The Jurassic franchise has been endangered since just after the turn of the millennium. Now that’s not the case financially — the Colin Trevorrow-guided Jurassic World trilogy that kicked off in 2015 was a box office behemoth. Each of those three films grossed over $1 billion globally, which is certainly an impressive feat. But after meeting a deservedly tepid reception upon their initial releases, that entire trilogy has aged like milk, making a bad thing even worse in less than a decade. The films are forgettable at best, nearly unwatchable at worst, trading all of the magic and awe from Steven Spielberg’s efforts for lab-created dinosaurs, computer-generated messes, and…bugs?

Nothing about the first three Jurassic World films has stood the test of even a little time, and we have rightly wondered if these dinosaur adventures could ever get back on track. Can we actually recover from Chris Pratt’s Blue Steel raptor trainer and a saga about genetic cloning that consistently referenced its own failings in its plot without even realizing it? Thanks to Gareth Edwards and original Jurassic Park screenwriter David Koepp, the answer is a resounding yes. Jurassic World Rebirth is easily the greatest of these dinosaur movies since 2001. Depending on how you feel about the first two Jurassic Park sequels, you could argue that it’s the best since 1993.

Just to be clear, Jurassic World Rebirth doesn’t come close to the wonder and technical mastery of Spielberg’s original. It’s apples and oranges between the two. But Jurassic Park is about as perfect as you can get for a film of that scale. Was anything ever really going to compare?

No, it wasn’t, and Jurassic World Rebirth wisely doesn’t try to compete or even reinvent the wheel. This movie is all about reminding people how much fun this franchise can and should be. Does it have a messy plot that doesn’t make a ton of sense? Yes. Is the dialogue sometimes obnoxious? Absolutely. Rebirth is a flawed film, no doubt about it. The lows, however, are microscopic compared to Titanosaurus-level heights Edwards and the team reach here. At its best moments, Rebirth is exactly as advertised, reawakening a deep love for a franchise we thought was going extinct and giving audience members a childlike nostalgia we haven’t felt often since we first saw dinosaurs on the big screen.

Recapturing that magic is actually a major part of the plot of Rebirth, and one of my favorite elements of this film’s narrative. See, the reality of this franchise post-Jurassic World is one of boredom and apathy. People there find dinosaurs more of an inconvenience than anything to actually behold. There’s almost a quiet disdain for the creatures, who never asked to be brought back in the first place. This mirrors the franchise itself, which returned after decades and hit people over the head with genetically engineered monsters and threw the quasi-science that made the original so special right out the window. It went for big thrills over something more genuine and backfired, like the Jurassic World attraction at the center of the 2015 movie, leaving a more cynical planet in its wake.

Jurassic World Rebirth picks up there with a mission that only sounds sillier the more you think about it. Big Pharma billionaire Martin Krebs (Rupert Friend) runs a company that has unlocked a key to stopping heart disease, but in order to make the medicine work, they need the blood of the three biggest dinosaurs — one from land, one from the sea, and one from the sky. Why? Well because they have big hearts, like all dinosaurs do, but these three are special and important for some reason. So Martin hires mercenary and extraction specialist Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson) to retrieve these blood samples from the animals, who only exist on a chain of islands near the equator that have been forbidden from travel by all of the world’s governments.

They bring on paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey) to help identify the correct dinosaurs and ensure the samples are taken properly. And Zora gets her right-hand man, Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali), to help lead her team. As they head for the islands and their mission really begins, they cross paths with a shipwrecked family (led by Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and anchored by a hilarious breakout performance from David Iacono) and do what they can to rescue them. Unfortunately for the family, that means hopping on a boat deep into dinosaur territory. As you can expect, the adventure goes sideways and what was meant to be a simple in-and-out mission becomes a quest for survival.

This story does take a little while to get going. The very first scene is an absolute thriller that sets up the danger of Rebirth‘s lone genetic monstrosity (the D-Rex), but it slows down after that and spends 20-30 minutes getting all of its pieces into place. You’ll feel that first act wear on you a bit. The plotting is scattered and the character beats the film tries to instill in those early scenes tend to fall flat. Well, all of them but the ones involving Bailey’s Henry Loomis, who is the shining beacon of Alan Grant/Ellie Sattler goodness in Jurassic World Rebirth. He’s a man who has devoted his life to dinosaurs (even studying under Dr. Grant for a time), only for the public to swiftly lose interest and leave him wondering what to do next. There’s a lot of ties you can make from Loomis to the filmmakers watching streaming and social media attempt to kill the art that used to bewitch us mind, body, and soul.

Loomis is such an old-school Jurassic Park character, reminding you that “war-hero-turned-raptor trainer” was always as lame as it now sounds. That scientists have not only always been cool, but they’ve also been the real heroes from the very start. And boy, does Bailey bring all that to life in ways that I’m confident make Sam Neill proud. He’s the beating heart of Jurassic World Rebirth and his performance towers over the rest of the ensemble. If you thought Bailey was a capital-M Movie Star after Wicked, Jurassic World Rebirth does more than enough to cement that notion as truth. This guy is the real deal, and good on David Koepp for realizing that a character like Loomis — who genuinely believes dinosaurs are the coolest things to ever live — is so necessary to make a Jurassic movie thrive. In one scene, Loomis tells a mercenary, “It’s a sin to kill a dinosaur,” and I had to resist the urge to stand up and cheer. That is how much reverence these movies are supposed to have for the stunning creatures at their center, and that love has been inexplicably lost since 2015.

The return of that reverence — for dinosaurs and for filmmaking — is what consistently allows Jurassic World Rebirth to soar. It’s not concerned with a major plot about the end of life on the planet (it actually mentions such a thing as more of an inevitable fact), or about trying to build a sweeping love story with two characters nobody likes. Edwards knows you came for dinosaur thrills and, once the characters reach the island, he delivers those droves.

Read Next

Jurassic World Rebirth Funko Pops Arrive With The Distortus Rex

There are so many different dinosaurs in this movie, giving fans a cornucopia of prehistoric excitement around every corner. And unlike other Jurassic films, Rebirth doesn’t really have a “central” dinosaur antagonist. As the story rolls on, we move to different set pieces with different dinosaurs. And each of those set pieces is more exciting than the last. Edwards loves to toy with the audience, laser-focusing on the intersection of human awareness and dinosaur instinct that Spielberg used to create incredible moments like the raptor hunt in the kitchen or the snake in the waterfall. These sequences are expertly crafted, specifically engineered to generate the highest level of suspense and joy.

It’s in those moments, and in some key character choices, that Rebirth ties itself back to the original Jurassic Park. There aren’t any major cameos or surprise reveals in this film — Edwards and Koepp learned from the shortcomings of the three previous entries. But there is such a reverence for the craftsmanship and storytelling of the original that bleeds through from beginning to end. Whether that’s in the form of a fantastic child actor (Audrina Miranda) and her kinship with an adorable baby dinosaur, or with an extended T-Rex chase on a river, or using a closeup of an awe-struck scientist to do all of the talking; Edwards is acutely aware of what made Jurassic Park tick and he does his best to hit those same marks with Rebirth.

The result is very in line with The Lost World: Jurassic Park or 2001’s Jurassic Park III (directed by the criminally underrated Joe Johnston), which I consider to be a serious compliment. You will certainly notice issues, especially in the first act, but those problems pale in comparison to the victories. There are moments that’ll leave you breathless, cheering, and thinking to yourself, “This is why we come to the movies!”

Isn’t that what we’re hoping for every time we buy a ticket? I’ll gladly endure a few shortcomings in an imperfect film if it means giggling to myself, allowing my jaw to drop to the floor, and kicking my feet in my chair with the excitement of a small child because I’m experiencing a level of giddiness that I simply cannot contain. Jurassic World Rebirth did that, and I left the theater grinning ear-to-ear.

I only wish it had gone back to the Jurassic Park title, because that’s what this movie deserves. It’s a true rebirth for a franchise that easily could’ve crumbled under its own hubris, and the title is the sole reminder of the frustrating era of the franchise that Gareth Edwards has all but fossilized.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Jurassic World Rebirth hits theaters everywhere July 2nd.

The post Jurassic World Rebirth Review: A Thrilling Return to Prehistoric Form appeared first on ComicBook.com.

M3GAN (the character and the film) became a cultural phenomenon in 2022, with critics and horror fans alike. The film put a horror spin on cultural concerns about AI and children’s growing obsession with technology and screen time; it also gave horror-comedy a new baddie icon that captured the hearts of TikTokers everywhere. When Blumhouse announced a sequel was in the works, it seemed like a no-brainer. However, few ever expected a sequel like M3GAN 2.0 – probably because it’s one of the more audacious and ultimately ridiculous sequel attempts we’ve seen. But even with some big shifts in the franchise formula, the titular character still shines through enough to keep the franchise’s hopes alive for at least a trilogy.

The story of M3GAN 2.0 sees brilliant roboticist Gemma (Allison Williams) having become a full-time anti-AI advocate, while her niece and ward Cady (Violet McGraw) has struggled to fit into the mold of “normal” life and make friends, after her experience with M3GAN in the first film. The girls’ lives take yet another turn after they are contacted by government officials, who reveal that a different killer android, AMELIA (Ivanna Sakhno), has popped up on the scene and is killing off anyone related to her creation, including Gemma. When that threat manifests, M3GAN (actress Amie Donald, voice of Jenna Davis) finally reveals herself again, having been lurking within Gemma’s smart home systems for two years. Gemma has to make the Faustian bargain of giving M3GAN a new body to help combat AMELIA, while praying her AI creation won’t turn on her and Cady a second time, after the job is done.

Director Gerard Johnstone returns to helm the sequel film, this time stepping up as the screenwriter as well, with the original film’s writer, Akela Cooper (Malignant), credited for helping craft the story. The difference is noticeable: Cooper’s story in the first film was focused on an intimate story about family dynamics and the modern challenges of parenting/working in the digital age. Johnstone approaches the sequel like he was more fascinated with all the memes and TikToks celebrating M3GAN’s iconography and attitude, and (wisely?) cranked up both aspects of the character in the sequel. Johnstone also, quite hilariously, layers an earnest story ruminating on society on the brink of an AI revolution – and then piles a big heaping rip-off of James Cameron’s T2: Judgement Day on top of all that.

The result is a mishmash of style and tones that is laughably cringeworthy in the first act, with Allison Williams and Violet McGraw forced to spout empty platitudes about the dangers of technology, while doing a clunkier rehash of the strained mother-figure/daughter bond from the first film. There are also some baffling detours – most notably Jemaine Clement’s character (a pioneering cybernetics mogul and parapelegic), who chews up significant early screentime with no real deeper point or purpose (beyond setup for a predictable third act spectacle).

Read Next

We Need Sci-Fi More Than Ever (And So Does Hollywood)

It’s only when M3GAN fully enters the picture in Act 2 that 2.0 is given the lifeline of veering into the lane of “bad in a good way” camp that sustains it for the rest of the (overly long) run time. Donald (and especially Davis) have the killer down down pat this time, and having M3GAN as a questionable ally turns out to be even more dynamic and enjoyable than having her play a digital Chucky. More enjoyable banter, quips, and trash-talk between the principal and supporting cast, as well as some ironic fun revisiting the darker turns of the first film.

The ensemble dynamic works well enough that by the time we get to a third act showdown between M3GAN and AMELIA (and the other villanous forces), it’s hard not to giggle at how stupidly over-the-top Johnstone goes with his Mission: Impossible-style climax, which is punctated by some fairly impressive and clever robotic action sequences. The sequel certainly embodies the “everything bigger” mantra of sequel moviemaking, even though the budget is still listed as being within the modest range of $15-25 million.

In terms of new additions, Ivanna Sakhno (Star Wars: Ahsoka) doesn’t get to have as much personality or fun as AMELIA, and arguably comes off more like she’s in Ex Machina instead of a M3GAN sequel. Regardless, AMELIA, as a character, is a fun foil to M3GAN, and the robot vs. robot chess game creates some of the film’s most enjoyable sequences. Aristotle Athari (Saturday Night Live) walks a fine line for his character, Christian (pronounced “Chris-Chi-AN”), Gemma’s questionable new love interest and fellow activist.

M3GAN 2.0 is even more dumb fun than the original — and how you take that depends entirely on what you’re coming to the table looking to eat. But M3GAN eats for sure, and hopefully a third chapter will cut things back down to the leanest, meanest bits (and about 30 mins as well).

Rating: 2 out of 5

M3GAN 2.0 hits theaters on June 27th.

The post M3GAN 2.0 Review: Sassy, Silly, and Strangely Serious appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Three years ago, Pixar tried to make a sci-fi movie, but someone forgot their Big Pixar Playbook, and Lightyear felt like a rough approximation that never really justified its own existence. Fatally, it lacked the company’s usual charm, and the appeal to kids was so questionable that most left wondering why Andy would ever have fallen in love with Buzz in the first place. 2025’s long-delayed Elio is almost the polar opposite of Lightyear, and it’s nice to imagine someone at Pixar refused to give up on the bountiful opportunities of space to get us this little wonder.

Elio is a triumph of imagination, heart, and emotional resonance, tapping into that rare childlike awe of the unknown while delivering the studio’s very familiar blend of humor, beautiful visuals, and profound humanity. There’s a splash of Spielberg’s Amblin spirit in there, too, and if there’s any justice, Pixar’s bravery to be original will see Elio do well enough at the box office to encourage more of that. Right now, it needs positive word of mouth as much as it deserves it.

Because this is Pixar, Elio, of course, has universal trauma at its center. It’s as much about loneliness and grief as it is about a weird little kid finding his tribe. But even as Pixar’s beautiful world-building draws the attention, it’s grief and pain — how we carry it, how we hide it, and how we eventually grow through it — that poke holes through the scenery every now and then. But rather than dwell in sadness, the film is surprisingly life-affirming, as death so perversely often is. It’s a film that celebrates eccentricity, while also reminding that it’s often a coping mechanism, and it’s all clever enough never to become overwrought. Inevitably, that makes the laser-focused moments of melancholy all the more effective.

Read Next

Pixar’s Top 10 Movies, Ranked

It almost goes without saying that Elio is stunning, but I’m going to do it anyway, because there’s more to Pixar movies than just impressive technology. As I’ve already said, the world-building here is some of Pixar’s most inventive to date, but it’s not because of a commitment to hyperrealism: there’s still the usual visual familiarity of the Pixar universe. Some of the alien council members are wild, but they still all feel like Pixar creations, and the space scenes are beautiful and remarkably clever. It’s easy to understand why Elio spends so much time looking up.

The character design is generally great, and no example better encapsulates this than Glordon, the razor-toothed, eyeless slug who, against every instinct, manages to be both endearing and sympathetic. That Pixar once made toys come to life is one thing — but making an eyeless, vaguely phallic alien genuinely lovable? That takes a special kind of magic.

As always, the voice cast is also very good. Yonas Kibreab, as Elio is curious, pained, and charming, and his performance has a broad appeal that makes him a good match for young audience members, but with an emotional accessibility for adults too. Zoe Saldaña plays Elio’s aunt and guardian Olga (he’s another Disney orphan after some unknown tragedy off-screen), and she’s a good and necessary human anchor. Because the best parts of the cast are the aliens, with highlights from Remy Edgerly as walking liability Glordon, Brad Garrett as his booming father, Shirley Henderson as super computer Ooooo (and bringing back her Moaning Myrtle vibes). There’s also a great turn by Ted Lasso’s Brendan Hunt.

Tonally, Elio feels a little like Pixar channeling their inner Spielberg: think Flight of the Navigator meets E.T.: a wholesome look to the stars, but with the right amount of jeopardy. What the story does best is smash together the infinite possibilities of the universe and the tiny bubble of loneliness of not belonging. It’s deft and subtle enough that it might look like Elio forgot to explore the vastness of the universe it teases, but the whole point is that it’s a small, deeply personal story. 

Importantly, Elio doesn’t overstay its welcome. At just under 100 minutes, it’s long enough to explore its world and themes without becoming bloated or losing younger viewers — my own eight-year-old remained spellbound all the way through, and he is, sadly, at the knife’s edge of Generation Brain Rot. That’s not something every animated feature can claim, particularly in an age where run time inflation often works against the attention spans of the audience they’re trying to reach.

There’s a lot to love — the soundtrack too (anything with Talking Heads scores extra points) — but it’s not entirely without its flaws. The film does lean on a somewhat tired kids’ movie trope — a fake-out death scene that feels a bit rote now. Maybe it’s just that the last three major family movies I’ve seen with my son in theaters in the last month have all done it? It is still sad, but the reason it’s sad isn’t the thing itself. Spoilers forbid further discussion, but you’ll see what I mean.

Elio is one of Pixar’s best stand-alone films in a long time — in fact, if it wasn’t for Coco, I’d be quite confident in saying it’s the best since Up back in 2009. If you’re looking for an answer to whether Elio is going to entertain your 6-to-10-year-old kids, the answer is a resounding yes. It’s not just beautifully animated or well written; it has a very important message. It reminds us of the bravery it takes to be different, to feel deeply, and that the challenge to connect with others can sometimes feel more daunting than bridging millions of intergalactic miles. Pleasantly, I can see a world where there’s more from Elio, as the mid-credits scene hints, so let’s just hope it does as well at the box office as it deserves to.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Elio is in cinemas now.

The post Elio Review: Pixar’s Best Standalone in Almost a Decade appeared first on ComicBook.com.

In a world where some horror franchises are defined by annual sequels, patience has proven to be a virtue for 28 Years Later. It would have been easy to jump ahead to this specific title a few years after 2007’s 28 Weeks Later, but giving the audience over two decades to build anticipation may be one of the secret weapons of the movie. Time, the decay that it causes, and the reflection that it inspires seem integral to the DNA of 28 Years Later, the first part of a new trilogy of movies. Don’t worry, though; despite plenty of philosophical ideals and frenetic technical prowess on display for audiences to ponder, at its core, 28 Years Later remains an immensely entertaining summer horror movie.

Set exactly as many years after the first movie as you might expect, 28 Years Later doesn’t land in London, nor follow a character we’ve known for years. Instead, we meet a rural community that lives on an island off the coast of the UK, one that is only accessible from the mainland at low tide, which allows for a small sand dune foot path to be visible. Life has thrived here in a way that one never would have expected. Children grow up and attend school before assuming their place in the community, where the jobs are plentiful (farming, teaching, soldier, etc.). The Rage Virus may have claimed the entire country, but this group has found a way to develop a sense of normalcy. 

Central to the story is Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Jamie, a scavenger/soldier for the community who is preparing to take his 12-year-old son Spike (Alfie Williams) on his first trip off the island. His wife Isla (Jodie Comer) protests as best she can, but her health issues have left her confined to their home, largely bedridden and often confused about who she’s even speaking with. The entire town rallies around Spike as he heads out for this first hunt, setting the stage for his complex feelings about what happens out there and causing him to start questioning everything he’s been taught about the world.

