four fantasies is given about equal screen time, so even when one fantasy isn't quite as interesting as some of the others, that particular storyline is only dealt with for a few minutes at a time. The Ryan Hansen/Jimmy O. Yang storyline was my personal favorite and although I would have loved to see that play out more, I commend the filmmakers for giving each of the storylines equal weight in terms of importance to the overall piece. All four storylines to eventually merge together in a way that, while convoluted, at least doesn't seem like a cheat. There are several different ways the ending to this film could have ruined everything, but that didn't happen here.

I can't argue with critics that argue that parts of Fantasy Island look cheap and that not everything in the plot holds up against close scrutiny, though I would argue those same complaints are true of almost every episode of the old televisions series. My only major complaint is the the film absolutely suffers from not having Tattoo as a character. Tattoo is a huge part of the formula of Fantasy Island and to not have the character front and center made the movie feel like it was missing something necessary to truly be Fantasy Island.

Overall, Fantasy Island is not the disaster people are making it out to be. While not a genre masterpiece, it's certainly more entertaining and more fun than 80% of the horror movies I've watched in the past year (maybe I'm just not watching the good stuff). For those who like the cast members and silly, dumb horror with a sense of humor, Fantasy Island is worth the trip. 7/10

Very few slasher films receive positive reviews. Critically speaking, the slasher film is probably the most reviled of all genres. However, even when compared to the reception of other slasher films, the new remake of Black Christmas has received an abysmal reception. The reviews for Black Christmas, both amongst professional film critics and online users, are amongst the worst I've ever read for a horror movie, so I expected a dismal product going into the theater. Maybe it was lowered expectations or maybe it's my love for all holiday horror movies, but I'm one of the few that found this new version fairly entertaining and not quite deserving of the hate it's been getting.

The 2019 version of Black Christmas is no better or worse than most of the slasher remakes released over the past fifteen years or so. In fact, this version of Black Christmas is about on par with the previous remake from 2006. It's not particularly groundbreaking, nor is it a paint-by-the numbers remake. While it's true this is more of a feminist take on the slasher genre, which allows a somewhat unique perspective that makes it interesting to watch, it also contains a lot of problems that plague almost all slashers: underdeveloped characters, characters that make super illogical decisions just to serve the plot, and a few unnecessary, dumb plot twists (in this case, the twists are supernatural). These flaws didn't destroy the movie for me, but they are ones that seem like they easily could have been avoided had a bit more time and thought been put into the story. The film was supposedly shot and edited within six months. Perhaps if there was a longer post-production period, some of these problems could have been worked out.

Despite the annoying slasher clichés, Black Christmas gets a lot right through its talented, mostly unknown cast. Other than Cary Elwes and Imogen Poots, everyone else in the cast has little to no feature film work to their names. Slashers are notorious for horrible, flat acting but Black Christmas has an all-around likeable cast that give fine performances. Its essential in horror to care about the characters, and even if the characters here are somewhat undeveloped, the audience is at least sympathetic to them.

Takal had a low budget to work with here, so Black Christmas doesn't look quite as polished or slick as the previous 2006 remake, but it also doesn't look as cheap as other movies released under the Blumhouse banner. The camera work is mostly well done, with care taken to pay homage to some of the stylistic touches of the original 1974 film. Thankfully, the film is devoid of the obvious CGI and quick editing that have become commonplace in the genre the last decade and a half. Overall, the direction is pretty solid and Takal proves to have an eye for horror.

Time will tell if Black Christmas will be looked at more fondly in the future. The 2006 remake initially had a chilly reception upon its release, which seems to have become more favorable in recent years. I wouldn't be surprised if this version follows has a similar fate. For a film that has been so brutally received by both critics and audiences, Black Christmas was better than I expected. I can't call it a misunderstood masterpiece, but it's a fun Christmas horror film that definitely better than its current reputation. 6/10