Williams, who had just two credits to his name prior to 28 Years Later, is a standout performer in the film, grounding his portrayal of Spike in the raw, unfiltered emotions that a young teen has flowing through every pore of their mind. He manages to hold his own opposite Aaron Taylor-Johnson, whose dour, macho gruffness is in line with his character but largely feels like no stretch at all for the actor. The always-entertaining Comer delivers another memorable performance as the unwell Isla, balancing a character who seldom has full control of her mind with a mother just eager to protect her son. Though only present for a piece of the film, Ralph Fiennes’s Dr. Kelson is also a delightful addition, one who expands on the world by just existing, dropping interesting pieces of world-building that never feel like a video game’s helpful hint (Taylor-Johnson’s Jamie, by comparison, seems to be written as a tutorial menu).

A remarkable feat of 28 Years Later is that it doesn’t feel like a proper “sequel” in the sense that audiences might expect. Yes, it’s another story set in this larger world that was established previously, complete with an evolution of those infected with “Rage,” but because of the years themselves between the two films, it ends up taking on a much more interesting quality, one where it stands more as a companion to the first movie. With 28 Days Later, Boyle inhabited a DIY, punk aesthetic, filming it with mini-DV tapes (which were blown up to 35mm) and getting derelict shots of an abandoned London filmed in a matter of minutes thanks to limited resources. It’s a film that felt made in a basement, ink-smudged fingerprints still visible on the final product.

In contrast, 28 Years Later embodies a distinctly modern sensibility, but one cast from a similar mold, as the movie used enhanced iPhones for filming. Images of a custom rig that the production used with 20 iPhone 15 Pro Maxs in a semi-circle can be found online, and though the entire movie wasn’t shot this way, knowing that it was utilized in key action scenes is unmistakable when you watch them on screen. An arrow will fly into the eye socket of an infected person, pausing for a split second before sliding twenty degrees in the other direction to give you a fresh perspective on the carnage. It’s something that Boyle only employs a few times, but it’s a cool trick that feels fresh, and fits nicely within the frenetic toolbox that the director has opened up again for the movie. The marketing for 28 Years Later uses the tagline “what will humanity become next,” which takes on a meta quality when considering the craft Boyle wields. 

The distinction between the two films is not only seen in the technical foundation of how they were made, but in the way that their stories are framed. 28 Days Later harkened to a generation lost in the grind of modern expectations and money-making, with wayward adults forced to confront the reality of life and death in the most dire circumstances. By comparison, 28 Years Later is built from a unique perspective of tradition and community ideals. It feels like Boyle is interrogating his own feelings about British history and the cycles that the characters find themselves repeating, consciously or not; not to mention the instances that feel pulled directly from the age of Arthurian legend.

Knowing that 28 Years Later is just the first chapter in a planned trilogy of movies, however, is one of its only detriments. Boyle and writer Alex Garland have cleverly conceived of a story that spans the three films and which puts Spike on the quintessential hero’s journey. What becomes clear from a macro view of the film is that this has really only hit the first few hallmarks of that larger journey, and we’ll have to wait for the second movie to push us to the next place (the second film, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, has already been shot, while the untitled third film remains unrealized). Credit where it’s due, though; 28 Years Later makes sure to sit comfortably in the fact that it’s the first piece of the puzzle and leaves you with a wild tease of what’s to follow, even if it means the movie itself feels somewhat incomplete.

28 Days Later premiered in the shadow of 9/11, and though it may not have been conceived of as a piece of pop art for that specific era, it still managed to fit that label and remains one of the quintessential 2000s horror works. The same can almost certainly be said for 28 Years Later and the political sphere that it has arrived in. In the film, Spike is told in so many words that change can’t happen because that is simply how the world works. His refusal to accept that answer and take matters into his own hands is integral to the narrative drive of 28 Years Later, but is also the bones for what seems like a clear message. The world does not have to be what we claim it is; we can still fix it.

Horror scholars can give a lot of credit to 28 Days Later for revitalizing the zombie subgenre when it first premiered, and in the two decades since then, we’ve seen a lot of ideas thrown at it on film, television, and in games. That’s what makes 28 Years Later so satisfying; despite being on the opposite side of that surge in undead media, it has still found a way to make itself stand out. 28 Years Later is not only a wholly captivating blockbuster, but one with layers that will keep us talking until the second movie comes out, which is the only trouble. On its own, 28 Years Later needs what will follow it to feel whole, even if what we’ve been given already is still entertaining as hell.

Rating: 4 out of 5

28 Years Later hits theaters on June 20th.

The post 28 Years Later Review: A Shot of Adrenaline for Modern Horror appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The Top Gun-to-officially-licensed auto racing pipeline is alive and well in the year 2025. After turning fighter pilots into a generational box office hit in 1986, the late Tony Scott reunited with Tom Cruise to make the NASCAR-set racing drama Days of Thunder just four years later. It’s hard not to think about those two films when watching or talking about F1 The Movie, Joseph Kosinski’s new effort from Apple and Warner Bros.

Kosinski and Cruise helped bring movie theaters back from the brink of extinction with Top Gun: Maverick in 2022. Just three years later, the director made the same move as Scott, taking the techniques and gravitas he harnessed with a Top Gun sequel and applying them to the world of Formula 1 racing. It’s Brad Pitt instead of Tom Cruise, and NASCAR has been traded for the most popular form of auto racing around the globe, but the themes and styles hold true from the days of Scott’s high-speed run. Just like the late action legend did with Days of Thunder, Kosinski recaptured his Top Gun magic for a spectacular racing blockbuster that already feels destined for timelessness.

F1 stars Pitt as Sonny Hayes, a driver who was one of the world’s hottest racing prospects in the 1990s, but a near-fatal crash ended his Formula 1 career just before it could really begin. He has spent years living on his own and traveling the United States as a driver-for-hire, taking on different challenges only to move on once they’ve been conquered. He’s approached by a former teammate (Javier Bardem) who owns a struggling Formula 1 team to replace their second driver for the remainder of the season. It’s a Hail-Mary play for the team that has nothing left to lose, as anything short of a miracle will result in the board forcing a change in ownership, likely putting the jobs of every crew member and employee in jeopardy.

The grizzled lone wolf is partnered up with the team’s young star driver, Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris), who operates with a chip on his shoulder and has to navigate the season knowing the final nine races are essentially an audition for the job he’ll need when the team is inevitably acquired. He’s stuck between trying to help his team win and trying to ensure he has a future in the sport he loves. Hayes and Pearce are products of different places and different times, leading to clashes that you can see coming from a mile away. Meshing the renegade, nothing-to-lose antics of Hayes with the modern approach of Pearce will be the key to saving the season, as well as the team’s future.

As you can probably tell from that synopsis, there’s nothing groundbreaking or even all that new about the tale being told in F1 (written by Ehren Kruger). It’s a very simple concept featuring familiar tropes and storytelling techniques, but that simplicity is one of F1‘s greatest strengths.

This is a very straightforward saga about an elder outlaw faced with the end of his career and a passionate young buck looking to make his mark. We’ve seen this everywhere from classic Westerns to Pixar’s Cars franchise, though Kruger and Kosinski are well aware that these characters are ones we’ve seen before, and that we probably have some clue as to how their stories might end. They harness that familiarity with F1 to keep our attention on the screen itself.

F1 is an audio-visual masterwork. Like Kosinski did with Maverick a couple of years back — and similar to how Scott put viewers right into the thick of NASCAR action with Days of Thunder — F1 sends you on a ride that few films could dream of. The first scene drops you right into the night shift of the annual 24-hour Rolex 24 race at Daytona International Speedway, and you know within a couple of minutes that what Kosinski has cooked up is the real deal. Engines roar all around you, fireworks light up the sky, and it’s as close as 99.99% of us will get to actual professional race car driving. The cameras mounted within the cars haul you through tight turns, and the editing is exceptionally engaging.

The racing will envelope you, and that achievement is paralleled by a cast full of great players who all bring their A-game. Pitt is obviously the heavy lifter and he delivers on every element of that old-school, movie-star performance that the pictures used to get built around. He chews his scenery and spits it back out in every scene, with the swagger only a talent of his caliber and age can. He’s older now, and that experience is what makes him (and Sonny) feel so damn cool. It helps that Sonny’s tale does seem to mirror that of Pitt’s, as an elder statesman who throws caution to the wind for the love of the game. As Pitt transitions into a stage of his career where he won’t have his looks or seemingly perfect health to fall back on, he has to wrestle with how much he’s willing to give the job — and how much it may or may not love him in return.

Idris is a marvelous foil for Pitt, allowing Pearce to evolve and learn from Sonny while gracefully getting across the point that he is, in fact, a future worth betting on. Bardem is as good as always and Kerry Condon is an absolute scene-stealer in the role of the team’s lead engineer (and Sonny’s potential love interest). And I can’t talk about the performances in F1 without mentioning the work of character actor extraordinaire Shea Whigham, who only needs to appear in all of two scenes in the opening 10 minutes of the movie to deliver a character you’ll still want to talk about when the credits roll more than two hours later.

F1 has far more in common with a film like Days of Thunder than just a director’s journey from fighter jets to race cars — this is a throwback blockbuster in every sense. The plot is a bit thin when you look at it on paper, but that works to its benefit because the familiar stories and characters are so expertly executed that it’s easy for us to lean into the warm, nostalgic feeling. The action is innovative and potentially ahead of its time, almost guaranteeing an audience that will continue growing for decades. There’s a bona fide movie star dripping with swagger, surrounded by near-perfect performances from rising stars, respected veterans, and the best character actors in the game. It’s also a movie that’s a bit longer than it needs to be and contains just a few moments that make you feel the 2.5-hour run time.

If you’ve ever said “they don’t make ’em like they used to” about modern movies, F1 is going to be your dream come true. This film was plucked straight out of the early ’90s and reworked with all of the incredible movie-making technologies at our disposal today, destined to be both a staple for physical media collectors and an eternal rerun on TNT that no dad will be able to turn off.

F1 is a product of two eras at once, and I’ve got to believe Tony Scott would love it.

Rating: 4 out of 5

F1 The Movie lands in theaters on June 27th.

The post F1 The Movie Review: The Old-School Blockbuster We’ve All Been Asking For appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Adapting a beloved story from page to screen is never easy. And, as we’ve seen with Disney’s mixed results with their own attempts, remaking an adaptation is another difficult challenge. After all, there’s a lot that can go wrong when you start reimagining something that is beloved a few times over. But if you get it right, there’s magic there and 15 years after Universal and DreamWorks brought Cressida Cowell’s book to the animated screen, the live-action version of How to Train Your Dragon is here to show what that magic looks like, offering audiences a fine example of what a live-action remake can be by giving fans of the original everything they love while adding just a little bit more for those new to the world of Vikings and dragons.

Written and directed by Dean DeBlois — who co-directed the animated film with Chris Sanders back in 2010 — How to Train Your Dragon follows Hiccup (Mason Thames), a young member of the Viking village of Berk. Hiccup’s village is very much the front line in the battle with dragons, creatures that have been laying siege to Vikings around the world seemingly for generations. However, this is not merely a story about Vikings versus dragons. Hiccup is an outsider within his community, something of a goof and a misfit who often causes more issues than he solves, one who is particularly eager to prove himself by taking out the most elusive dragon type of them all: the terrifying Night Fury. This is of significant importance to Hiccup because his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), is the village chief — and a legendary dragon slayer.

[RELATED: How to Train Your Dragon Director Teases the Future of the Live-Action Franchise]

If you’ve read the books or seen the animated film, you largely know the story from here. Hiccup’s attempt to take out a Night Fury ultimately leads him to the beast that he will name Toothless, with his experiences with Toothless teaching Hiccup both a great deal about himself and about dragons in general, leading to the slow revelation that perhaps the Vikings aren’t exactly in the right and there’s a better way of dealing with things. Complicating this is that Hiccup has been enrolled in essentially dragon slayer training as he tries to find his place in Viking society and in the eyes of his own father.

On the grand scale, this live-action How to Train Your Dragon doesn’t change anything. Indeed, this film is faithful, nearly shot-for-shot of the animated original. There are a few things that have been lightly modified — some dialogue is a little different and a couple of scenes have been tweaked just a bit to make the story a bit more cohesive. But beyond that, this is a film that seems to know what its audience is looking for and remains deeply faithful to it. It does, on the surface, make one question what the point of this entire exercise would be. After all, if the film is going to be so faithful to the original, wouldn’t that be formulaic? The answer is, somewhat surprisingly, no. What the live-action film has going for it is that the real-world elements — the water, the human expressions, the landscapes — all add a depth to the story that animation just doesn’t fully capture. When Hiccup and Toothless are learning to fly together, there is just something breathtaking about it in live action that has to be seen to be believed. There’s also something truly emotionally moving in getting to see the real human expressions in key performances. While Butler returns as Stoick, he manages to bring something entirely different to his physical portrayal of the chief, offering a depth that I wouldn’t say the animated film lacks, but the live action simply offers.

This isn’t to say that the film is perfect. The first third of the film is a little awkward, as some of the silliness that is so charming in the animated film just doesn’t perfectly translate. Thames’s portrayal of Hiccup does quite a bit of heavy lifting here. There’s also something that feels a little lacking with Gabriel Howell’s Snotlout. Howell is by no means bad in the role, but the character, as well as his own fraught father-son relationship, just doesn’t quite lift. Neither of these things is enough to have much impact, however, and the result here is that How to Train Your Dragon is exactly what a live-action remake of an animated film should be. It honors the original and enhances it by seeking not to change it. Instead, you come away with a fantastical story that feels just that much more real — and maybe, just maybe, believing in dragons once again.

Rating: 4 out of 5

How to Train Your Dragon lands in theaters on June 13th.

The post How to Train Your Dragon Review: This Is How You Do a Live-Action Remake appeared first on ComicBook.com.

When most people think of Stephen King, they normally think about his countless contributions to the world of horror, and rightfully so — the author’s legacy rivals that of literary greats like Edgar Allan Poe and H.P. Lovecraft when it comes to tales that terrify us. His work in the genre often overshadows his more dramatic and emotionally driven works, even though his stories inspired movies like Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. Complicating King’s perception in pop culture is that it’s been more than two decades since Hearts in Atlantis hit the big screen, arguably the last time one of his dramatically motivated stories was adapted into a feature film. All of that now changes with The Life of Chuck, an experience that reminds audiences that what makes life worth living are the isolated instances of magic.

The Life of Chuck unfolds in reverse-chronological order, starting with Act III before getting to Act I. In the first segment that audiences witness, the characters on screen face a number of ominous omens, which include the many mysterious billboards and commercials paying tribute to Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston). As the story moves forward, we start to learn more about Chuck, his influence on the world around him, and why there’s so much gratitude for him.

Mike Flanagan wrote and directed The Life of Chuck for the big screen, which comes as little surprise to any fan of King. Before Chuck, Flanagan adapted Gerald’s Game, a feat that seemed impossible based on the nature of the narrative, as well as Doctor Sleep, a sequel to King’s The Shining, a tale of terror that many consider the high point of the author’s career. Outside of King adaptations, Flanagan has also delivered genre-bending projects like The Haunting of Hill House, Midnight Mass, and The Fall of the House of Usher for Netflix.

One trend that’s evident in all of Flanagan’s stories, outside of them being well-received by audiences and critics, is how he injects more heart, emotion, and vulnerability than is found in similar contemporary fare. While it’s this emotional core of even the most outlandish of stories that audiences resonate with in Flanagan’s projects, that sincerity is so prevalent that it can sometimes dissuade horror fans who are more interested in superficial scares. Given how interwoven an emotional core is in much of King’s works, it’s a match made in heaven between Flanagan and King, rivaling the mastery a filmmaker like Frank Darabont has with the author’s material. For any fan wondering what a Flanagan project would look like when he got to fully embrace his more heartfelt storytelling inclinations, The Life of Chuck is the answer. Between the script and the direction, it’s growing increasingly rare to see a movie almost entirely devoid of irony, sarcasm, or cynicism. This is still a King story, however, so there are other running themes of otherworldly forces at play, but Chuck is as much of a ghost story as something like A Christmas Carol (a comparison the film itself makes).

The nature of the story being told in reverse chronological order does make for a bit of a disjointed and alienating experience for audiences, reflecting the overall confusion that the characters within the narrative are going through. That said, the interactions between figures who are connecting over the concept of Carl Sagan’s cosmic calendar, a drummer busking on the street, or a dance shared between a grandmother and grandson to Wang Chung’s “Dance Hall Days” feel so painstakingly specific yet entirely universal that it’s hard not to get swept up in the sincerity of these moments. Flanagan fans have seen dozens of moments like these spread across all of his works, which sometimes can feel jarring when juxtaposed with the more frightening nature of other narratives. Chuck, though, feels like Flanagan is delivering a greatest hits of nostalgia, so by the time the credits roll, your memory of the movie is both the more impactful emotional beats while also serving as a metatextual reminder of how its these minute moments that, for better or worse, are ultimately the summation of someone’s life. Despite anyone’s aspirations or far-reaching accomplishments, the memories we have of our own lives are the conversations we had with complete strangers about PornHub or seemingly embarrassing ways we earned scars that stay at the forefront of our consciousness.

In addition to sincerity — which, at times, comes across as corny glee — Flanagan fans have grown accustomed to seeing the same faces pop up among his acting ensembles. Kate Siegel, Mark Hamill, Rahul Kohli, Samantha Sloyan, Carl Lumbly, Jacob Tremblay, and a handful of other regulars all appear, helping elevate the script exactly as you’d expect, while newcomers like Hiddleston, Karen Gillan, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mia Sara, and Matthew Lillard all make for authentic additions to Flanagan’s company of players. While it might be Hiddleston’s visage of Chuck that is most recognizable and has been highlighted most in marketing materials, Benjamin Pajak’s portrayal of a young Chuck earns more screen time than Hiddleston and his portrayal marks a delightful standout performance among an ensemble of heavy hitters.

Like many of his other projects, Flanagan’s direction, cinematography, and editing feel less like reality and more like a hazy memory of events that occurred. Everything has a soft focus to it and, unless intentionally injected with more energy, they unfold at an amble pace. This tone makes the more frightening scenes in his horror projects all the more jarring, though when a story is almost entirely devoid of such elements, it’s possible that some viewers who don’t immediately connect with the material might be lulled into a sense of stasis, failing to engage with the material being presented. Neither the direction nor the performances ever steals focus away from the story being told, and with the story being on the quieter side of things for both Flanagan and King, it’s easy to see that the experience could lose its grasp on some viewers.

The true power of The Life of Chuck is that you gain more appreciation for it as time goes by. On an initial watch, it’s hard not to get swept up into its optimism and appreciation for the smaller moments in life, no matter how seemingly mundane they might initially appear. As more time passes, the joy of watching the film then becomes one of those seemingly innocuous moments that sticks with you in the newfound appreciation you can bring to even the most humble of encounters you have, which will also have you recontextualizing the earlier sequences in the film that seemed to have been scattershot when you first watched them. The Life of Chuck serves both as a reminder that all of our lives are ultimately the sum of minuscule, magical moments, and also as evidence of how immersing yourself in a compilation of heartfelt, fictional encounters will become one such divine voyage.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Life of Chuck is out now in select theaters and opens nationwide on June 13th.