I knew nothing about "The Moodys" before catching it on television this week, but as a Denis Leary fan and someone who will watch anything related to Christmas, this was a welcome surprise. More dry comedy than a typical network family sitcom, "The Moodys" has a pretty standard premise of a family of five---two well-intentioned parents (Denis Leary and Elizabeth Perkins) and three adult siblings (Jay Baruchel, François Arnaud, and Chelsea Frei, all perfectly cast) who must come together at Christmas amongst various personal struggles. While this is the story of many past holiday productions, what "The Moodys" does differently is a get the tone just right. Usually Christmas comedies run either too broad with far too much over-the-top characters and humor, or they become too overly sentimental. The characters here, despite occasionally feeling like archetypes, are relatable and likable even when they do morally questionable things. Denis Leary is actually the most restrained of all the actors, with pretty much everyone else getting the best lines but Leary remains a delightful screen presence with fantastic comic timing. Those anticipating a typical Denis Leary vehicle may be disappointed, as the story mainly focuses on his grown up children and their inability to truly grow up, though thankfully this material is more amusing and better written than it sounds, Ultimately, "The Moodys" is likely to be quickly forgotten as it is being dumped over three weeks with little in the way of advertising or hype, but for those who like their holiday humor a little dark, it's worth checking out.

Much has been made about the fact that Terminator: Dark Fate sees the return of both James Cameron and Linda Hamilton to the series that launched their careers. Indeed, most of the marketing around the movie has proudly announced it as James Cameron's return. My first thought upon seeing this was, "hasn't James Cameron said for years there was no story left to tell? Hasn't he implied the only the reason to come back would be for the money?" Despite this thinking, I gladly paid the money to see this latest sequel, as the Terminator franchise is, even with a few lesser entries, one of the greatest science fiction franchises ever. Plus, director Tim Miller previously proved he could successfully handle fun action with Deadpool, so I figured Terminator: Dark Fate had a chance at being special.

Tim Miller does indeed bring the fun action he brought to Deadpool to Terminator: Dark Fate. While nothing is as impressive as what Terminator 2 brought to the table, the action here is mostly spectacular eye candy. The first act chase is one of the most spectacularly shot sequences out of any film this year, the fights intensity and blood that was missing from the previous PG-13 sequels, and Arnold Schwarzenegger proves he's still the best action star alive at the age of 72, even if he doesn't do any extraordinary stunt work here. Miller clearly had the pure intentions in trying to make a worthy sequel. There are plenty of times where one can see the potential in the great sequel this could have been.

Unfortunately, while the directing is fairly solid, the storytelling is mostly underwhelming at best and just plain lazy at worst. Whenever it seems like the movie will bring new story ideas or characters to the franchise, it immediately backtracks into simply repeating elements from previous entries, most notably Terminator 2. Every big plot development seems like something the franchise has done before. Almost all of the jokes are just variations on one-liners from previous movies. Even the musical cues are ones we've heard one too many times before. The movie introduces potentially interesting new characters, though they are ultimately props to move the rehashed story forward. In theory, having Linda Hamilton return as Sarah Connor should be a treat, but she, like the other main characters, spends so much of running time being chased by and/or reacting to the bad Terminator that there's no real sense of growth or character development. Sarah Connor could have been removed from the story altogether, and the film wouldn't have necessarily been much better or worse than it is now.

Maybe I'm being too hard on Terminator: Dark Fate. For the sixth entry in a series, it's very entertaining, it has plenty of eye-popping visuals, and Schwarzenegger doesn't disappoint even when he could be sleepwalking through the role at this point. But ultimately the movie never proves to have a reason to exist beyond making everyone involved more money. There's not enough new story here to quite justify its existence, no matter how solid the directing from Miller is here. I doubt Miller director's cut will ever be released to the public, but I'd love to see if this was a stronger, more character-driven film at some point. In its current form, Terminator: Dark Fate is somewhere in the middle quality-wise when ranked with the other installments. It's nowhere near the best, though it's certainly not the worst. 'Dark Fate' is a decent sequel, yet it's also proof that the franchise has run out of gas. 6.5/10

Official Secrets hasn't received a ton of publicity in terms of press or advertising. Despite a decent release in theaters, there hasn't been much of a strong marketing push behind the film, which is surprising given a cast consisting of some big names, an intriguing premise based on a true story, and political themes that are just as relevant today as they were back in 2003 when the movie takes place.

A political drama with elements of a thriller thrown in, Official Secrets is not typical Hollywood fare, nor is it an arthouse bore. It's the type of film that seems like HBO would have made a few years back when the cable network was making timely political dramas. While the film is certainly very dialogue driven and talky, full credit goes to director Gavin Hood for making sure everything is still fast-paced, clear, and interesting to watch. There's enough story that Offical Secrets easily could have been a two-and-a-half to three hour epic, but at a lean, not-quite two hours, Hood tells all the important aspects of the story without any filler or insignificant details. At times, I wish there was just a little bit more with some of the journalist characters as they somewhat disappear in the second act, but as this is a movie Katharine Gun, it's appropriate what she went through gets the most screentime.

As Katharine Gun, Keira Knightley gives one of, if not the best of her career. Having to juggle the emotions of having the strength to do what she feels is right with the intense that the government will put her away, Knightley's performance is perfectly balanced and compelling throughout. As the journalist who first investigates Gun's whistle-blowing claim, Matt Smith is able to make his character memorable despite answering phones for most of his scenes. The rest of the cast is equally solid, even when not given the most significant of parts.

Official Secrets could have been the All the President's about the Iraqi War, or it could have been a straight biopic about Katharine Gun. The end result is a satisfying mix of both with Gun's story getting the screentime it deserves, along with several better-than-they-ought-to-be scenes of journalists investigating her claims. From time to time, there is also a bit of a thriller thrown in as Katharine becomes more paranoid about who is watching her. I suspect this balance of biography/political drama/slight thriller might throw some viewers off. It's not quite a perfect film, but it's one of the more thought-provoking, underrated gems of 2019. 8/10

I pretty much love any 1980s period piece and I love coming-of-age stories, so I had little doubt that I would enjoy Blinded by the Light, the story of a Pakistani teenager (Viveik Kalra) living in Luton, England in 1987 who has his dreams of becoming a writer inspired when he hears the music of Bruce Springsteen for the first time, despite the disapproval of his strict father (Kulvinder Ghir). Although I'm not super familiar with Bruce Springsteen's music (I know only his biggest hits), I still had a good time with most of what Blinded by the Light had to offer. The film combines comedy, drama, and music into a fun, moving, and altogether unique two hours at the movies.

The cast of Blinded by the Light is uniformly excellent. Both the teenage roles and the adult roles are perfectly cast, and every performance is done just right. The disapproving father and the long-suffering son are two biggest clichés in television and film, but because Viveik Kalra and Kulvinder Ghir are strong actors, they are able to overcome the predictable nature of the story. In supporting roles, Rob Brydon, Hayley Atwell, Nell Williams, and Dean-Charles Chapman all make the most of their small parts, turning what could have been throwaway roles into fairly memorable parts. Unfortunately, some of their characters' plot lines don't get resolved in a completely satisfying way, so the end of the film isn't all it could have been. The first two acts of Blinded by the Light work almost perfectly, but the last act doesn't work nearly as well as what came before.

While some story elements may disappoint, where Blinded by the Light never disappoints is in the music. There are very few scenes that aren't accompanied by a classic 1980s song. Most of the soundtrack obviously consists of Bruce Springsteen songs, although there are also tracks from Tiffany, Cutting Crew, and a-ha are also featured. There is great song after great song all over the film. This could have seemed super forced as an excuse to sell a soundtrack, yet the songs seem well placed within the context of the film. The movie never turns into a full blown musical, staying firmly realistic when it could have become ridiculous. Additionally, in terms of visual style, the lyrics to some of Springsteen's greatest hits are occasionally splattered across the screen, a unique idea that is used just sparingly enough as to not become gimmicky.

Blinded by the Light was probably never going to become a huge box office hit, as its appeal is a fairly limited, but it's also the type of movie that has future cult favorite written all over it. Those who like coming-of-age of age tales, period pieces, or 1980s music are bound to find much to like here. Despite some clichés, it's a feel-good, surprisingly sweet film worth checking out. 7/10

The best way to describe Good Boys is that it's a cross behind a live-action version of "South Park" and Superbad. After Superbad became a huge hit in 2007, it seemed like the youth-oriented R-rated comedy would make a major comeback. Instead, the genre all but disappeared. Over the past dozen years, the R-rated comedy has been virtually non-existent with only a handful of comedic studio releases carrying the restrictive rating, so it's a great surprise to see something like Good Boys finally hit theaters again.