The post The Life of Chuck Review: A Refreshingly Heartfelt Meditation on the Moments That Make Us appeared first on ComicBook.com.

When Prey arrived in 2022, it was like a shot to the heart of the dormant Predator franchise. A longtime mainstay for sci-fi and horror fans, the series had floundered for decades despite attempts to revitalize it with 2010’s Predators and 2018’s The Predator (in addition to countless comic books). What filmmaker Dan Trachtenberg’s movie was able to capture was not only the spirit of the original movie, but Prey moved it into a direction that felt modern, never pandered, and which was able to fully stand on its own. The success of that movie has begat an expansion of Predator like never before, with not only the upcoming Predator: Badlands, a movie starring a Predator due in theaters this November, but the new Hulu original movie, Predator: Killer of Killers.

Predator: Killer of Killers, once again directed by Trachtenberg (co-directed with Josh Wassung), brings two big differences to the franchise formula that immediately make it stand out: it’s an anthology movie depicting multiple time periods, and it’s animated. By taking this segmented approach to the story, Killer of Killers is able to not only expand on the larger franchise in ways that singular movies have never been able to, but it also grants the fandom some wish fulfillment. The potential of Predator has long been untapped, with Prey breaking the dam open. Killer of Killers is able to dig into that foundation with new stories that are fresh and exciting, but also deliver new ideas that never quite feel like a retread of what has come before it.

Where Predator: Killer of Killers really stands out is that even though it’s an animated movie, it is an action movie first and foremost. The film makes full use of the environment that it’s set in and continues to depict each sequence like the camera is following its subject. The first segment in the anthology, “The Shield,” set against the backdrop of Norse warriors in 891 AD, utilizes this in a major way. One scene, in which the Predator is not involved at all, depicts an attack on an enemy village that is stylized like a “one-take” action sequence. The fluid movement of the characters as they slice their way through enemies in all its gory glory is shown off like a camera operator is standing right behind them, dodging the brain matter. It’s not only visually arresting, but it manages to keep the energy of the film alive in an unexpected way.

This is one of the core strengths of Predator: Killer of Killers that is displayed throughout most of the movie: each sequence is well developed and can fully exist as a storyline even without the Predator being involved. From a character standpoint, these are stories that are complete and interesting, meaning the eventual arrival of the Predator in each is like dessert arriving after dinner. The narratives are strong, thoughtful, and entertaining, even without the intergalactic hunter, so when they do pop up and make themselves known, their presence adds depth to a story that is already full of potential. It’s an impressive balancing act that Predator: Killer of Killers manages to pull off with poise.

All of this is on display at its best in the second segment, “The Sword.” In this story, a pair of brothers in feudal Japan are put on opposing sides of a deadly family conflict. Killer of Killers manages to make the build-up to their confrontation, as well as the eventual fight between them, so great that you nearly forget a Predator is watching and waiting for the right time to strike. And when the Predators strike in this movie, you know it. Fans who are eager gore hounds will certainly be satisfied by the twisted weaponry and slicing of human bodies that is shown. Chained weapons carve open skulls and reveal a brain bisected across its hemisphere, and a giant spear impales someone into a wall and opens up to separate their torso from their legs. It’s almost comical, Mortal Kombat levels of body dissection, but fans will be glad to finally see it in a Predator movie.

The third segment of the Killer of Killers anthology, “The Bullet,” brings the action to the Atlantic Ocean during World War II. A young man who wants nothing more than to fly in the sky and be a hero is grounded when the naval fleet he’s stationed with is attacked by an unseen foe in the sky. After two segments of hand-to-hand Predator combat, Killer of Killers knew the exact moment it had to jump around and keep mixing things up. A dogfight with 1940s airplanes against an intergalactic starship naturally does not go well, but this plays into another strength of Killer of Killers: the creativity of how the Predators take down their targets. One would assume laser canons or missiles from a ship, but that’s simply not dignified enough for the hunter ethos of the Predator, instead, it’s something much cooler visually that feeds into the larger story.

There’s a lingering surprise as well in Predator: Killer of Killers that I refuse to spoil, and though it is something that the movie builds to in a proper fashion, it’s also the place where it does tread water. Not only does the narrative stall to make its final points a little clearer, but it also causes the movie to bring in an Easter egg that feels less like a subtle nod and more like a gigantic spotlight. Prey handled this with precision, which makes the inclusion in Killer of Killers seem overthought by comparison. But in a movie that is as visually engaging as this, and unique to the franchise’s big picture, these are faults that amount to quibbles.

Predator: Killer of Killers not only continues a surprising trend by being another homerun for the franchise, but reveals that even a series that has been beaten down like Predator can thrive and prosper with the right level of care. The format of both anthology and animation work hand in hand here to not only deliver a satisfying exploration of the series but to give viewers something new. One hopes that Dan Trachtenberg doesn’t find himself chained to this franchise for the rest of his career, but if that’s what he wants to do and his ideas remain this exceptional and well executed, it’s something to be celebrated.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Predator: Killer of Killers hits Hulu on June 6th.

Read Next

Predator Kills the Marvel Universe Announced (& There Will Be a Big Body Count)

The post Predator: Killer of Killers Review: A Bloody Good Time With Big Surprises appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The original John Wick largely flew under the radar during its development, as Keanu Reeves had starred in a handful of action movies in the preceding years and director Chad Stahelski and writer Derek Kolstad weren’t entirely household names. The movie was a sleeper hit, but with each passing year, more audiences became impressed by the sympathetic storyline and ambitious action sequences, to the point that the franchise has earned not only four installments, but also the all-new spinoff From the World of John Wick: Ballerina. With the impact of the John Wick series being seen in virtually every action movie from the past decade, Ballerina gets off to a rocky start by feeling like yet another imitator, though it eventually finds the right narrative components to deliver the kind of inventive combat this franchise is known for.

With her family being murdered by mysterious killers at a young age, Eve (Ana de Armas) joins the Ruska Roma to make a living as an assassin. During a mission, Eve discovers a clue that could lead her to discovering who’s responsible for the death of her family, and much John Wick in his own storyline, she embarks on a path of revenge that could betray the twisted code of ethics followed by assassination organizations, putting a target square on her back.

On paper, there wasn’t a lot about the original John Wick that set it apart from countless hitman movies that came before it. Instead, it was an effective combination of tried-and-true action tropes — a sympathetic antihero, a stoic lead performance, mysterious mythology, and unrelenting brutality — to create effective counterprogramming to the superhero movies dominating the cinematic landscape. Since then, films like Atomic Blonde, Nobody, Violent Night, Bullet Train, and Hotel Artemis have attempted to replicate that formula to varying degrees of success. While many of those films have some behind-the-scenes connections to the original John Wick, resulting in a mixed bag of success, even Ballerina struggles to live up to its namesake by borrowing too much from the source material and feels like yet another direct-to-streaming knockoff.

The first act of Ballerina features a murdered family inspiring a life of killing, a largely reserved main character, and combat training sequences. As Eve graduates to becoming a full-blown killer, we see her invading nightclubs and fancy hotels to carry out her missions, with such environments becoming a staple of this franchise. Eve’s rendezvous with Daniel (Norman Reedus) offers more clues about who killed her family, with this character contributing little more to the story than “go here to continue your mission.” Ballerina marks writer Shay Hatten’s third outing in the John Wick franchise, though it’s his first solo writing credit after having co-writers on John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum and John Wick: Chapter 4. The structure of the first two acts of the story feels both convoluted and redundant, not really accomplishing anything to make Ballerina feel unique. With Ballerina being directed by Len Wiseman, who previously helmed Underworld, Live Free or Die Hard, and the Total Recall reboot, in addition to only earning a fraction of the creativity behind more successful John Wick efforts in writer Hatten, it’s easy to see why so much of this movie feels like a misguided attempt to replicate the effectiveness of previous films without knowing why those movies were a success.

Hatten and Wiseman shouldn’t entirely be to blame for their middling start to an extension of the Wick franchise, as the Peacock series The Continental: From the World of John Wick also attempted to expand the world to a lukewarm reception from audiences and critics. Additionally, Hatten has previously expressed that he wrote the script for Ballerina after watching the trailer for John Wick: Chapter 2, only for the movie to be rewritten to be fully incorporated into the franchise, ultimately explaining how the premise could feel like an imitator as opposed to its own concept. Given that we’ve also seen movies like Black Widow and Red Sparrow borrow the idea of ballet-trained assassins, there’s really not much about Ballerina that feels fresh and, frankly, the first half of the movie doesn’t.

Luckily, the events of the back half of the narrative borrow a page from films like Assault on Precinct 13, Die Hard, and The Raid, putting Eve in a location where she is surrounded by killers and with no escape plan. During Eve’s training earlier in the film and as seen in trailers, she’s reminded that due to her size, she’ll never beat most male assassins, so it’s up to her to change the rules of combat. The first half of the movie doesn’t explore this theme quite as much, while the second half gets to depict Eve’s inventiveness more fully. From grenades to flamethrowers to ice skates, Eve uses anything in her proximity to take out threats, many of which approach her with weapons more traditionally associated with assassins.

One major question with any sequel, reboot, or spinoff is what a new installment can bring to the franchise that’s different from what came before it. At the start, there’s little about Ballerina that feels new, other than offering an adventure focusing on a character with a different gender from John Wick, though the back half of the movie finally gets to showcase a different type of excitement for audiences. The narrative location featured in the back half of the movie isn’t the only thing that makes Ballerina stand apart from proper Wick films, as even the visual execution of these sequences feel much more original. Rather than delivering neon-lit nighttime nightclubs, Eve enacts her plans in a snowy village in the middle of the day. With the first half of the movie allowing de Armas’s face to be obscured by her hair in poorly lit locations, the second half clearly showcases the actor engaging in these brutal fights.

One of the major appeals of John Wick as a character and Reeves’s performance is that he shows a lot more than he tells, being a man of few words who operates with stoicism. Based on the nature of Ballerina‘s premise, de Armas isn’t afforded that luxury, with the movie forcing her to deliver cliched emotional confessions about her past and also ludicrous bits of exposition about the various assassination organizations. Similar to the overall narrative and the action sequences, everything about de Armas’s Eve improves in the back half of the movie when she gets to show more than she’s forced to tell. Gabriel Byrne fits the requisite mold of a mysterious villain and Reedus does the best he can with a superfluous character, while Anjelica Huston, Ian McShane, and Reeves are about as entertaining as you’d anticipate with their character reprisals. Confirming just how long this movie has been in various stages of production, fans also get an appearance from Lance Reddick’s Charon, despite the actor having died in March of 2023.

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina feels like one of many generic imitators of its namesake for a large chunk of the movie, so it’s easy to find it difficult to engage with the material at its most crucial moments. The overall concept feels a bit redundant, there’s not as effective of an emotional hook, and Eve doesn’t initially have the same appeal as Reeves’s iconic killer. Still, fans who are willling to stick it out to the end will be fully rewarded with a slowly building symphony of destruction, as Eve appears to earn an even higher body count than Wick in some of his previous excursions. Had the successes of the film been reversed — starting strong and then fizzling out — then Ballerina might have landed with more of a thud, yet by starting slow and working towards a thrilling crescendo, the movie earns its rightful place alongside the proper John Wick franchise, even if Eve’s adventure is a one-and-done outing.

Rating: 4 out of 5

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina lands in theaters on June 6th.

The post Ballerina Review: A Worthy Expansion of the World of John Wick appeared first on ComicBook.com.

In 2021, Netflix debuted a fresh trilogy of horror movies inspired by R.L. Stine’s Fear Street book series, unleashed on a Friday of three subsequent weeks as part of an unprecedented event release strategy. At first glance, the period setting and young cast of the Fear Street trilogy seemed like an excuse for Netflix to bank on the success of Stranger Things, strategically positioned to help fill the gap left by the lengthy hiatus between new seasons of the streaming service’s flagship title. However, the three films became a hit on their own, thanks to Leigh Janiak’s sleek direction, unexpected character depth, a queer-centric narrative concerned with social themes, and deliciously paced slasher kills. Given the critical and commercial success of the Fear Street trilogy, it’s shocking that Netflix took so long to release a fourth movie. However, watching Fear Street: Prom Queen makes us wish they had waited even longer to get it right, as the latest instalment is a downgrade of everything that made the first three special.

Set in 1988, Fear Street: Prom Queen takes fans back to Shadyside, a city marked by a history of violence and structural inequality, living in the shadow of the prosperous Sunnyvale. While the cultural schism between the two neighbouring communities was part of the Fear Street trilogy foundation, in Prom Queen, the conflict is reduced to a few throwaway lines, added for brand recognition but with little meaning for the actual plot. Instead, the fourth movie unfolds almost entirely in Shadyside High, as six senior students vie for the coveted prom queen crown.

First, we have the Wolf Pack, a quartet of popular girls led by the vicious Tiffany Falconer (Fina Strazza). Then, the two outliers of the competition are rebellious drug dealer Christy Renault (Ariana Greenblatt) and ostracized Lori Granger (India Fowler), who is constantly bullied due to the pervasive rumors that her mother killed her father at prom, many years prior. Unsurprisingly, prom night takes a bloody turn as a masked killer starts chasing the candidates, one by one, disposing of them with extreme prejudice.

[RELATED: R.L. Stine Confirms Even More Fear Street Movies Are on the Way (Even After Prom Queen)]

The very premise of Fear Street: Prom Queen already betrays the franchise’s ethos. Either through the lenses of romantic love or sorority, each Fear Street movie told a story that was essentially about women loving and supporting each other. On the contrary, the new installment is about the petty disputes of high school girls who are never given more than one or two personality traits. The movie doesn’t care about explaining the characters’ motivations, and after each of them is described in a lengthy and slow internal monologue at the opening scene, almost all of them will be reduced to the role of the next victim, deprived of agency or relevance. It’s an appalling contrast with the Fear Street trilogy, where even minor characters are made memorable through their choices.

Lori and Tiffanny, as arch-rivals, get a bit more screen time than the rest of the cast. Not that it does them any good. Lori’s desire to challenge the odds and become prom queen is born from a collection of cliches, including her poorly hidden crush on Tiffany’s jock boyfriend. As for Tiffany, she is nothing more than the popular girl who wants to remain popular, which, of course, means she must be cruel all the time, per the book of tired stereotypes. As a result, the two main women of the new Fear Street are so incredibly bland that watching them on screen becomes an exercise in boredom. And yet, Suzanna Son’s Megan Rogers, Lori’s best friend, might be the biggest waste of talent of the movie, paraded around as half-baked queer-bait in an incredibly heteronormative high school story.

Another aspect of the Fear Street brand that Prom Queen unceremoniously murders is its ability to surprise the audience. Each original trilogy movie peeled back new layers of an interconnected mystery that constantly challenged fans to question every rule of its supernatural game. Fear Street: Prom Queen is more akin to a classic slasher movie, never straying from the most obvious path until its very end. The plot’s predictability makes the whole experience a lot less thrilling than it could have been, something that’s worsened by the fact that the kill scenes are not particularly impressive.

The special effects team of Fear Street: Prom Queen does its best to improve each murder sequence, making the most of practical effects and blood-soaked prosthetics to bring some fun to a dull story. Unfortunately, the deaths are too familiar to make any impact. Also, these scenes are sabotaged by rushed editing that fails to build anticipation and just splatter the screen with blood as fast as possible, so the story can go back to the redundant bickering of Lori and Tiffany. Without reasons to care about the victims or well-directed scenes that build the suspense before the blade finally cuts the flesh, not even the gore of Prom Queen can save it from being tedious. It’s clear, by comparison, how much the franchise has suffered with the departure of Janiak, as Prom Queen lacks the expressive direction that elevated the original movies.

It’s not all bad, as Prom Queen carries over some stylish lighting that the original trilogy cemented. There’s still some genuine care put into capturing the feel of the 1980s through clothing, hairstyle, and selected soundtrack. Without the “Fear Street” brand on its title, Prom Queen could even pass as a casual horror movie you turn on with friends when you need something that doesn’t demand attention to keep running in the background. But the latest Fear Street installment is by and large the worst in the franchise, while also a low-tier slasher and a cinematic disservice in terms of character depth, relevant themes, and well-rounded script.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Fear Street: Prom Queen is now streaming on Netflix.

The post Fear Street: Prom Queen Review: A Bloody Betrayal of the Franchise  appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Disney’s live-action movies have been something of a mixed bag, but only in the way that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has a supposedly “inconsistent” track record. They’re still all good, but by the House of Mouse’s sparkling standards, they’re not all home runs. And with Snow White‘s divisive theatrical run still not over, Disney’s latest live-action remake, Lilo & Stitch, probably has a lot more to do to justify its existence than most of its predecessors.

If you’re wondering why Lilo & Stitch was ever on the live-action docket when there are far more successful Disney classic animations untouched, you’re probably not the target audience for the remake. Along with Spider-Man, Pixar’s Cars, and The Nightmare Before Christmas, Stitch is a merch-selling monster, with licenses granted seemingly almost as liberally for the alien as they are for Mickey Mouse himself. Follow the money, or the potential for it, and you have the most cynical version of this answer.

RELATED: Lilo & Stitch Rotten Tomatoes Score Highest for Disney Remake in 9 Years

But look beneath the corporate urges, and Lilo & Stitch exists for exactly the same reasons that make the remake a genuinely good watch, for the most part. Stitch (voiced once again by Chris Sanders) is infinitely charming because he’s nothing like typical Disney characters (something the original marketing leaned quite heavily on). And at the same time, he’s at the center of a story that could very easily have been written for a Pixar movie, about belonging and the value of found family.

How Well Lilo & Stitch Works as a Remake

There’s a lot of cynicism around Disney’s live-action remakes when they clone the originals, because they’re essentially offering a facsimile with no added merit other than technical pageantry. The same, of course, can be said of basically all AI footage, which is why it feels so empty: it exists because it can, but nobody paused to ask if it should. In Lilo & Stitch‘s case, the like-for-like sequences were actually the strongest, because that’s where the energy of the original is matched best.

There are genuinely funny bits, and genuinely heartbreaking moments, too, and Stitch’s chaos works very well because Disney made such an effort to make sure this was very much the same character. Not a reimagining, not a careful imposter, but the same adorable little menace, simply rendered differently. That has not always been the case with other live-action Disney characters. The central message of “Ohana” is still disarmingly important, and even having seen the original countless times, the remake does it justice.

What Didn’t Work So Well

I’m less keen on some of the narrative changes that saw two of my favorite (admittedly brief) moments excised completely, or the change to Agent Cobra Bubbles’ backstory. Courtney B. Vance plays him well enough, but he’s nothing compared to the version voiced by Ving Rhames, and Vance’s take would have been vastly improved if they’d just stuck to the original material. The change serves no obvious purpose other than to introduce another character, in order to allow original cast member Tia Carrere to return.

Lilo & Stitch in live-action misses some of the zip of the original, and though it’s not one of the more fantastical animations of the early 2000s (even with an alien plot), the difference here is quite noticeable. The ending sequence that controversially changed in the wake of 9/11 is pared down in scale, there are fewer jokes, and less wild energy. My mantra here is that while it’s good, and fun, and has a lot going for it, it’s just a little… lesser. Lesser than the original, lesser than it could have been.

Lilo & Stitch‘s Cast Is Mostly Strong (With Notes)

The human cast is, somewhat inevitably, not quite as good as Stitch, who eats up scenery a little. Lilo is played by newcomer Maia Kealoha, who plays her a little younger than the original, and only gets the sass level about half right before reverting too much to blood-curdling screaming. Sydney Agudong plays her frazzled older sister Nani with a similar spirit to the original, and offers a stand-in for older audience members who will see in her an exhausting desire to just do right by loved ones who are determined to make life difficult.

RELATED: Lilo & Stitch Live-Action Made a Big Change to Stitch (and It’s for the Best)

Alongside the main pair, Zach Galifianakis plays Stitch’s creator Jumba, and Billy Magnussen plays alien agent Pleakley, who is sent alongside him to capture Stitch by Hannah Waddingham’s Grand Councilwoman. Magnussen clearly had a lot of fun and is very good value for money, while Galifianakis is a little too straight and soft-edged for the role, if I’m looking for reasons to complain. Really, they all do well enough to keep the focus on Stitch and his human family members without stealing too much thunder.

As with the original, kids will love Stitch’s chaos — which makes the fact that there could absolutely have been more of it a bit of a drag — and there’s enough of an all-ages appropriate, wholesome message in the soft, sticky center to please the whole audience. I loved it because it gave me another way to love Stitch, and a renewed admiration for the story, and it only loses points because I wanted it to be more like the 2002 original. So maybe I’m the problem, and maybe I should just go back and rewatch that one again.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Lilo & Stitch is in theaters starting May 23rd.

The post Lilo & Stitch Review: Nobody Needed This, But I Still (Mostly) Loved It appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Horror movies focusing on grief and loss are nothing new in this spooky medium as both are prime territory for the supernatural to creep its way in. Following their initial directorial debut in Talk To Me, Danny and Michael Philippou have returned with a gut-wrenching tale that fuses the satanic with some very real emotional beats. Bring Her Back is a story that never pulls any of its punches and in doing so, cascades its way to become what is one of the best horror movies of 2025.

Bring Her Back begins with brother and sister, Andy (Billy Barratt) and Piper (Sora Wong), as they come upon their father in the shower, having collapsed for reasons unknown and being pronounced dead on the scene. Thanks to Andy being three months away from turning eighteen, he cannot yet become the legal guardian of Piper, meaning that they will have to spend their time in a foster home until they hit that pivotal time. Brought in by Laura (Sally Hawkins), their new caregiver seems as perfect as perfect can be on paper but things seem awry when the siblings meet young Ollie (Jonah Wren Phillips). From here, the brother and sister learn that they are a part of something supernatural that they never could have expected, irrevocably shattering their lives forever.

Bring Her Back is something of a masterclass when it comes to creating a dramatic story whose horror elements accentuate the drama, while simultaneously establishing skin-crawling beats that stay with you leaving the theater. To start with the dramatic elements, much of the heavy lifting comes from Sally Hawkins and her portrayal of a grief-stricken mother who never quite got over the loss of her daughter. Hawkins is at the top of her game here, going from kind caregiver one minute to malevolent force of nature the next as both sides of the same coin are totally believable. On paper, what she is attempting to do is by no means sane, but as a viewer, you are given more than enough reason to understand why she is following this dark path.

Of course, the large swath of supernatural shenanigans comes from the film’s unofficial mascot, Ollie. Jonah Wren Phillips does a disturbingly great job in this role who, despite being mute, brings the creepy atmosphere and horrifying moments that the story demands. There are more than a few scenes in the film that are so uncomfortable that fellow audience members in my screening were wailing, and those wails are earned. Bring Her Back includes things I have never seen in a horror movie before and I hope to never see again, but these scenes work well in terms of accentuating the terror that is taking place in Andy and Piper’s new abode.

Billy Barratt and Sora Wong as Andy and Piper respectively work well here, finding themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place as the pair are sometimes pitted against one another in some traumatic ways. Without diving into spoiler territory, one of the bigger complaints I gave cines in the form of Andy’s relationship with his father or more precisely, what wasn’t shown in this relationship. Andy’s parental issues become a big part of the story’s second half and had this relationship been further fleshed out beyond exposition, it might have hit that much harder.

Another place Bring Her Back excels is in the simply gorgeous cinematography. There are stunning shots throughout that will leave you thinking that the Philippou brothers had a much larger budget than they did, with the final shot being an encapsulation of this statement. Danny and Michael, much like in Talk To Me, had a clear vision of what they were hoping to achieve in Bring Her Back and they achieved it. I cannot wait to see what the brothers do in the future with bigger budgets and more studio-backing as they are already establishing themselves as masters of horror with limited resources.

Bring Her Back makes for a harrowing tale of dealing with death and moving forward in the face of an unspeakable evil. On paper, the supernatural stylings of the film almost seem too ridiculous to believe but the Philippou brothers make said stylings feel all too natural to this world. Bring Her Back earns its place not just as one of the best horror movies of the year but one of the best period.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Bring Her Back hits theaters on May 30th.

The post Bring Her Back Review: A Harrowing Tale of Loss Creates One of The Year’s Best Horror Movies appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Back in 1996, Tom Cruise and director Brian De Palma managed to pull off the, well, impossible task of adapting the Mission: Impossible TV series in a way that was thrilling, clever, and at times bombastic. The movie went on to take in $450+ million worldwide, kicking off a 30-year franchise full of its highs and lows. Throughout this journey, the franchise has seen actors come and go and filmmakers come and go, but it has been Cruise’s penchant for putting his life on the line and the compelling direction of Christopher McQuarrie that have made the franchise truly soar for the past decade. Based on its title and previous remarks from both Cruise and McQuarrie, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning was expected to be a sendoff to the series, and while the sequel delivers on a number of elements audiences have grown to love over the years, they’re stretched out over a nearly three-hour run time that seems to have forgotten what made these movies such crowdpleasers in the first place.

Set months after the events of Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, the sentient AI known as “The Entity” that was hellbent on taking over the world has yet to be destroyed, while also inspiring fanatics to worship the algorithm and welcome the apocalypse. Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is in the precarious position of possessing a key that could lead to the control, or destruction, of The Entity, unless Gabriel (Esai Morales) or the American government can intervene. As expected, Ethan enlists the help of his most trusted allies, Luther (Ving Rhames), Benji (Simon Pegg), and Grace (Hayley Atwell), to pull off a mission to stop The Entity, Gabriel, and any global government from getting their hands on the unstoppable algorithm.

Over the course of 30 years and eight installments, Mission: Impossible has seen peaks and valleys in its popularity. 2006’s Mission: Impossible III earned the best reviews of the original trilogy, yet had the smallest footprint at the box office, seemingly hinting at the franchise having run its course. Then, Brad Bird’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol put a fresh spin on the concept, as it highlighted the most bombastic set pieces imaginable, only for the team to struggle with mechanical setbacks, while also injecting playful banter to juxtapose the death-defying and world-ending narratives. Scoring franchise-high critical reactions and box office numbers, Ghost Protocol set a new standard for the series that all subsequent sequels have been chasing.

Technically, Final Reckoning does deliver the bare basics of what makes for a successful Mission: Impossible movie; we get an eclectic team trying to pull off a ludicrous plan, we get ambitious set pieces, and we get to witness Cruise personally delivering breathtaking stunts. Outside of delivering on the absolute minimum of expectations, though, the film leans into some of the least engaging elements of previous films, feeling almost as if it was an algorithm that put the film together and was oblivious to what made the series so strong.

One of the biggest failures of Dead Reckoning (other than killing off Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa to find a surrogate IMF member in Atwell’s Grace) was The Entity. In some ways, the movie felt ahead of the curve in highlighting the dangers of AI, though the script itself and the characters constantly saying “The Entity” in the most dramatic way possible undercut the true nature of the threat. Final Reckoning goes even further down this route, positioning The Entity as a threat akin to The Terminator‘s Skynet or the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Ultron. There’s plenty of suspension of disbelief when it comes to this franchise, largely in the realm of things like gravity and physics, but all of the narratives themselves felt somewhat grounded in a reality. Much like how Dead Reckoning made it seem as though The Entity could take human form in Gabriel or throw a lavish party to unite its threats, Final Reckoning failed to learn from its mistakes, making The Entity an all-powerful sci-fi being that has even devised contraptions akin to something out of The Matrix that allows individuals to communicate with it.

Not only does leaning into the omnipotence of The Entity mean Ethan and his team are largely chasing an intangible threat, but we get absolutely absurd pieces of dialogue. On the one hand, this does replicate what the original Mission: Impossible knew about the Internet, when you could send out emails to random combinations of words like “Max@Job 3:14” and actually get in touch with someone, yet in 2025, it feels entirely outdated. The many incredible stunts feel far more believable than the characters regularly talking about “cyberspace” and delivering lines like “we’re in The Entity’s reality” or referring to The Entity as “the Lord of Lies.” Not many people are going to Mission: Impossible movies to see an accurate reflection of reality, but using jargon we don’t have a real grasp of is preferable to how this script discusses its sentient algorithm.

A key character reveal of Ethan’s in Dead Reckoning is when he admits that nothing is more important to him than his team. While Luther has been in the series since the debut installment and Benji has been along for the ride since Mission: Impossible III, Final Reckoning treats Ethan’s crew as entirely indispensable figures. The issue, though, is that Grace has only briefly worked with Ethan and, despite the talents of Atwell, their relationship feels entirely arbitrary. Cruise’s dynamics with Rhames and Pegg are as charming as ever, while this movie adds Greg Tarzan Davis’s Degas and Pom Klementieff’s Paris to the IMF’s mix. If you don’t remember who Degas is, he was the partner to Shea Whigham’s Briggs in Dead Reckoning, who had a few minutes of screen time and said a handful of words, making his inclusion on Ethan’s team and Ethan’s reverence for the figure feel entirely unearned. Paris, though, is easily one of the highlights of Final Reckoning, largely due to her reluctance to be on a team, allowing her to establish herself as her own character. (Severance breakout Tramell Tillman marks another highlight among the ensemble, despite having a limited role.)

When so much of the narrative focuses on Ethan’s passion for his team, looking back at the franchise as a whole and the number of characters who have come and gone for one reason or another, it’s hard to really buy into this reality. Actors like Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Fishburne, Thandiwe Newton, Jeremy Renner, and Paula Patton have all played characters who served as allies to Ethan, only for them to be cast aside. For longtime fans of the series, we do get some unexpected callbacks and references to the debut installment, though it’s frustrating for a franchise to emphasize the importance of a team, only to pick and choose which of those team members get to take part in a mission.

Even if the overall story and the team dynamics only somewhat work in Final Reckoning, fans also take delight in the series’ action. The final action sequence of the film is nothing short of spectacular, which will leave your jaw on the floor over what Cruise was willing to risk for the sequence. Still, this sequence doesn’t feel like an organic extension of the narrative so much as it was an opportunity to show that the actor uses these movies for his own personal thrill-seeking proclivities. While previous installments have benefited from long underwater takes or jumps out of an airplane to heighten the cinematic accomplishments of those installments, Final Reckoning’s biggest stunt doesn’t accomplish much more than “wow that really is Tom Cruise.” Much like the motorcycle base jump of Dead Reckoning, Cruise personally filming the stunt is a case of him doing it because he could, as opposed to doing it because he should.

Some critics and studio execs have identified Cruise as a “savior of cinema” due to his commitment to practical effects and the cinematic experience, and he seems to have bought into this identity entirely. Long gone are the days of Ethan Hunt showing any humility or failures, which are character traits that helped revive the franchise, as the movie and its stunts feel more like a showcase of how far he’s willing to go to film practical stunts as opposed to embracing CGI. The movie does, however, deliver a nail-biting, underwater sequence that will leave you on edge, but the nature of the underwater antics means its less of an explosive experience and more of a tense pursuit. The underlying theme of this series has often been “come watch Tom Cruise run and put his life on the line,” and Final Reckoning is the epitome of this conceit.

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning is a bittersweet experience; there are brief glimpses of all the things we’ve come to know and love about the franchise, yet it ventures too far into the more uninteresting realms to make it feel entirely satisfying. The movie fails as a potential sendoff to Ethan or the series as a whole, and also falls short of being an entirely satisfying sequel. With Dead Reckoning coming up $200+ million less than Mission: Impossible – Fallout, Final Reckoning isn’t quite the comeback fans had expected from that more lackluster entry. Still, there are glimmers of delight, intriguing espionage, franchise callbacks, and charismatic characters to prevent it from being a massive failure, though it seems the time has come for the series to reinvent itself once again. For a franchise so well-known for its ambition and risk-taking, Final Reckoning is surprisingly safe.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning hits theaters on May 23rd.

The post Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning Review: A Sporadically Spectacular and Self-Serious Sequel appeared first on ComicBook.com.

It’s been 14 years since the Final Destination franchise toyed with audiences and the deadly implications of everyday life. The horror series has made everything from tanning beds to roller coasters into horrifying traps, turning the films into fan favorites for years, and the wait for a new installment has been a long one. With Final Destination Bloodlines, New Line Cinema has confirmed that there is still gas in the tank for this wild horror series, at least with what fans have come to expect from its Rube Goldberg death machines. Though satisfaction can be found in the creative ways the new movie kills off its characters, Final Destination Bloodlines never quite captures the magic of the best entries.

The opening accident premonition that fans have come to expect is a wild case of explosive carnage in a sky-high restaurant set in the 1960s, revealing itself to not just be a vision from one character at that time, but a recurring dream for Kaitlyn Santa Juana’s Stefani in the present day. The trouble is that the dream is ruining her life, forcing her to dig into her family’s past and discover their place in death’s design. After discovering that her dream was the premonition that her reclusive grandmother had decades ago, where she saved dozens of lives that have since spawned families of their own, the film kicks itself into gear with expected mayhem.

Directed by the filmmaking team of Zach Lipovsky and Adam Stein, Final Destination Bloodlines can rest its laurels on the fact that its intricate and grisly ways of killing its characters are done with a careful amount of suspense and hilarious ideas. There is something to be said for how frequently the filmmakers subvert the expectations of the audience in terms of not only who will die, but how they will ultimately be knocked off. An argument could perhaps be made that the film goes out of its way to pull at the taffy of suspense in each moment a little too long, making the setup for all of the deaths extend well beyond what any other Final Destination movie has done. However, the ingenious concepts behind the many, many deaths on screen will no doubt elicit cheers and screams, no matter how long the audience has to wait.

Credit where it’s due, Final Destination Bloodlines also has a clever route toward making a new movie in the franchise work. It would have been easy to pick up the formula and have a new batch of young actors take part in the same steps you’re expecting, but through a 2025 lens. Instead, Bloodlines has a slightly more thoughtful approach, using the rules of the franchise to paint a bigger picture that ties into every other movie in the series in a unique way. The trouble that this creates, however, is twofold; the opening sequence is not only the best stuff in the entire movie, but it ends up giving the film an extended prologue that makes it stand out from the rest of the series by a major degree. The 110-minute run time for Bloodlines is excruciating by the end as it clocks in 20 minutes longer than almost every other entry, and nearly 30 minutes longer than the franchise’s shortest installment. 

The bloated run time of Bloodlines is at least partially to blame on the scenes between deaths, where the characters come together. These sequences not only lack any kind of finesse or nuance, but the material at hand isn’t made any more interesting by the performances. One exception to this is, of course, the required cameo by the late Tony Todd, reprising his role of William Bludworth. Todd delivers yet another poignant sequence, one that feels tailored for his actual real-life death, which also grants him a graceful exit from the series as a whole. If it wasn’t clear that some of the acting in the movie leaves something to be desired, Todd enters the film for one moment and drops a clinic on his scene partners.

By the expectations of the sixth movie in a horror franchise, Final Destination Bloodlines lands about where you would think in terms of the cast and their capabilities. Kaitlyn Santa Juana’s Stefani Reyes is front and center, but she’s far from the most captivating screen presence. Instead, Richard Harmon’s Erik, who is central to the tattoo parlor-set teaser trailer for the film, is easily the movie’s most interesting character and the best performer. Anna Lore also brings a fun energy as Erik’s sister Julia, delivering perhaps the best scream in the entire movie. The best character in the entire movie, however, is Iris Campbell, Stefani’s grandmother, but exclusively the younger version confined to the flashbacks as played by Brec Bassinger. It should be a win that there are a handful of performers in a Final Destination movie that are able to leave an impression at all, but, given that they’re all supporting roles without a major focus, it does draw attention to the film’s larger weaknesses.

There’s a perverse satisfaction to be found in seeing someone sliced in half by an elevator or being immolated as a comically clumsy chef runs through a crowded restaurant holding a flaming pan. To that end, Final Destination Bloodlines delivers on what you expect from the franchise. Where the movie struggles is in the connectivity between these R-rated cartoon moments, which take up most of the screen time in a movie that is already way too long. Franchise fans may very well come away from Bloodlines satisfied by the resurrection of the formula, but true to form, it will be because three scenes in the entire movie are actually captivating and interesting, while the rest feel hollow and lifeless.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Final Destination Bloodlines hits theaters on May 16th.

The post Final Destination Bloodlines Review: Death Takes Center Stage in Mediocre Franchise Revival appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Marvel’s Thunderbolts* starts in a unique place, one that seems to be tapping into an interesting meta conversation about the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova is in a cloudy state of malaise; she’s going through the motions in life because that’s what she’s been doing. She gets an assignment, she finishes it, and then she waits for her next one. It’s what she was built for, even if her heart isn’t in it anymore, even if she doesn’t care, even if there’s something at her core that is holding her back. For a few minutes, it feels like Marvel is using Yelena as a vessel to talk to the audience, to say, “We get it. We haven’t been giving you our best. We’re going to try again here.” They find something of note in fits and spurts, but Thunderbolts* is still the ultimate MCU mixed bag.

The latest Marvel film is an interesting piece in the overall tapestry, with a group that hardly resembles any of the classic iterations of the team and a title asterisk that has become a funny marketing plot. It’s also a place for, no offense, Marvel’s B-plots to get their place in the spotlight. Despite the radiating charisma of Pugh in Black Widow, which she delivers in this movie as well, her last MCU appearance was in the Disney+ Hawkeye series. Wyatt Russell’s John Walker, aka US Agent, makes his feature film debut in this, having previously been confined to The Falcon and the Winter Soldier series, while Hannah John-Kamen’s Ava Starr, aka Ghost, hasn’t had an MCU appearance since 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Even Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina Allegra de Fontaine arrives as a reminder that she had a subplot in both Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Hawkeye. Sebastian Stan, one of the biggest fan-favorites of Marvel’s first three phases, is now present as a continuation for his one scene appearance in Captain America: Brave New World. Though David Harbour’s Red Guardian clearly fits into the same mold as the others here (having only appeared in 2020’s Black Widow so far), his boundless joy as the character does make him feel distinct from the dour demeanor of most of his cohorts. The asterisk in Thunderbolts* may have a real meaning in the MCU, but it could very well stand for a footnote that reads “*tying up loose ends.”