Some might say that Good Boys sticks a little too close to the Superbad formula, and there's probably some truth to that. At times, the film does play like a middle school remake of Superbad. That said, I think it's even funnier than Superbad was, so it's hard to hold that against it. Where Good Boys is different than most R-rated youth comedies is in just how young the protagonists of the film are. Having sixth graders swear like high schoolers typically do in films is kind of shocking to see in a mainstream motion picture. Not since Up the Academy (the little seen MAD Magazine film) has a theatrical comedy dared to show middle schoolers as they really talk. For some, this will seem offensive. For those who are younger, this will be seen as entirely realistic, which is what makes Good Boys as successful as it is. It's rare to see a comedy that is both realistic and funny. The only scenes in Good Boys that don't work are the ones that seem a bit too over-the-top (the arm scene for example). 90% of the time the events in Good Boys seem like they could happen in real life, and that makes everything more interesting to watch.

One major advantage the film has over most recent movies is absolutely perfect pacing. There is not a minute wasted here, with almost every moment going towards excellently timed jokes, necessary character development, and moving the story forward as quickly as possible. The usual awful exposition that can be found in a lot of broad comedies doesn't exist here. There were some great lines in the red band trailers that didn't make the final cut, but I didn't miss them too much. Good Boys is easily has the best pacing of any comedy this decade.

Hopefully, Good Boys is a box office success. It's not quite a masterpiece, but it's as close to a comedic masterpiece as I've seen this decade. This is raunchy gold. Highly recommended. 8/10

I had my doubts about Rocko's Modern Life: Static Cling. Although I was a huge fan of "Rocko's Modern Life" as a kid, I very rarely enjoy watching cartoons as an adult. Also, given the fact that 'Static Cling' sat on the shelf for a while before being sold to Netflix didn't inspire me with confidence it was going to be worthwhile. Alas, I was wrong. Rocko's Modern Life: Static Cling is not only the most entertaining Netflix program I've watched in a while, it's also the best Rocko's Modern Life has ever been as a franchise.

The plot is simple: taking place 20+ years after the finale of the original series, 'Static Cling' opens with protagonists Rocko, Heffer, and Filburt traveling around in space, before crashing back into O-Town. Having been away for two decades, the trio find themselves having to adjust to life in the 21st century. The slim plot is basically an excuse to lampoon the culture of 2019 with cell phones, food trucks, reality television, business culture, superhero movies, and TV "reboots" all being targets. While some of these are pretty easy topics to take jabs at, the jokes here are clever and funny without ever being the most obvious of gags. The overall nature of the jokes are less juvenile/crude than the ones found in a typical old "Rocko's Modern Life" episode, and I admit that I was kind of hoping the writers would push the envelope a little more for 2019, but I really can't complain given that this made me laugh more than anything I've watched all summer.

Although certainly super funny and entertaining, it's slightly disappointing that 'Static Cling' only runs 45 minutes long. This easily could have been 15-30 minutes longer, closer to the length of a movie. I'm sure there was plenty of material that the writers didn't use. I guess as this was originally supposed to be a TV special, it had to be able to fit into an hour timeslot, but it would have been great to see more. Given its quick running time, there's absolutely no dead spots. 'Static' Cling moves at a lightening fast pace.

For fans who loved "Rocko's Modern Life" when it was on the air in the 1990s, 'Static Cling' is almost guaranteed to satisfy. It keeps everything that was great about the original show and perfectly updates it to modern day. Out of all the recent revivals of old television shows, this is by far the most successful. Highly recommended. 9/10

Stuber is the type of action buddy comedy that would been greenlit instantly in the 1990s: a mismatched pair, one guy a macho cop and the other a wimpy driver, must learn to work together to solve a case involving drug dealers and corrupt cops. The fact that Uber figures into the plot is the only element that wouldn't have present had this movie been made 20 years ago. The movie is generic and cliched with absolutely no real surprises in terms of story, but it is also, thankfully, just amusing enough to overcome those flaws. Stuber doesn't revolutionize the buddy genre, though it does prove that the formula can still work given a funny script, a good cast, and solid direction.

For those who don't like Kumail Nanjiani and Dave Bautista, Stuber is going to a painful watch. The duo brings their usual personas to their respective roles and turn in the performances fans would expect. As a fan of both stars, I got a lot of enjoyment out of seeing them bicker and banter onscreen. In the role of Uber driver Stu, Nanjiani makes the character timid without coming across annoying or over-the-top. The character easily could have been too overtly pathetic or cringe-worthy, but Nanjiana manages to portray Stu as just likeable and relatable enough to keep the audience on his side. As determined, no-nonsense cop Vic, Bautista brings charisma and toughness to a character that could have been a grating jerk. If there's one big disappointment to Stuber, it's that Bautista doesn't have as many hand-to-hand fight scenes as I'd expect, but given that Stuber pushes more into the comedy category than hardcore action category, this is forgivable.

I've seen complaints about the handheld camera work and editing ruining a lot of the action in Stuber, and while that may be true of the opening scene, the rest of the action in the film is well shot and easy to follow. The car chase towards the end of the film is the high point, perfectly mixing exciting action with laughs. The film had a relatively low budget for a studio flick, so those expecting massive set pieces are sure to be letdown, especially compared to the action extravaganzas that have been released this summer. At 88 minutes, Stuber provides enough comedy and action without feeling overstuffed.

Ultimately, the fact that Stuber was released in the middle of the summer may be the main contributing factor to its less than stellar box office. It is not the best movie of the summer, but it is far from the worst. Had the film premiered on Netflix, I have a feeling the critical and audience reception the film would have been much kinder. As cliched and predictable as it may be, Stuber is entertaining, fun buddy fare. 7/10

Based purely on financial loss, Men in Black: International may end up being the largest flop of summer 2019. In most cases, a big-budget flop is rightfully contributed to a film's poor quality. Oftentimes, films that bomb are deserving of that fate. Maybe it's because I've never been a huge fan of the previous Men in Black features, but I find Men in Black: International completely undeserving of its dismal box office take and lackluster critical reception.

Unlike the previous MIB sequels, it doesn't repeat plot points and events from its predecessors and introduces almost an entirely new cast of characters and storylines. In other words, it does exactly what a sequel should do. While 'International' isn't the most original movie ever, it does at least bring a few fresh ideas to the table. Most significantly, this is a male/female buddy comedy. Buddy comedy being my favorite genre, I can't off the top of my head think of another that combines a man and a woman together, which, being 2019, is kind of surprising. Yet, 'International' doesn't get hung up on gender politics. It doesn't even have much in the way of social commentary. What it does have is an interesting story, a few decent twists, and great one-liners delivered by Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson, who have the same natural chemistry that made Thor: Ragnarok work so well. The downside is that the movie spends so much time moving from plot point to plot point that neither character gets as much development as they should.

A lot of big-budget blockbusters these days get bogged down in endless CGI-heavy fight scenes that take over for story and ultimately becoming boring. Refreshingly, there is something somewhat smaller scale about the action sequences here. Entire planets don't get destroyed. There's not a body count in the hundreds. There aren't overly long battles that take up the whole third act. The action scenes in 'International' are relatively brief compared to modern day action pictures, but they are much more satisfying than most. There's plenty of variety on display here: a good fight scene, a solid chase scene, and occasional gunplay. None of this is overblown or overdone. It's well shot, nicely edited, and, above all, exciting to watch.

Obviously there will never be a sequel to MIB: International. The poor reception guarantees that. But compared to the likes of say last summer's Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, 'International' demonstrates a franchise that is willing to go in a different direction to survive. I can't argue it's a great movie, but it is one of the best sequels to come out of Hollywood in a while. Recommended. 7/10

If there's one horror subgenre that has been dormant in the 2010s, it's the slasher film. A huge staple of the 1980s/1990s and of lesser prominence in the 2000s, the slasher subgenre has been basically nonexistent in the past few years, at least in terms of theatrically released horror movies. One of the very few slasher films released recently was Happy Death Day, a Groundhogs Day meets House on Sorority Row-style horror comedy that managed to make a healthy profit upon its release in late 2017. Naturally, a sequel was put into production fairly quickly and less than a year and a half after Happy Death Day comes Happy Death Day 2U.