As noted, Thunderbolts* is about a rag-tag collection of characters from across the MCU who are brought together through surprising circumstances. The way the team is paired up is one of its more clever ideas, as they’re all positioned to take each other out, only to realize they’re all being manipulated. The only way out is to stick together, despite their clear uninterest in being a team. At the center of it all is Lewis Pullman as Bob, who may very well be more powerful than he seems.

Where Thunderbolts* excels is in the moments when it allows Pugh to take the spotlight. The dry wit that she is able to casually deliver, along with just being an actual presence that is felt on screen, gives any moment with her immediate weight. There’s a noticeable dip in the movie’s ability to maintain the viewer’s attention any time it cuts away from Yelena, especially since that usually means the movie is moving to Valentina doing the most tedious and tiresome exposition dump (something that happens countless times in the film, but most egregiously in its opening act). The same praise can be given for Harbour, though, who bounces off Pugh in a phenomenal way, but also makes Red Guardian feel distinct and fun. Even Pullman, who is tasked with playing a confused and morose figure on the whole, brings real gravitas to Bob that makes him a unique wild card in the grander MCU.

Russell, John-Kamen, and Stan, however, seem to be, like Yelena’s opening scene, going through the motions. Marvel needed them here to keep pieces moving on the board before the next big crossover event, and the film needed to figure out how to address lingering subplots from TV shows and sequels that came and went for most of the audience. None of them are bad, per se, but they fail to leave an impression; in fact, the word “wasted” is an accurate description of Stan’s role in the film. The MCU hasn’t had the best track record with how it utilizes Bucky Barnes anyway, but this feels especially notable given his many appearances.

Much of Thunderbolts* feels uninspired, assembled from pieces of other shows and stories tied together in a way that makes sense but often breezes by too quickly for you to really think about. Like almost every other Marvel movie, there is serviceable action that is balanced with funny banter from the charming cast (coupled with some stunts that are choreographed in a room filled with smoke, making it nearly impossible to see), but that can only get you so far in a post-Avengers: Endgame world.

It’s not until the third act of Thunderbolts* rolls around that the film actually does something interesting and unique, and director Jake Schreier delivers a sequence that stands out from almost anything else in the MCU. A joke about this team is made early on that they’re mostly just characters who can punch things, and the final section of the movie takes this head-on by forcing them to abandon that “power” and confront the desolate part of their souls. It’s a sequence that is visually arresting and feels purely comic book, the kind of thing that one might read on the page and think, “They could never pull this off in a movie.” By default, it’s more interesting than the “splash page” moments of Captain America: Civil War with teams of heroes running at each other, because it feels like the form we love has come to life, not a drab imitation of its memory.

But that’s the hump that exists when it comes to engaging with Thunderbolts* as a movie. At first, it does very little to really keep you engaged, pulling out of entertaining action beats in favor of bottle-feeding information that slows the pace to a glacial crawl. By the time the team has assembled and the story is approaching its final moments, it seems like it’s going to just keep doing what you expect, which makes its big surprise third act feel so special and engaging. If you can stomach the lesser parts that make up the majority of the movie, Thunderbolts* has a rewarding core at the end. The wait for that, however, is almost excruciating.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Thunderbolts* lands in theaters on May 2nd.

The post Marvel’s Thunderbolts* Review: Florence Pugh Shines in a Marvel Mixed Bag appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Action movie fans have been waiting for Gareth Evans’s new movie for a very, very long time. Evans was immediately propelled into the conversation regarding action’s most visionary filmmakers when he released The Raid: Redemption back in 2011. Considered by many to be one of the best action movies of our time (possibly ever), The Raid set an impossibly high standard for both the genre and Evans, who would follow it up with a worthy sequel three years later. After some genre-hopping and work in television, Evans moved back into the action space with Havoc, a cop thriller starring Tom Hardy that wrapped its initial production way back in 2021.

Due to various delays (that largely had nothing to do with the production itself), Havoc took quite a while to finish up and is now, four years later, finally being released on Netflix. When it debuts, Havoc will be Evans’s first true action movie in over a decade, so the bar is impossibly high. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, Havoc doesn’t come close to the high mark set by The Raid and its 2014 sequel.

Havoc stars Tom Hardy as beaten-down detective Walker, who has been largely shunned by both his department and his family. There’s a checkered element to his past that he’s somewhat responsible for, but it’s clear early on that he may not be quite the guy that people make him out to be. When a drug deal goes bad, Walker ends up in the middle of a complicated web of hunters and prey. Trying to do the right thing backfires for Walker and puts him in the crosshairs of not only a dangerous gang, but also a crooked politician and the band of dirty cops that he used to run with. With only a younger officer (Jessie Mei Li) that he can trust, Walker has to evade the city’s most dangerous forces and attempts to bring the truth to light.

There’s a lot going on in this story, a far cry from the ultra-simple plot of The Raid, and it bogs the entire experience down. Walker has a past shrouded in mystery that Evans (who also wrote the screenplay) tries to slowly reveal throughout the story, but it just loses a lot of steam each time it’s revisited. That plot thread, along with several others, ends up feeling half-baked by the time the credits roll. So much attention is being spent on putting so many pieces on the board that most of them either don’t make sense or aren’t able to convince you they’re worth caring about.

You’ll be hard-pressed to recall many details of Havoc‘s plot or characters the day after watching it. You certainly won’t care much what happens to any of them. But in a hard-hitting, sub-100-minute beat-em-up from the director of The Raid, those elements aren’t nearly as important as the action itself. Thankfully, that action is where Evans really soars.

Havoc is not 90 minutes of non-stop action, which is definitely a bummer. There are three or four major action set pieces in the film and all of them are great in their own ways. Evans is an inventive force behind the camera, constantly aware of what’s already been done and looking for unique, exciting ways for his characters to slaughter each other. His desire to always be creating something new propels the action of Havoc and keeps you from ever losing interest.

The highway chase that opens Havoc is easily one of the film’s biggest highlights, sending you on a thrill ride that utilizes multiple levels of interstate ramps, 18-wheelers, and a rogue washing machine. It’s an incredible start to the movie that sets an incredible tone for what’s to come. The later action sequences live up to that tone (a fight through a cabin is especially jaw-dropping), but they are far too infrequent. If you want great action, Havoc absolutely delivers it, you’re just not going to get nearly as much as you’d hope from somebody like Evans.

Havoc isn’t The Raid, and that’s mostly okay. Similarly, Tom Hardy isn’t Iko Uwais; you’re not watching one of the most talented and versatile screen fighters of the last 20 years punch and kick his way to redemption. While that would always be welcomed, Hardy is a good fit for what Evans is attempting to do with Havoc. He’s the usual, beleaguered Tom Hardy that works well in these kinds of pictures, and his willingness to get beaten into oblivion for the sake of the final product is what allows Havoc‘s action pieces to be so successful. You believe that he is simultaneously an absolute badass and also a helpless buffoon. It’s a perfect balance that makes Walker into a worthy lead, and ultimately propels all of Havoc forward.

Not only is Havoc not The Raid, it’s also not Gareth Evans’ best work, but maybe we were all wrong to expect that from a four-year-old movie releasing exclusively on Netflix. It’s okay — but Evans knows how to make bones crunch and blood spew, and there are very few directors out in the world who can do those things like he does. Messy script and boring characters be damned, Evans still delivers better action than Netflix deserves.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Havoc debuts on Netflix Friday, April 25th

The post Havoc Review: Great Action Makes the Mess Worthwhile appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Video game adaptations are becoming big business for Hollywood, with successes like The Super Mario Bros. Movie and A Minecraft Movie putting up serious numbers. It should come as no surprise that the macabre side of the video game aisle would once again gain the entertainment industry’s attention. Enter Until Dawn, the latest from Sony Pictures that attempts to add a new layer to the 2015 game, which placed players into a wild horror adventure of their own. With David F. Sandberg in the director’s chair for this new horror romp, does Until Dawn manage to live up to its source material while carving out a new horror franchise for theaters?

Until Dawn follows protagonist Clover (Ella Rubin) as she finds herself trying to discover what happened to her sister, who mysteriously vanished in a remote valley. Joined by her friends who are attempting to help their comrade put the past to bed, the gang finds themselves trapped in a horrific loop. Much like a sinister Groundhog Day, the cast of characters are besieged by various spooky threats while being brought back from the dead, only to attempt to survive new horror hassles. The one way that they’ll be able to survive is by lasting until dawn.

Until Dawn starts by wasting little time in almost immediately diving into the setting. Viewers are given a brief introduction to our “Scooby Gang” here, with each filling different parts of the classic horror tropes of youngsters trying to survive a particularly scary evening. Clover and Max (Michael Cimino) are fresh off an uncomfortable break-up, Nina (Odessa A’zion) and Abel (Belmont Cameli) are fresh into their new relationship while on seemingly shaky ground, and Megan (Ji-young Yoo) is a bit too into the supernatural for her own good. Meanwhile, Peter Stormare does his thing and eats up his screen time as the enigmatic Dr. Hill.

For those who might not have played the original game, SuperMassive Games’ Until Dawn focuses on a band of youngsters in a remote winter cabin. The unique game experience sees the protagonists beguiled by a series of horror threats that feel like a blending of familiar tropes from the spooky side of the entertainment world. With stars like Hayden Panettiere, Raimi Malik, and Brett Dalton rounding out the cast, the video game’s premise has some familiarities with the movie but ultimately is its own beast, with a quite different plot from what David F. Sandberg directs here. Rather than presenting a time-loop setting, the source material often gives players flashes of what is about to take place in the immediate future.

Let’s go over some of the positives of the film; Until Dawn does a very solid job when it leans heavily into its outlandish premise. When the main characters find themselves trapped inside this hellish time loop, viewers are treated to almost something of a horror anthology where you don’t necessarily know what comes next. Two scenes, in particular, make great use of this setting, the first being a cramped bathroom scene with the entire main cast and the second being said cast attempting to watch recordings of the horrors they’ve experienced, adding something of an effective “found footage” aesthetic to the film. Yes, there are familiar threats from the game, including the bloodthirsty wendigos and a slasher villain who could stand alongside Jason Voorhees and not miss a beat, but Sandberg and crew injected other interesting elements that many fans of the original game might not see coming.

When it comes to the general gore of Until Dawn, it certainly earns its R rating. It’s interesting to think about how Terrifier’s Art the Clown has seemingly unleashed studios’ ability to let directors and special effects teams go wild with the brutality, but you won’t find this horror nut complaining. Until Dawn has quite a few shockingly gruesome scenes that are sure to make some theater-goers squirm, as they’re more than willing to once again lean heavily into the absurd fun of some of these head-popping extravaganzas. Unfortunately, with this video game adaptation, all that glitters isn’t gold.

The negatives of Until Dawn, both as its own thing that isn’t a direct translation of the game and simultaneously as a part of the game’s universe, drag down the film that otherwise has glimpses of greatness. The main cast of characters is quite archetypical in terms of their overall characterization, almost acting as a means to an end with little other meat on the bone. We don’t get nearly enough time to get a good sense of these characters or care about them, as we are almost immediately thrown into the horror funhouse premise.

It’s almost impossible for me to lay out where Until Dawn stumbles in relation to the game without diving into serious spoiler territory, but the movie attempts to have its cake and eat it, too, and in doing so, completely stumbles on both fronts. When it came to the original PlayStation title, the reasoning behind why there was a slasher villain, wendigos, Saw-like traps, and the supernatural all in one setting was explained quite well. All of these horror elements worked in tandem under one umbrella, but unfortunately, the same cannot be said for its live-action adaptation.

Until Dawn buckles under the weight of just how much the film attempts to throw at you, with little to no explanation as to how these elements work in tandem with one another. For fans of the original game, the movie almost feels like a complete misunderstanding of the universe that SuperMassive Games had created. There are countless questions that are simply never answered in the movie, or at least not in a way that has the air of satisfying ambiguity. When you try thinking about elements such as “Why is a town rising from the Earth?” or “Who is the Glore Witch?” or “How does time keep repeating itself?” answers are never revealed in any satisfying way. The final scene only adds more confusion to the overall story and its place in the SuperMassive universe.

Until Dawn ultimately feels like a missed opportunity, unable to carve out its own identity or work within the original game universe. While some scares can be decent, the crushing weight of its story elements and lack of cohesion make this horror movie flounder.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Until Dawn lands in theaters on April 25th.

The post Until Dawn Review: A Bloody But Frustrating Adaptation appeared first on ComicBook.com.

There are few movies that can blow you away with their sheer scope and technical mastery, while also sending you on the ride of a lifetime and keeping you on the edge of your seat for two straight hours. It’s the kind of grand entertainment pioneered by Steven Spielberg that nowadays is usually just reserved for Christopher Nolan. I mean, who else can deliver a spectacle as enormous and entertaining as Inception or Raiders of the Lost Ark? The answer, as I learned this week, is Ryan Coogler.

The director behind Creed and Black Panther is who we thought he was and so much more. His new movie, Sinners, is the kind of blockbuster masterpiece that seems to come along only once every few years. It’s a genre-bending vampire thrill-ride that was made with so much soul and precision it deserves every cent of the frustratingly expensive movie ticket prices we’re currently facing. Sinners is a movie that, for the first time since I began writing about film nearly 10 years ago, left me speechless.

Sinners is the fifth feature film from Coogler, and the fifth collaboration between the filmmaker and Michael B. Jordan. This time around, Jordan brilliantly pulls double duty as twins Smoke and Stack, ex-soldiers who return to their small Mississippi town in the Jim Crow South after spending a few years robbing gangsters in Chicago. They come back with a truck full of booze and pockets full of money, chasing dreams of freedom that they know is likely always going to be an illusion.

The plan for the Smokestack Twins is to use their influx of Chicago cash to open their own Juke Joint, turning a newly purchased sawmill into a bustling blues club in the span of just a day. By the time night falls and the party begins, their slice of heaven is invaded by a trio of vampires, turning an evening of dancing into an all-night fight for survival.

There are numerous characters and storylines packed into this tale, each given more than enough time to make a profound impact on the film in one way or another. On paper, when you start thinking about all of the various narratives that collide in Club Juke, it sounds like there may be too much going on. But Coogler’s script is expertly paced, not to mention extremely efficient when it comes to giving every character exactly the amount of time they need in order to win over audiences.

Smoke and Stack’s return and redemption are only a piece of the puzzle. The biggest piece, however, belongs to their younger cousin, talented blues musician Sammie Moore (big-screen newcomer Miles Caton, in one of the most confident debuts I’ve seen in years). Sammie’s music is at the heart of the story, illustrating how those melodic stories transcend time, sometimes single-handedly keeping the world spinning.

Then there’s drunken blues veteran Delta Slim (Delroy Lindo), an old flame of Stack’s who returns to town to bury her mother (Hailee Steinfeld), a spiritual healer and the love of Smoke’s life (Wumni Mosaku), an Asian couple supplying the party with food (Li Jun Li and Yao), and a mysterious young singer with an eye for Sammie (Jayme Lawson).

Each member of the ensemble brings their A-game, which shouldn’t be surprising when you consider Coogler’s track record of getting the best performances out of the actors in his films. Everyone who sees this will have a different favorite performance or character, but there’s truly no wrong answer. Personally, I couldn’t take my eyes off Delroy Lindo — his veteran presence really lifts up the younger cast around him, carrying a weight that they’re all able to feed off of. Wunmi Mosaku also gets an opportunity to shine brighter than she ever has before, and, boy, does she deliver. She comes out of this thing looking like a bona fide movie star, more than capable of carrying the weight of an entire film on her shoulders.

Of course, Sinners is Michael B. Jordan’s movie, playing both of the film’s lead roles, and he devours every second he’s on the screen. Smoke and Stack look identical, but Jordan packed so many small, noticeable differences into them. The curiosity in Stack’s eyes and the quiet ferocity of Smoke’s make you believe there are two completely different actors up on the screen. It’s the finest work of Jordan’s career.

It’s also hard to argue that this isn’t the finest work of Coogler’s career. Saying a brand-new movie is better than Creed feels blasphemous, but Sinners marks an evolution of Coogler from his franchise fare, unleashing a level of creativity that had to operate within a box in his previous films. This is a world-class filmmaker at his most confident, taking the lessons he learned in Hollywood’s biggest sandbox and using them to show the world he’s just getting started.

Coogler is able to flex his brilliance on both a technical and a spiritual level. For a movie that was shot in a relatively small location, he utilizes the IMAX and Ultra Panavision film to make Sinners feel enormous, and the attention to detail in every one of those shots is extraordinary. It all feels so tactile and specific and refined. There are some wide shots overlooking the nearby cotton fields that will take your breath away. And it would be a sin in and of itself not to mention the changing aspect ratios shown in IMAX. One moment in the film’s climax sees the entire image extend before your eyes, signaling to everyone watching that something insane is about to happen. I could hear the entire crowd inhaling and sitting up straight all at once, as Coogler used that single ratio change to put us all in a collective chokehold.

[RELATED: Ryan Coogler Got Advice From Christopher Nolan for Sinners]

Sinners is a technical masterpiece, but it’s the emotional soul and personal touch at the center of the film that sends it into the stratosphere. Coogler has often referred to Sinners as “genre fluid” and that term is perhaps the best way to describe what this movie is. It’s equal parts vampire horror and comedy, Southern drama and steamy romance. So many things are dumped into the melting pot and it’s Coogler’s fearless vision that holds it all together. He never sacrifices one element for another; never pulls back on one thing because people might not think it fits. So much is packed into this movie and every part of it hinges on the others. It’s a complicated fabric of genres and ideas woven together, every detail lovingly put into its perfect place by the hands of a caring artisan.

The best example comes in a scene I don’t want to spoil, but one you’ll recognize immediately when you see it. About halfway through the movie, Coogler makes one of the boldest choices you’ll ever see in a studio movie, the kind of choice that lets you know executives had no say in what ultimately made the final cut. It’s a grand moment that weaves together past, present, and future in a glorious explosion of music and triumph. My jaw hit the floor and stayed there for several minutes — it’s still legitimately difficult to wrap my brain around how a person could even come up with such a sequence. Astounding doesn’t begin to cover it.

And you can’t mention the music of Sinners without touching on the rapturous score from Coogler’s longtime friend and collaborator, Ludwig Göransson. The Oscar-winning composer harnesses the power of the blues to compose a score intended to knock your socks off around every turn. These two men have a partnership beyond compare, working in lock-step to leave their individual skill sets so intertwined that it’s impossible to imagine one without the other.

Sinners is a movie that is going to have audiences audibly cheering at numerous points, but not in a frustrating “chicken jockey” kind of way. Community and family are at the heart of Coogler’s revelatory blockbuster, and that is extended out of the screen and into the seats. You’re left cheering for the characters but, really, you’re also cheering on the people sitting in the seats around you. Part of the catharsis that comes with those claps and yells in the film’s final act comes from knowing that you and the people next to you just witnessed something special. Together, you watched magic come to life, and you can’t help but congratulate one another for getting to experience such a wonderful thing.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Sinners lands in theaters on April 18th.