While the title may be awful (there's really no reason the movie couldn't simply be called Happy Death Day 2), Happy Death Day 2U manages to be one of the rare sequels that is actually an improvement upon the original. Upping the comedy to the point that classifying it as a horror film may be a stretch, Happy Death Day 2U is more of a throwback to 80s classics like Back to the Future Part 2 and Real Genius than the slasher some genre fans might be expecting. On one level, that's disappointing; Happy Death Day did such a great job of paying homage to the slasher genre that to see that aspect minimized is a bit of a letdown. On the other hand, I can't deny that the increased dark humor of Happy Death Day 28U works. In fact, the film as laugh-out-loud funny as any movie I've seen in the past couple years with fantastic one-liners, solid visual gags, and humorous callbacks to the original. While the movie may actually provide the scares one might expect, it does fully deliver on macabre comedy.

This sequel is definitely zanier and a bit more over-the-top than the original but credit to the entire cast and director Christopher Landon for making the characters feel as real as possible amidst all the goofy time travel shenanigans and plot twists. The dramatic scenes are effective and character decisions make sense given the implausible situations, which isn't always the case in the time travel genre or the horror genre. It may sound weird to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but Happy Death Day 2U gets downright moving towards its finale, with a something to say about grief and loss. I don't mean to oversell the flick as the next Citizen Kane, though it has far more depth and is more interesting than its dopey title would indicate.

I'm not sure why the box office numbers for Happy Death Day 2U are significantly lower than the first one. Maybe the dumb title scared some people off. Maybe the sequel should have come out slightly sooner, like at Halloween (where it would have faced the competition of, well, HALLOWEEN). Maybe the marketing push wasn't big enough. These things are never easy to figure out. Not every movie can be a breakthrough success at the box office. That said, the fact that Happy Death Day 2U is only making half of what the original did when the sequel is a way better film is disappointing. In time, maybe this sequel will develop a bigger following. A lot of horror sequels do. Unless that happens, it's unlikely Happy Death Day 3 will happen, which is a shame. This seems to be the only slasher franchise that gets better as it goes along. 8.5/10

1987's Predator is widely considered one of the best action films of the past thirty years, due to its smart direction, great lead performance from Arnold Schwarzenegger, and nicely done (even by today's standards) special effects. None of the subsequent sequels---Predator 2, Predators, and two Alien Vs. Predator spin-offs---were able to compare to the original. The Predator, co-written and directed by Shane Black (who co-starred in Predator), is by far the best sequel, with just as many memorable lines, fun action sequences, and interesting sci-fi ideas as the first. The film is certainly not without its faults---chief among them a clearly reshot final act and a few too many characters it fails to develop, but The Predator is still the most entertaining action movie I've watched in 2018.

The Predator is the first sequel to understand that what made the original Predator memorable was that the main characters were actually worth focusing on, so that even the scenes without the Predator action were intriguing to the viewer. While a Schwarzenegger cameo would have raised my rating an extra level, the cast assembled here is great, even if the characters aren't three-dimensional. Every character gets their share of fantastic one-liners, and Black does his best to make the characters sympathetic, making their onscreen demises at least have something of an impact. Of course, it's a little too obvious who will live and who will die, but that's a common genre problem.

For a movie with a reported $88 million at its disposal, there are times when it seems like half that money went to reshooting or re-editing scenes. There are times when lines seem lazily looped in, or characters seem to disappear from the narrative too quickly. Jake Busey is introduced as the son of Gary Busey's character from Predator 2, only to supposedly be killed off mere minutes later. Why hire a fun character actor like Busey only to treat him like little more than a glorified extra? The first act with Busey present is definitely the highlight of the film. As things move along, the picture becomes a little by-the-numbers and the production problems become more apparent. Additionally, there seems to be some missed opportunities along the way. A big action set-piece takes place on Halloween night, yet the potential for this is not fully realized. There could have been so much more done to liven up the proceedings. Still, The Predator is never boring to watch, and moves along at a quick pace.

How one feels about The Predator largely depends on how one feels about the franchise itself. An appropriate comparison to The Predator is Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom: both are entertaining enough sixth entries in a science fiction series that has now run out of ideas. Both films are fine and have some replay value, but no more sequels seem necessary. If The Predator is indeed the last Predator feature, it's a solid final installment for fans. 7/10