The post Sinners Review: Ryan Coogler Conjures a One-of-a-Kind Blockbuster appeared first on ComicBook.com.

It was only a matter of time before Disney’s live-action adaptation train made its way to the station of one of the studio’s earliest animated endeavors. 2025’s Snow White attempts to recreate the classic fairy tale for a new generation, bringing together the “fairest of them all” with her traditional ensemble of dwarves, evil witches, and woodland creatures. Does the latest take on Snow White manage to do justice to its source material while carving out its own identity in the cinematic wastelands? Unfortunately, Disney’s latest live-action foray might excel at sticking to its origins but fails to convince many to hit theaters to see it.

Rachel Zegler takes on the role of the titular princess, a young girl whose kingdom is a flawless one, learning from her even-tempered, saccharine parents how to be the best princess she can be. When her mother falls to illness, Gal Gadot’s “Evil Queen” swoops in to wed the heartbroken king to transform the kingdom from a happy community to a fear-driven monarchy. White eventually finds herself setting forth to return her kingdom to its former glory after a failed murder attempt and encounters quite a few familiar faces, and fauna, during her familiar quest.

Snow White’s story is a timeless one and the live-action movie does a worthy job of staying true to the formula, though this fact is both a blessing and a curse in Zegler’s vehicle. There isn’t a lot of meat on the bone here in terms of overall plot, and while there are some changes made to how things progress in the adaptation’s story, said changes don’t elevate what’s on the screen. The added elements feel like little more than window dressing, especially when it comes to the film’s finale, which attempts to invoke a new meaning behind White’s expedition, but ultimately falls short in doing so.

Rachel Zegler is the star of the show here, lighting up the screen and belting out old and new tunes with the best of them. Snow White as a character isn’t a revolutionary one, but Zegler works exceptionally well with what is given to her, living up to her “fairest of them all” title throughout. Zegler’s performance is one that understood the assignment and the young actor effortlessly plays off whoever is sharing her scenes, whether that be exceptionally irritable dwarves or an evil queen deadset on maintaining her iron grip on her peasantry.

Speaking of evil queens, Gal Gadot’s performance as the film’s main antagonist feels like one of the biggest knocks against the movie overall, seemingly unable to bring anything truly exceptional to the role. The remake attempts to give us a little more exploration of what makes the queen tick, but falls far short in making the villain an interesting character. There are allusions in the run time to Gadot’s character becoming a cold-hearted ruler thanks to a lifetime of woe, chiseling her from “a rose to a diamond” but offers little in the way of convincing audiences why they should care. Even the queen’s new songs feel more like unnecessary window-dressing than anything else. On the plus side, Gadot’s take on the “old hag” will have you wondering if it’s actually Gal in the trappings or if a new actress threw on the cloak. Surprisingly, it’s the former.

Not every character in the new Snow White happens to be a human being, as the live-action adaptation does bring in the Seven Dwarves to give the titular character a helping hand. It is in the dwarves that we venture into the Uncanny Valley as the CG creations are a little unsettling in their appearances. The best way I found myself describing the likes of Doc, Sleepy, Dopey, Happy, Grouchy, Bashful, and Sneezy is the idea that a dwarf-sized container was made and a regular person was poured into said computer-generated apparatus. The dwarves themselves feel like a perfect representation of the movie’s issues in its attempts to thread the needle between old and new, ultimately falling short at both. That being said, the CG used to bring to life the forest animals was quite breathtaking in the grand scheme of things, making the dwarves’ appearances all the more puzzling and leaving you wondering why the dwarves needed to be CG characters at all.

Of course, with a movie like Snow White, it would be a disservice to not touch upon the soundtrack. As mentioned earlier, while Gadot’s performances don’t quite excel, the rest of the songs here go a long way in making this a whistle-worthy expedition. Denj Pasek and Justin Paul manage to both modernize tried and true tracks such as “Whistle While You Work” and “Hi Ho” while also introducing some toe-tapping entries such as “Waiting on a Wish” and “Good Things Grow.” The film’s soundtrack doesn’t necessarily break the mold, but you might find yourself humming a tune or two upon leaving the theater and realizing that Disney still has its amazing power to create earworms.

Snow White is a movie that is not meant for everyone, aimed at a far younger audience than many of its live-action brethren. There’s nothing wrong with trimming a story for a younger set, especially when it comes to a story as timeless as this one, but the movie fails when it comes to delivering a story that excels past its source material or adding noteworthy discussion for audiences.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Snow White lands in theaters on March 21st.

The post Snow White Review: An Underwhelming Trip to an Uncanny Valley appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The character of Hughie in Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson’s The Boys comics was modeled after actor Simon Pegg, which put a lot of pressure on actor Jack Quaid when it came to bringing the character to life for the Prime Video series. Despite that pressure, Quaid’s charming and affable performance won over audiences, offering him opportunities to join projects like Scream, Oppenheimer, and Companion, as well as offer his vocal talents to series like Star Trek: Lower Decks and My Adventures With Superman. After years of being a charismatic component of ensemble projects, Novocaine finally offers Quaid (and co-star Amber Midthunder) time in the spotlight that he deserves, which proves he has the romantic and comedic chops to lead a picture. Where the film itself falls short, though, is its inability to pick a narrative lane for a film that never exceeds the sum total of its parts.

Nate (Quaid) has a condition that prevents him from being able to feel pain. Things like pouring coffee or even chewing solid food come with the risk of accidental injury, causing him to lead an insular life that keeps him safe. Despite his introverted nature, coworker Sherry (Midthunder) breaks through his shell to spark a love connection, which gets complicated when Sherry is kidnapped in a bank robbery. Nate refuses to stand by and wait for authorities to track her down and embarks on a one-man mission to recover her, with his unique disorder allowing him to persevere through any injuries he suffers along the way to save the woman he’s falling for.

Not all actors can make the jump from endearing supporting character to carrying an entire film, but fans of Quaid can rest easy knowing that he was more than up to the task of what was required of him for Novocaine. Given the nature of the premise, Quaid doesn’t have to match the same action chops as a Keanu Reeves or a Jason Statham, fighting through countless enemies and surviving based on pure grit. When he scalds his hand in a deep fryer or gets shot through the leg with a crossbow, he’s more irritated about the setback than anything, reacting more with instinctive annoyance than with sarcastic quips. Between the more genuine moments of physical combat or the slapstick comedy of the situation, Quaid also delivers the necessary pratfalls to elicit the intended reaction out of the audience. Midthunder similarly showcases a side of herself not quite seen before, as her starring role in the Predator spinoff Prey put her action chops on full display, while Novocaine displays how she’s just as talented in a rom-com world. Arguably the most effective elements of the whole movie are the sequences of Nate and Sherry falling for each other, only to be frustratingly interrupted by Ray Nicholson’s bank-robbing character.

After a handful of middling projects like Villains and Significant Other, directors Dan Berk and Robert Olsen offer up another tonal mashup, though this one leans into their visual strengths by the nature of the premise. There’s a natural escalation of the injuries that Nate suffers, and in a major relief to genre fans, the directors lean into practical effects as often as possible. Even if the injuries in the film might not be the most brutal thing seen in a movie in 2025, the grounded nature of the experience makes these wounds feel all the more visceral. In an age where action and horror directors are only limited by their imaginations thanks to CGI, it’s both refreshing and effective to see even tamer injuries make audiences squirm in their seats, thanks in large part to the work of the directors.

Where the film struggles is in its sprawling narrative. Writer Lars Jacobson manages to tap into a premise so effective that it’s hard to believe that we haven’t seen anything like it before, especially when comic books have been brought to life for movies and TV with similarly gimmicky premises. Even with Berk and Olsen delivering impactful scenes ranging from romantic conversations over pie to buckets of blood being spilled, there are a number of lulls in Nate’s journey that deflate the momentum the movie is building up. These scenes themselves aren’t necessarily poor, they just occur at inopportune times and run on for too long, allowing the audience to become disinterested. (Jacob Batalon plays Nate’s friend Roscoe and, while the actor is always a delight, feels entirely superfluous to Nate’s goals, serving both as comedic relief in an already-comedic movie and also as a deus ex machina.) Similarly, the film reaches what could be considered a crescendo, only to exhaust the audience with a lengthy, action-heavy scene. Novocaine has a run time of 110 minutes, and had it been capped under 90 minutes, it would be all killer and no filler. There’s also plenty of leaps in logic in the overall pursuit of the bank robbers, and while they don’t contradict the reality of this world, they’re still baffling.

While the overall journey might spread the story too thin, Jacobson does manage to offer an inspiring message without being saccharine. For much of Nate’s life, he saw his disorder as a weakness, preventing him from taking any risks that could come with even the faintest of consequences. This seeming vulnerability is exactly what makes Nate the most qualified person for the job. Sherry also has parts of herself that she hides from Nate, but it’s by showing him these parts that the two can connect with one another over their perceived points of embarrassment and shame. With media often being exaggerated to one end of the spectrum of the other, either embracing cynicism and irony or leaning towards blind optimism, Novocaine does successfully manage to offer an uplifting message without feeling like an after-school special.

Novocaine has a handful of entirely effective action-comedy sequences that are executed to tremendous effect, thanks largely to the performance of Quaid. Additionally, the chemistry between Quaid and Midthunder makes their burgeoning romance endearing and engaging. What holds the film back is its identity crisis and the filmmakers’ outlook of giving audiences every idea they came up with as opposed to leaning into all of the project’s strengths. Still, Quaid successfully makes the jump from a supporting quipper to leading man, and while he might not be inheriting the mantle of an iconic superhero character in the near future, he’s likely not far off from such an opportunity.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Novocaine lands in theaters on March 14th.

The post Novocaine Review: Jack Quaid Earns His Bone-Breaking Breakout Role appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The Russo brothers rose to international stardom due to their flawless run at Marvel Studios, where they helmed some of the MCU’s best movies, including Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Infinity War. After helping make the Infinity Saga a critical and commercial hit, the Russo brothers helmed Cherry and The Gray Man, two thrillers that were meant to recapture the political thriller focus of the directors’ Captain America movies — both to lackluster results that failed to impress critics and entertain audiences. Now, the Russo brothers draw from the epic scope of their Avengers productions for The Electric State, a blockbuster starring Millie Bobby Brown and Chris Pratt with franchise ambitions. Unfortunately, the fact that The Electric State is another mediocre entry in the directors’ filmography raises serious questions about how much they were indeed responsible for their previous Marvel success.

Set in an alternate version of the 1990s, The Electric State imagines what the world would look like if advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence had led to the emergence of robots capable of replacing human labor. That’s already a juicy chunk of sci-fi for any movie to chew, but The Electric State is committed to going beyond and adding every genre trope to its list. 

As the heavily expositional first act of The Electric State explains, the robots eventually grew dissatisfied with their slave condition and began to fight for freedom. Humanity didn’t like that, and war erupted. The battle against the machines was won thanks to the development of the Neurocaster, a virtual reality helmet that allows humans to control mechanical bodies from safety, ensuring the destruction of the working-class robots. Neurocaster technology can also split human consciousness in half so that every person can experience full-time leisure while a different part of their brain does chores by moving a metal husk around. Of course, the miraculous technology is controlled by an evil corporation that now rules humanity. That means The Electric State is a chaotic mix of the core concepts of Westworld, Ready Player One, and Severance, stealing ideas from everywhere it can and never using them beyond surface-level.

[RELATED: These Are the 10 Best Netflix Sci-fi Movies According to Rotten Tomatoes]

The bloatiness of The Electric State prevents it from having anything original to say about the questions it raises. Even worse, it feels like the movie didn’t properly consider how transformative each sci-fi concept it introduces would be. For starters, although The Electric State reveals that robots were created in the 1940s and quickly replaced manual labor, the movie’s 1990s is surprisingly still the same as our world’s. It doesn’t take much for audiences to wonder how the social structure and economics of the United States can remain unchanged when a literal army of workers disrupts the employment chain. Similarly, while The Electric State has a few scenes to show how addictive the constant pleasure of the Neurocaster can be, it doesn’t address its effects on everyday life.

The robots are the most significant sign of The Electric State’s shortsighted thematics. Each mechanical character of the movie is unique, with appendages, language patterns, and behaviour programming connected to their previous function in society. However, these apparent limitations contradict the movie’s premise that artificial intelligence became widespread in the robot class, to the point where they recognize their forced servitude and rightfully revolt against it. Either the robots are fully conscious as humans, or they are pieces of technology restrained by their specific programming. Yet, they are used by both the Russo brothers, who want to have quirky characters sprinkled all over the movie while also selling the idea that for reasons beyond understanding, someone gave a fully conscious artificial intelligence to a machine designed to cut hair. 

The more you think about it, the less The Electric State makes sense, so it’s best to just unplug and enjoy the ride, right? Well, not quite. The Electric State is a formulaic blockbuster adventure that never dares to stray from the path defined in its first scene.

The story follows Millie Bobby Brown as Michelle, a teenager who embarks on a dangerous journey to find the brother she believed dead for years, Christopher (Woody Norman). Christopher has found a way to project his mind inside a robot that conveniently cannot speak more than a dozen different sentences, guiding his sister to the truth about his death. On their way, they join forces with former human soldier Keats (Pratt) and his robot friend Herman (voiced by Anthony Mackie), two smugglers who know how to move in and out of the Exclusion Zone where the metallic survivors of the war are now confined.

It doesn’t take long for audiences to connect the pieces by themselves and realize what’s happening. Still, The Electric State drags the story far too long, not offering a single spark of genuine surprise. Meanwhile, the Russo brothers will use every excuse they can to create set pieces, some are thrilling, but most are forgettable and pointless. Oh, and of course, every emotional scene has to be interrupted by the incessant quips and bickering that has plagued so many Marvel Studios productions in the past few years.

The Electric State is so uninspired that it tries to emulate the nostalgic value of Steven Spielberg movies, rekindled by the success of Stranger Things, by using the 1990s as an endless source of references that don’t connect to the whole narrative. A parade of toys, food, and needle drops is introduced to cause some emotional reaction from millennials. However, all these elements are carelessly thrown on the wall to see what sticks instead of having any meaning to the movie’s setting. As a result, they only highlight how the 1990s setting of The Electric State is nothing short of arbitrary.

There are a few silver linings, though. The Electric State features a talented cast, and even though Giancarlo Esposito and Stanley Tucci are restrained by one-dimensional characters, they do what they can to elevate the poor material. Pratt is less fortunate, as he’s asked to repeat the role of Star-Lord, albeit without the layers that give the character depth. Brown does what she can to carry the movie on her back, and it’s clear that she’s ready to tackle more challenging roles, if someone in Hollywood decides to give her a chance. Surprisingly, despite his limited screentime, Norman is a highlight of The Electric State, capable of leading the rare moving moments of the movie.

The biggest reason to watch The Electric State is its special effects. The VFX team fluidly blends digital models with animatronics to create a spectacle that’s nothing short of breathtaking. Using the mind-blowing budget Netflix decided to spend with The Electric State, the VFX crew pushes technology to its limit to make its cast of robots incredibly realistic, despite their comical designs, with an eye-popping result that sadly we don’t get to experience in theaters. That might not be enough to save The Electric State, but at least it gives you something beautiful to look at while enduring the blandness of its plot.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

The Electric State comes to Netflix on March 14th.

The post The Electric State Review: A Nice Coat of Paint Can’t Hide the Russo Brothers’ Robotic Disaster appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Ever since his debut film The Blackcoat’s Daughter, filmmaker Osgood Perkins has earned a reputation for delivering audiences dark, dreadful, and atmospheric horror films. One of last year’s most talked-about movies was his Longlegs, which delivered audiences a unique blend of iconic horror tropes for an eerie and unsettling experience, while previous efforts I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House and Gretel & Hansel also fully embraced creepy and ominous atmospheres. While many might be expecting his latest movie, the Stephen King adaptation The Monkey, to be another entirely oppressing and grim adventure, Perkins manages to both honor the core components of the source material yet also expand his oeuvre by injecting gut-busting violence and pitch-black comedy with this chaotic and cathartic meditation on generational trauma.

While rummaging through the possessions of their recently exited father, twins Hal and Bill (both played by Christian Convery) discover a creepy, wind-up monkey. The only problem is that, whenever the automated monkey stops banging on his drum, someone close to them dies a bizarre death, resulting in them attempting to eradicate the object. 25 years later, now-adult Hal and Bill (both played by Theo James) think they have moved on from the relic, only for bizarre deaths to once again start up, forcing them to attempt to put an end to things once and for all.

Throughout Stephen King’s career, dozens of his stories have been adapted into live-action projects, many of which maintain the tone of the source material. While there are outliers like Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile that are emotionally engaging dramas, it’s been his tales of terror that have cemented his legacy in literature and on screen. The Shining, Carrie, Misery, and IT are all relatively straightforward horror pictures, and while there’s still some humor to be found in these experiences, they have stuck with audiences for their tension. That said, while there are a number of iconic King adaptations, there are even more entirely ineffective live-action explorations, largely due to how faithful these projects aim to be.

All this to say, some of King’s concepts work great on paper and fall entirely flat when brought to life for a movie or TV series, largely due to the tonal challenges that are inherent to King’s prose. Rarely are his books only ever one thing, as they often take horror premises and use that structure to explore entirely human themes, and also contain their fair share of humor. The Monkey might not be setting a new standard of excellence for King adaptations, but by Perkins merely leaning into the lunacy of the core premise, he showcased that creatives don’t need to be entirely beholden to expectations of King’s legacy in horror to deliver a satisfying experience that honors the source material yet puts a fresh spin on King-created scenarios.

The Monkey‘s opening scene immediately tips audiences off to the fact that this isn’t a traditional King experience, as it features a hilarious bit of gruesome violence that shares more in spirit with the Looney Tunes than it does with any other King movie. Over the course of the film, audiences are delivered a copious amount of brutal and shocking deaths, ranging from decapitations to electrocutions, as we ultimately lose count of how many bodies and body parts have just outright exploded. These death scenes are so incredibly absurd (and gleefully delightful) that viewers can’t help but cackle in disbelief at what we just witnessed. There have been plenty of horrifying deaths in King movies, but The Monkey has set a new standard for just how far a filmmaker can push the envelope in such adaptations.

While many other movies put bodily dismemberment at the forefront of their narratives, these projects typically take their time with their violence to make the audience squirm not just with the visuals, but also as we try to grasp what these sensations must feel like. The Monkey doesn’t deliver violence for violence’s sake, but uses the outlandish and sudden carnage to showcase the absurdity of death as a concept. The bombastic bloodshed might be what draws audiences to theaters, though Perkins still manages to inject some deeper insight into the human experience in between all the bodies exploding.

At one point in the movie, Hal and Bill’s mom Lois (Tatiana Maslany) offers the insight, “Everybody dies. And that’s life,” in a moment that is somewhat played for laughs. The sequence in question highlights that death is the biggest caveat for everyone alive, as it’s an inescapable fate. Even though this nugget of insight is buried between characters comedically talking about death as if it’s like getting a parking ticket or being selected for jury duty, it’s still an accurate reflection of an all-too-real finality we must grasp. No matter how mundane or unbelievable the scenarios might be in which we meet our end, we’re going to lose everyone we love at some point, and while we can understandably become fixated on this depressing certainty, time might be better spent appreciating all the moments that lead up to that destination.

Mortality isn’t the only topic Perkins aims to explore with his film, as there’s a running theme of absentee fathers passing down their worst traits to their children. In The Monkey, it’s the curse of having to watch over a supernaturally powered toy that can cause the unexpected deaths of anyone surrounding the person who turns the key, though it’s quite clear that this is meant to serve as a metaphor for less obvious character flaws. Hal only sees his estranged son Petey (Colin O’Brien) once a week every year, and while other characters empathize with this difficult situation, Hal admits he imposed this situation in hopes of protecting Petey from having to deal with the mechanical monkey. In addition to this being meant to represent the anxieties parents have of passing down their own trauma to their children, it also serves to represent anyone who keeps people at safe distances in attempts to hide any parts of them they don’t want to be vulnerable enough to expose. As reflected in more macabre ways with The Monkey, though, no matter how long you try to hide the worst parts of yourself, it’s only a matter of time before those traumas resurface, as the film reminds audiences that it’s better to come to terms with your entire emotional spectrum so you can monitor even the darker parts as opposed to trying to lock them away from everyone indefinitely.

The balance of absurdity and more heartfelt moments will cause some challenges for audiences, as there’s not always a satisfying balance of the two tones (even though James, O’Brien, and Convery have a strong grasp of the material). Even though the opening scene fully establishes the sardonic sense of humor of the movie, there are longer stretches of time that are fully devoid of that humor, so when the satirical humor does return, it can be a bit jarring. The explosive deaths are incredibly intentional tonal shifts for the story, but there are many more subtle moments in which Perkins shifts from Hal’s authentic struggles with his past to much more sarcastic, macabre humor, so some audiences might not be able to get on The Monkey‘s wavelength. Much like Longlegs had passionate fans yet alienated audiences who anticipated a different type of movie, The Monkey is sure to take many viewers by surprise and likely frustrate those who anticipated a more straightforward experience in terror. Additionally, we can’t help but wish there was a stronger embrace of practical effects, as the various explosions of body parts and the deformed aftermath of such violence would have been all the more gleeful if they weren’t so reliant on CGI.

Nearly a decade after his directorial debut, The Monkey shows an all-new side of Perkins that we look forward to getting more of. While the ominous and dour tones of his on-screen experiences might make fans think he’s personally a downtrodden individual, this King adaptation delivers one of the more raucous horror movies of the year that authentically captures both the emotional insight and tongue-in-cheek humor that draws readers to King. Even if The Monkey doesn’t entirely break new ground for the genre, it’s a major and necessary step forward both for Perkins and for King adaptations as a whole, igniting excitement in what could be next for Perkins’s career and how he’ll inspire future filmmakers who tackle King’s legacy.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Monkey lands in theaters on February 21st.

The post The Monkey Review: A Stephen King Adaptation That Goes Bananas appeared first on ComicBook.com.

While Scott Derrickson’s filmography includes a few misses, the director has mostly been a reliable source of thrills and chills. His Sinister is arguably one of the best horror movies of the 2010s, and The Black Phone was such a massive hit that Derrickson will be back in theaters later this year with a sequel. So, given that The Gorge can also count on the incredible talents of Anya Taylor-Joy and Miles Teller, chances were slim that Derrickson’s Apple TV+ horror movie wouldn’t be at least entertaining. It is — yet, there’s only so much Derrickson’s sleek direction can do to elevate Zach Dean’s script, which sadly doesn’t know how to use the full potential of The Gorge’s brilliant premise.

The Gorge follows the story of two of the world’s top sharpshooters, U.S. mercenary Levi (Teller) and Lithuanian assassin Drasa (Taylor-Joy). Their bloody line of business has prevented them from forging meaningful human relationships, and after years of pulling the trigger for money or duty, they are both searching for a bigger purpose. Lucky for them, Levi and Drasa’s loneliness becomes an asset when they are enlisted to be stationed in remote defense towers built around a mysterious gorge. Their tasks include restocking ammo for automated machine guns, maintaining the satellite scramblers that provide the place’s secrecy, and taking up arms when humanoid creatures living inside the foggy chasm try to climb its cliffs.

Drasa and Levi have no information on where they will be sent or what dangers await them after their arrival, but their black ops experience pushes both to take the same leap of faith. In addition, they both have clear instructions not to interact with the people on the tower on the gorge’s other side, an unknown ally in their safeguarding assignment. These directives underline the confidentiality of their mission and the lengths their contractors are willing to go to in order to protect the gorge’s secrets. However, humans long for connection. So, as months go by, Drasa and Levi yield to temptation and begin to communicate through messages written on whiteboards and pieces of paper that each other can read through binoculars.

The Gorge is one of those movies with a core idea so good that you wonder how anyone hasn’t done this before. For starters, the secluded environment of each tower offers Derrickson the perfect background to explore the weight of routine, both a valuable tool and a shackle to human existence. Drasa and Levi find solace in everyday repetition, keeping their minds busy instead of wandering through the dark corners of their memories. Still, they need ways to transcend the monotony, creating and consuming art or engaging with housekeeping projects that surpass their daily obligations. As their relationship evolves across the canyon, Drasa and Levi also get incredibly creative in showing affection for each other despite their physical separation.

There’s a lot going on in The Gorge, which offers a genre mashup you rarely see. Drasa and Levi’s romance guides a story about finding love where you least expect it and the joys of crossing paths with someone with whom you can bare your soul and share your pain. At the same time, the sci-fi nature of the gorge thrusts the movie into fantasy territory. Finally, Derrickson uses the protagonists’ background and the nature of the gorge to craft genuine scares and thrilling action scenes. All these moving pieces don’t always fit harmonically together, but The Gorge is truly special when they do.

The movie has glaring downsides, though. Above all is the foolish decision to use CGI instead of practical effects for creature design. Yes, CGI can cheapen a production, and budget is a primary concern for a movie destined to go straight to streaming. Nevertheless, when the action amps up, Drasa and Levi must defend themselves against waves of creatures that feel weightless due to their digital nature. In fact, the second half of The Gorge leans so heavily into digital effects that it looks like Taylor-Joy and Teller are videogame characters mindlessly mowing down enemies.

Dean’s script contributes to the uncomfortable feeling The Gorge would fare better as a videogame. The movie’s first half has plenty of breathing space for us to know the leading characters, learn what makes them tick, and care about their fate. On the other hand, the second half is a collection of set pieces interrupted by heavy-handed exposition. The Gorge doesn’t trust its audience to understand the nature of its supernatural elements. However, since the twists are somewhat predictable and extensively telegraphed, it hurts the movie’s pacing to interrupt it so often just for a secondary character to dump another pile of unnecessary information. 

To be fair to Dean, some of these scenes smell like studio interference, as streaming services sometimes try to dumb down plot points to reach a wider audience. But without knowing what happened behind the cameras, we can only blame the person who signed the paper. As things are, The Gorge has a clear point of no return where the focus shifts from Taylor-Joy and Teller’s enthralling performances to generic survival horror tropes.

There’s still a lot to love in The Gorge despite its shortcomings. Taylor-Joy and Teller give their characters believable personalities, and it’s delicious to watch these two misguided souls falling in love while fighting hordes of monsters. Derrickson is also a great director who always finds a way to make even the simplest interactions between the duo interesting — the sequence when Drasa and Levi meet face-to-face for the first time is already worth the whole movie. 

It’s a shame that The Gorge can’t fulfill all its promises. Its run time could be trimmed without losing its best bits, and the script could be tweaked to create a more fluid film experience. Furthermore, with better effects — preferably practical — this movie could win big at the box office, as its best action scenes would look perfect on the silver screen. Even so, Derrickson delivers a nice popcorn flick. So, by the time the credits roll, The Gorge justifies the time spent in front of your television.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Gorge premieres exclusively on Apple TV+ on February 14th.

The post The Gorge Review: Anya Taylor-Joy and Miles Teller Play a Survival Horror Videogame appeared first on ComicBook.com.

With 2024 only seeing one theatrical release from the Marvel Cinematic Universe in Deadpool & Wolverine, Captain America: Brave New World has quite a lot riding on Sam Wilson taking up the mantle. With reshoots and rewrites taking place throughout the film’s development and production, many Marvel fans wondered if this fourth entry in the Captain America series would manage to live up to its predecessors. With Anthony Mackie’s Cap taking on villains like Giancarlo Esposito’s Sidewinder, Tim Blake Nelson’s Leader, and a fiendish president in Harrison Ford’s Red Hulk, there’s a lot on Wilson’s plate. Luckily, Brave New World is a meal well worth dining on.

Captain America: Brave New World gives us a Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) who is months, if not years, into his role as the Star-Spangled Avenger, working in tandem with the United States government. With General Thaddeus Ross (Ford) elected as the new president, Sam is attempting to both mend fences with an old “frenemy” and heal a wounded nation. Unfortunately for both parties, the issue of the “Celestial Island” and the long-awaited arrival of adamantium to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, have thrown the world into a tailspin. Teaming up with the new Falcon, Joaquin Torres (Danny Ramirez), Sam must navigate a variety of challenges in both the espionage and superhero departments.

This is the first film in the series that has left Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers on the sidelines with Anthony Mackie taking the reins as the shield-slinger and luckily, there aren’t many complaints when it comes to Mackie shouldering the mantle. The movie doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to both the strengths and weaknesses that Sam Wilson has compared to the man who started it all, and this works well in the storytelling. Mackie himself is charmingly affable and knows how to get serious when the situation demands it. Many might have wondered if Mackie would be able to live up to the legacy left by Evans, yours truly included, and we’re happy to report he makes for quite an excellent Cap here. You truly get to witness the journey of Sam coming into his role as the new Captain America and it makes you want to see more of him in the future (luckily, Avengers: Doomsday is a little over one year away).

Of course, Mackie has some major headaches to deal with here, specifically in the form of Harrison Ford’s Thaddeus Ross. Ross has quite a bit of history in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, played previously by the late William Hurt, and while Ford is clearly in a league of his own in the acting department, Hurt’s performance was nothing to sneeze at. Luckily, Ford is given plenty to work with here, running the emotional gamut of attempting to cement his legacy as a newly elected President while trying to mend bridges with his daughter, Betty (Liv Tyler). He brings layers to Thaddeus as a man who is struggling with his actions as a General, president, and father, and Ford captures the torture in all of his past mistakes.

When it comes to villains, though, there has been one that has stuck closely to the shadows in much of the marketing for Brave New World. Tim Blake Nelson’s Samuel Sterns, who Marvel fans might know as The Incredible Hulk villain, The Leader, is the grand puppet master of the entire film and Nelson is clearly having fun with the role. There’s a delicious malevolence in Nelson’s portrayal of the gamma-charged genius here, even without needing to crack wise in the same vein as many Marvel villains have done before him. There are some truly great pieces of dialogue that the Leader gets in Captain America 4’s run time that make him well worth including in the film as a foil to both Wilson and Ross. The Leader has always worked as a mental threat to Marvel heroes and Brave New World captures that aesthetic quite well.

One of the biggest surprises of Captain America: Brave New World was how it lived so well in the shadow of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. There are a few funny moments but, for the most part, Brave New World is a film that takes itself quite seriously and truly dives into its more mature overtones throughout. Gone are aspects of the multiverse and wise-cracking variants muddying up the screen and instead, Brave New World takes a much more grounded approach to the film’s benefit. (Well, as grounded as a film can be where the President of the United States transforms into a Red Hulk during a press conference and decimates the White House in the process.)

Ironically enough, the sheer number of themes and plot beats that Brave New World is trying to cram into its sub-two-hour run time is both a blessing and a curse. The latest MCU movie moves at a breakneck speed to weave together its interesting premise, but in doing so, misses out on the opportunity to dig deeper into some of its more interesting elements. Sam gets a few scenes to digest his differences with Steve Rogers, Isaiah Bradley (Carl Lumbly) has to emotionally come to terms with being a part of a government that destroyed him in more ways than one, and the state of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at large as a parallel to our own world is also a worthy subject to tackle. That’s perhaps the biggest weakness of the film, in that many of these story beats could have used much more time dedicated to them to help reinforce their themes overall. Had Captain America: Brave New World had an additional half-hour of run time, many of these themes might have been made stronger with more chances to breathe.

Speaking of weaknesses, much like the themes of the film itself, Esposito’s Sidewinder feels more like a means to an end rather than an antagonist who stands on his own two feet. Giancarlo is a fantastic actor and he feels somewhat wasted here. When you hear the rumors of the changes that were made to the movie, including the loss of WWE’s Seth Rollins as another member of the Serpent Society, you can’t help but think about what the story was originally supposed to be.

Captain America: Brave New World has its flaws but it’s a movie that works quite well as a return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and what said universe can still achieve when it really puts its mind to it. This sequel might not stand toe to toe with Captain America: Winter Soldier, but it certainly follows in its footsteps, much to the benefit of moviegoers.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Captain America: Brave New World hits theaters on Friday, February 14th.

The post Captain America: Brave New World Review: The Winter Soldier’s Spiritual Successor appeared first on ComicBook.com.

During 2023’s SAG-AFTRA strike in Hollywood, the term “second screen” gained popularity as movie and TV writers denounced streaming services’ push for dumbed-down scripts people could follow with half attention. Since the success streamers report to shareholders is mostly dependent on the number of hours subscribers tune into their service, their goal is to have stories people can leave on while doing other stuff without feeling frustrated for not understanding the plot. The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep is, unfortunately, classic second screen content, designed to keep you just entertained enough to glance at the bigger screen while still holding your phone without missing any major story beat.

Loosely based on Andrzej Sapkowski’s short story “A Little Sacrifice,” Sirens of the Deep takes Geralt (voiced by Doug Cockle) to Bremervood, a coastal kingdom at the brink of war with the neighboring underwater community of Merpeople. The humans have depleted the Merpeople’s food resources due to their predatory search for pearls, enraging the sea inhabitants. At the same time, the people of Bremervood have been attacked by a mysterious aquatic creature that leaves death and destruction in its wake. The only thing holding off the bloodshed is the forbidden love of Bremervood’s prince Agloval (voiced by Camrus Johnson) and siren princess Sh’eenaz (voiced by Emily Carey).

Sapkowski’s “A Little Sacrifice” fits perfectly into the author’s dark and broody fantasy setting – bleak ending included. The Netflix adaptation, in turn, blunts the original story’s sharpest edges in favor of clear heroes, obvious villains, and a clean finale. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this approach, as change is inherent to any adaptation. However, in the case of Sirens of the Deep, the result is a bland script that holds no surprises and paddles toward the finishing line without leaving a lasting impression. Following the second screen philosophy, the whole conflict is simplified to the point where looking away for whole scenes doesn’t prevent you from guessing what happens next.

With few exceptions, the characters never get the time to be more than their specific role in the story demands, and too often, it feels like you’ve seen the same story told somewhere else. That’s a shame, as some of the new characters introduced in the spinoff, such as Essi Daves (voiced by Christina Wren) and Zelest (voiced by Ray Chase), are written around solid concepts worth exploring better. As for Geralt and Jaskier (voiced by Joey Batey), while there’s some fun to be had with their usual banter, Sirens of the Deep doesn’t give either enough agency to affect the course of events in a significant manner. On the contrary, much of the plot unfolds through chaos and coincidence.

To make matters worse, Sirens of the Deep decided to use Disney’s The Little Mermaid as one of its main sources of inspiration. Without spoiling any twists, it suffices to say there is a musical number that is incredibly similar to the classic animated movie. Plus, one of the subplots of Sirens of the Deep revolves around a magical concoction identical to the one in The Little Mermaid. Even Disney’s iconic naval battle at the movie’s end gets rehashed in the film. That’s an odd creative choice, to say the least, as it restrains even more a spinoff deprived of novelty.

Things do get better on the animation front. Like The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf before it, Sirens of the Deep embraces its anime vocation to deliver sleek and fluid action scenes, giving Geralt more mobility than he ever had in the main series or the games. It can take a second for fans of the realistic setting of The Witcher to get used to Geralt’s twirls and flourishes, but this enhanced combat prowess helps each battle feel unique. Sirens of the Deep is all the better when Geralt is floating in the air with a sword in his hands, chopping his way through battalions of sea creatures. 

There are some serious editing issues in Sirens of the Deep, even in its best action scenes, as the action ignores the spatial restraints of each setting for the sake of spectacle. Still, ignoring these inconsistencies is easy when the result is genuinely impressive. Studio Mir, who handled the animation, also deserves praise for its use of slow motion, infrequently enough to enhance key scenes instead of slowing down the flow of combat as a whole.

In addition to the animation, the highlight of Sirens of the Deep is its voice cast. Like in the main Netflix series, Batey embodies Jaskier’s chaotic energy, and it’s always great to hear him sing his way out of trouble and into people’s hearts. Plus, while fans wonder if Liam Hemsworth will make a Geralt of Rivia as good as Henry Cavill’s, Cockle’s White Wolf remains the definitive version of the character outside Sapkowski’s books, elevating a lukewarm animated movie just as he elevated CD Projekt Red’s beloved gaming trilogy. The standout voice, however, belongs to Wren. The movie doesn’t give Essi much to do beyond glaring at Geralt with doe eyes, but even so, Wren delivers each line with such heart that it’s impossible not to be charmed by her charisma.

Sirens of the Deep is a flawed spinoff with a few highlights sprinkled over, delivering just enough fun to engage with in a casual watch. For diehard The Witcher fans, it does offer a glimpse at Geralt’s adventures with Jaskier right in the middle of the timeline mess that was the main series’ first season. However, with so much content dropping in so many different streamers every week, Sirens of the Deep had to do a little more to truly stand out. It’s good that Netflix is willing to try out new formats to expand one of its leading properties. Nevertheless, Sirens of the Deep is not the spinoff to convince audiences that The Witcher needs all the content it gets.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep is currently available on Netflix.

The post The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep Review: A Spinoff Committed to the Second Screen Philosophy appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Holidays and horror movies go together like peanut butter and chocolate these days. Many decades ago, slasher movies like Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Black Christmas would present twisted takes on the beloved days of the year. In recent years, horror outings like Thanksgiving, Terrifier 3, and Trick ‘r Treat got into the spirit of the seasons with buckets of blood and entrails. Heart Eyes might not be called “Valentine’s Day,” but the latest slasher movie is one that certainly could hold that title if push came to shove. When all is said and done, will Heart Eyes become another classic, seasonal slasher?

Heart Eyes follows the story of Ally (Olivia Holt), an advertising specialist whose ill-timed marketing campaign runs headfirst into a little problem in its deathly aesthetic. There’s a killer on the loose and the titular slasher has a hankering to carve through couples for reasons unknown. Introduced through a series of misadventures with a would-be beau in Jay (Mason Gooding), the potential couple has unfortunately found themselves in the crosshairs of the holiday killer. As the ill-fated protagonists attempt to dodge the advances of the masked antagonist, Heart Eyes promises to leave a bloody trail in its wake.

Heart Eyes is directed by Josh Ruben, an up-and-comer in the horror game. Previous outings from Ruben have been strong ones, with entries like Werewolves Within and Scare Me managing to not just present pictures that expertly balanced horror and comedy, but offered some interesting new approaches to standard settings. It’s in this past resume that I found myself a little disappointed in Heart Eyes by just how traditional this Valentine’s Day-themed slasher appears. This isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have heart behind it, but the slasher is one that feels far more like scratching an itch rather than adding a game-breaking entry into the horror genre.

This isn’t to say Heart Eyes doesn’t have its charms. Both Gooding and Holt have amazing chemistry in this as the two find themselves sharing dinner and a fight with a madman (or madmen?) throughout this breezy, 90-minute affair. Ruben’s background as a comedian himself shines through here as there are some genuinely hilarious beats peppered throughout. The wit and commentary bite hard in the horror’s run time, though those looking for scares might find themselves a tad disappointed in that category.

Another notch in Heart Eyes’ belt is how it does take some big swings in its portrayal of the stalker’s path. Rather than simply being relegated to an abandoned summer camp or a derelict suburban neighborhood, the masked killer with an ax to grind with couples is a traveling horror. Heart Eyes seemingly appears in a new city each Valentine’s Day in recent years, adding an interesting wrinkle to some of the more traditional slashers. What this latest horror movie also does is incorporate aspects of social media into the mix, though it feels like this could have been an element that was further fleshed out.

Now that we’re in an age of Art the Clown and the Smile Demon, fans are expecting a little bit of the ultraviolence from their horror mascots. Unfortunately, one of Heart Eyes’ best kills is spoiled in the marketing, to the point where I even saw a poster that focused on said kill. While the ending is quite the blood-soaked affair, the killer himself could have used a bit more creativity in the blood and guts department. Speaking of creativity, the killer doesn’t have a design that will make him as memorable as the likes of Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, or Michael Meyers, as the lighting up of his eyes is probably the only real noteworthy aspect of the aesthetic.

Heart Eyes doesn’t attempt to break any horror wheels, instead offering a serviceable outing that is a breezy addition to the subgenre. While it has its fair share of humor and heart, there are more than a few dents in the armor for this new, would-be horror icon. If you are looking for a serviceable, fun slasher movie, Heart Eyes might be worth your time.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Heart Eyes releases in theaters on February 7th.

The post Heart Eyes Review: A Heart-Popping Holiday Horror appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Blending horror with comedy is both a tried-and-true formula for success and also a balancing act that can easily fall on its face. Lean too much into horror and the comedic elements feel jarring, lean too much on comedy and the impact of a movie’s terror is entirely overlooked. Given that humor and fear are some of the most primal emotions, attempting to conjure those in an audience is more difficult than many expect, which is exactly what the new movie Companion feels like such a success: it manages to deliver compelling characters we invest in, both reveling in their demise and cheering for their persistence.

In an alternate reality or the not-too-distant future, Iris (Sophie Thatcher) falls for Josh (Jack Quaid) in a way that mirrors the most endearing of rom-coms. Their relationship does run into trouble, though, as not all of Josh’s friends approve of the couple, namely due to the fact that Iris is actually a sentient robot, a fact that only Iris herself learns of in the film’s opening act.

One of 2024’s more thrilling horror-comedies was Abigail from filmmakers Tyler Gillett and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin. Despite the film’s effectiveness in its own right, the majority of Abigail‘s marketing materials teased how the titular little girl was a vampire, a fact which her kidnappers only learned about after a significant amount of the film’s run time had passed. Similarly, Companion‘s marketing materials have undercut the impact of Iris realizing she’s a robot, but as compared to last year’s vampire-centric movie, this film has plenty more twists and turns than what has already been revealed ahead of its release.

In addition to the film’s marketing materials teasing a major plot twist, it also boasted that it was produced by Barbarian filmmaker Zach Cregger. While Companion was written and directed by Drew Hancock, it does make good on the implication it is just as twisted as Cregger’s 2022 breakout hit. Whereas Barbarian had some entirely visceral, narrative-changing reveals, Hancock’s movie doesn’t have to rely on such dramatic tonal shifts and offers up a much more empathetic experience. Companion isn’t without its heroes and villains, but Hancock’s script and direction will see the audience shifting their allegiances ever so slightly over the course of the narrative.

It’s no surprise that Thatcher has earned herself a major following in the genre world, having impressed audiences with her work on Showtime’s Yellowjackets and in films like The Boogeyman and Heretic. What really makes her performance in Companion, though, is her nuance and restraint in conveying a range of emotions as Iris. She brings the required warmth and charm to make audiences root for Iris and Josh’s relationship, but it’s not until key points in the narrative in which the robot’s operating system is tweaked that we understand the full reach of Thatcher’s skills. More specifically, as Iris’s attributes are manipulated, Thatcher modifies her physical and vocal performance to become more or less humanized, helping sell the idea that Iris is arguably more human than some of the other characters in the movie. Similarly, with Quaid having won over audiences as the affable Hughie in Prime Video’s The Boys, he gets to channel all of his boyish charm to romance Iris, while also offering glimmers of potentially using that charm to distract people from his true tendencies. The supporting cast of Lukas Gage, Megan Suri, Harvey Guillén, and Rupert Friend all also do their part in selling layered, complicated, and often hilarious figures.

The premise of the movie might feel reactionary or timely, but there’s a long history of sci-fi films exploring what would happen if A.I. gained sentience. Whether it be 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, Ex Machina, or the recent crowdpleaser M3GAN, the notion of technology outpacing humanity has frightened us for decades. This doesn’t at all mean that Companion feels redundant, though, as it instead highlights how the movie manages to find a much more grounded entry point for a premise. Not only is Josh’s depression and desperation entirely believable, but so is the concept of a tech company developing human-passing automatons. Also making Companion stand apart is how fully invested in Iris’s journey we become. Plenty of non-human characters have excited fans in horror movies, though while there’s much delight to be had in witnessing artificial lifeforms laying waste to the humans in front of them, we empathize with Iris in ways entirely unique to her journey.

Companion is undoubtedly a genre movie, not only in its premise but also in its execution, yet the one realm in which it might not fully excite horror fans is in its overall sense of terror. Namely, there’s not really anything outright scary, and that’s not entirely a bad thing. Witnessing a culture in which robots can pass for humans is frightening, but almost all of the film’s tension comes from Iris and what her fate could be. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending on a viewer’s tastes, but anyone anticipating an R-rated adventure full of motorized mayhem should temper expectations. Luckily, we’re instead given a smart, silly, and nuanced take on romance and relationships in the digital age which manages to offer up equal amounts of laughs and violence. The entire cast is quirky and endearing, but Companion is fully Sophie Thatcher’s vehicle as her Iris helps cement the words of Rob Zombie into stone by proving she is more human than human.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Companion lands in theaters on January 31st.

The post Companion Review: A Horror-Comedy That Keeps Audiences on Their Toes appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Leigh Whannell has been around the block with his few horror outings in recent years. Beginning his horror streak by directing the third entry in the Insidious franchise, Whannell would then go on to bring to life the delightful little action film Upgrade, followed shortly thereafter with his radical new take on The Invisible Man. Following in the footsteps of the latter, Leigh decided to bring his style to another Universal Monster in Wolf Man. Considering that The Invisible Man walked away with critical acclaim for the reinvention of the horror icon, can Whannell’s new take on lycanthropy do the same?

Our creature feature begins with the patriarch of the family Blake, played here by Christopher Abbott, recollecting days spent with his strict father in the Oregon wilderness. Cue thirty years later as Blake now has a wife and daughter, played by Julia Garner and Matilda Firth respectively, and is struggling with both his roles as a husband and as a provider. Out of work and dealing with marital problems, Blake receives word that his father has been declared deceased and is inheriting his childhood home. While Blake sees this as a fresh start, a certain encounter with a lycanthrope is one that throws quite the horrific monkey wrench into his plans for family time.

Unfortunately, Wolf Man is absolutely mired with issues, making it a far cry from what made Invisible Man work so well. To start, the analogies used by Leigh here are fast and furious, delivering impacts with the subtlety and force of a runaway Mack truck. The overall idea of incorporating the classic Universal Monster into a story surrounding generational trauma and disease are strong enough concepts on paper, but said ideas never quite coalesce here. The problem is that this breezy affair never gives these concepts the time to breathe and percolate, allowing viewers to dig their teeth into them.

Let me give you an example of this: as 2025’s Wolf Man follows in the footsteps of its predecessors by seeing Blake become said Wolf Man, thanks to receiving a debilitating scratch on his arm. There are glimpses of brilliance in Blake’s transformation here and there, whether it be from how his new sense of hearing emerges or how the transformation itself makes it feel as though Blake is literally being dragged into a different world from those around him. These ideas fall to the wayside in a by-the-numbers affair that simply never makes good on what could have been. On the character front, Blake’s relationship with his father, for example, is given the briefest of scenes to kick things off, creating something of a boilerplate for the main character’s personality in the present day. Everything feels infuriatingly surface-level in Wolf Man when it could have been so much more.

While watching Wolf Man, I couldn’t shake the feeling that there was footage that had been left on the cutting room floor and that major scenes had fallen to the wayside to keep it at a lean and mean ninety minutes, and the movie suffers for that. While not necessarily related to its overall length, I couldn’t help but think about how much the film would have benefitted from taking place over the course of a week rather than all in the timeframe of one night. Witnessing Blake’s terrifying change, his decomposition in some instances, would have been that much more effective if they were a slow burn rather than a spectacular flare-out. There are full scenes where I found myself scratching my head due to the sheer lack of complexity in any of them, which could work, but it simply doesn’t with Wolf Man. We go from Point A to Point B to Point C with little to no insightful deviations from the road set forth.

One aspect of the marketing for Wolf Man is the hiding of what the creature of the night looks like (or in this case, creature of both night and day as the lycanthrope can operate in the daylight here). Many horror fans received their first reveal via a sneak peek at Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights and it’s unfortunate to say that the film’s iteration doesn’t feel like that much of an upgrade. Whannell makes the decision to lean heavier into Lon Chaney Jr.’s design with some modern twists to play up into the new take, which ultimately falls short in delivering a scarier take on the classic creature. Blake’s lycanthrope design is clearly attempting to pull off a balancing act between a terrifying visage while exuding an emotional core but much like the overall story elements, it fails to take off.

Wolf Man is about as straightforward as you can get, missing out on many of the elements that made Whannell’s past works so effective. There are so many instances of what could have worked but fall short here, creating a horror film that doesn’t feel scary enough and certainly isn’t able to hammer home whatever messaging it was hoping to convey. Wolf Man is a colossal misfire and I feel disheartened in saying that.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Wolf Man lands in theaters on January 17th.

The post Wolf Man Review: This Dog’s Missing Its Bite appeared first on ComicBook.com.

It’s been a long, strange journey for Shadow the Hedgehog. After a compelling debut in Sonic Adventure 2, the character became something of a punchline among gamers, thanks to his brooding, gun-toting nature. It comes as somewhat of a surprise, then, that the character has become the lynchpin in Sonic the Hedgehog 3, the latest entry in Paramount and Sega’s well-performing movie franchise. While the edgy Shadow might seem like a strange addition to the Sonic Cinematic Universe, the character’s arc perfectly connects with the theme of found family that has been building across the first two films.

When Sonic the Hedgehog 3 begins, our titular hero (Ben Schwartz) has found everything he could have possibly wanted: “parents” in Tom and Maddie Wachowski (James Marsden and Tika Sumpter), and a pair of “brothers” in Tails (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) and Knuckles (Idris Elba). As the family celebrates the anniversary of Sonic’s arrival on Earth, the newly dubbed “Team Sonic” is drafted by G.U.N. (the Guardian Units of Nations) to help out with a situation unfolding in Tokyo. After 50 years in stasis, Shadow the Hedgehog (Keanu Reeves) has broken out of confinement, and is making short work out of G.U.N. agents in the area. A battle quickly ensues, in which Shadow singlehandedly defeats Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles. What’s more, it seems someone is trying to obtain a powerful G.U.N. weapon that could threaten all life on Earth.

As the movie progresses, viewers are given a glimpse at Shadow’s backstory, and how it adapts the events of the video game Sonic Adventure 2. In the 1970s, Shadow befriended a girl named Maria (Alyla Browne), the granddaughter of scientist Gerald Robotnik (Jim Carrey). Eventually, Shadow was deemed too dangerous, and was put in stasis by G.U.N., but not before a tragedy that would lead both Shadow and Gerald on a path towards revenge. The brooding Shadow is perfectly portrayed by Reeves, and his arc adds a bit of darkness to this world. It never feels too intense for an all-ages movie, and the filmmakers manage to balance the darker moments with plenty of humor.

Prior to Sonic the Hedgehog 3, the Sonic movies have stuck to adapting 2D games from the Genesis era. This is the first time director Jeff Fowler and Paramount have adapted a story-heavy Sonic game, and the result is surprisingly faithful to the source material. Some adjustments had to be made to fit the story into the Sonic Cinematic Universe, like tying in the Wachowski family and other movie-exclusive characters, but all of the bones of the story are there. There are even some neat references outside the main story, like a Chao Garden-themed restaurant, or a fan-favorite music track that can be heard throughout the movie. Sonic fans who played the original Dreamcast game are going to find a lot to enjoy.

As the Sonic Cinematic Universe expands to incorporate new characters, there’s a danger of the movies drowning out fan favorites from the first two movies. Thankfully, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 manages to give the newcomers ample screen time, while further developing the established characters. Tails, in particular, gets some nice moments to shine, as he gets to interact with some characters that he didn’t in the previous movie. With Knuckles as the primary antagonist in Sonic the Hedgehog 2, there was a danger that following his story with Shadow’s could have felt repetitive. Instead, the movie does a great job using Sonic’s relationships with Tails and Knuckles as a contrast to Shadow’s own found family, while also highlighting the lonely Ivo Robotnik (also played by Jim Carrey). As a result, the villain gets more depth than we’ve seen in the past two films.

Perhaps the biggest deviation from Sonic Adventure 2 is the role of Gerald Robotnik. The long-lost grandfather of Ivo, Gerald only appeared in flashbacks in the original game. In Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Gerald is very much alive, and he represents the only living family that the younger Robotnik has left. While the relationship between the two characters is largely used as comic relief, it also sheds light on Ivo’s character, as well as his partnership with Agent Stone (Lee Majdoub). The end credits for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 set the stage for a fourth movie, but it’s unclear whether we’ll see Carrey back again. However, if this truly is the end of Ivo’s arc, the character goes out on a higher note than he did in the previous two films.

If there’s one part of Sonic the Hedgehog 3 that felt undercooked, it’s the role of G.U.N. in the story. Shadow’s motivation for revenge is well established, but it’s never quite clear what to make of the organization. Team Sonic makes the decision not to trust the group early in the movie, including series newcomer Director Rockwell (Krysten Ritter). Ritter’s role in the movie feels largely wasted, as if there was an intended payoff that got left on the cutting-room floor. It felt like the movie was setting up to reveal Ritter as a different Sonic character in disguise, but her role in the movie is abruptly dropped long before the credits roll. It’s likely we’ll see more of the group in the future, but this is one area of the movie that could have used some polish.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 takes everything that worked well in the first two films and trims a lot of the fat away, with a tighter focus on the familiar Sega characters. It’s easily the most faithful adaptation of the games, and there’s a lot of fan service to be found throughout. While that’s great for longtime fans, it never gets in the way of telling a story that will appeal to casual audiences. Instead, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 uses elements from the games to continue building and establishing this separate movie world. The result is something that can be enjoyed by both younger fans, and those that grew up playing Sonic Adventure 2. After three entries, Paramount’s Sonic series hasn’t lost any steam, and this might be the best one overall.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 will premiere in theaters on Friday, December 20th.

The post Sonic the Hedgehog 3 Review: Keanu Reeves Shines as Shadow appeared first on ComicBook.com.

In 1922, filmmaker F.W. Murnau unleashed Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror on audiences, an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, though a decade later, Bela Lugosi would star in a proper Dracula adaptation. While Nosferatu‘s ghoul was monstrous with his bald head, sunken eyes, and sharp fingers, Lugosi’s count was handsome, seductive, and alluring to both on-screen characters and to audiences. With writer/director Robert Eggers’s Nosferatu, he pulls off the unenviable task of delivering a beast that fuses these archetypes into an entirely singular vision of terror. In some respects, Eggers’s latest serves as the epitome of his career. Nosferatu showcases not only the passion Eggers has for the most seminal experiences in gothic horror, but it manages to blend them in a way that isn’t merely replicating his predecessors, while also somehow injecting fresh elements that were largely overlooked in previous incarnations of the tale.

In hopes of securing a major payday and promotion to improve his and his wife’s lives, Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) accepts a job that requires him to travel across 19th-century Europe to finalize real estate paperwork with the mysterious Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård). Thomas’s wife Eleanor (Lily-Rose Depp) protests this, expressing how her love for her newly betrothed is more important than money, though Thomas embarks on his six-week journey anyway. After witnessing the bizarre occult rituals of nearby villagers, Thomas eventually arrives at Orlok’s castle and comes face to face with a confounding and ghastly figure. The commonality between them is their love for Eleanor, only for the woman to start having unexplainable fits of psychosis, with both Thomas and Orlok hoping to put an end to the madness upon a reunion with Eleanor.

Nosferatu touches upon all of the major plot points of virtually every official or unauthorized adaptation of Dracula, as well as every derivation of the narrative. When it comes to reviving dormant properties, there’s a risk of being too beholden to the past and replicating the source material too literally, while there are also inherent challenges when deviating too far from a well-known story. Despite Eggers’s narrative not taking too big of swings that could betray the story that inspired it, this new Nosferatu’s real power is in the unique alchemy of cinematic sensibilities and compelling performances that elevate it above any horror fan’s preconceived notions.

Anyone who’s seen Eggers’s The Witch, The Lighthouse, or The Northman won’t be surprised to see that a gothic horror is the best use of his abilities. Every single frame, every shot, every sequence feels like it could be turned into a baroque painting, as he somehow manages to pay respects to the German expressionist movement, Tod Browning’s 1931 Dracula, and Hammer Films of the ’60s and ’70s, all while injecting his own brand of surrealist storytelling. Some audiences will call these his stylistic decisions derivative, though the approach instead feels like a distillation of more than a century of cinematic interpretations of the living undead.

The biggest tonal deviation Eggers takes from what came before him is the handling of Eleanor, with Depp’s committed performance fully elevating anything that Eggers might have put on the page. Most versions of Eleanor, or any female simulacrum of her, are depicted as an innocent who becomes the target of a frightening figure, due to their undeniably charm. All it took was Eggers offering up an opening scene with Eleanor that completely changed her role in the story.

Before audiences even know that Count Orlok exists, Eggers teases in an opening scene that there’s a darkness within Eleanor that has been with her for years. Neither the filmmaker nor Depp ever exactly confirms what that darkness is, and it’s that ambiguity that makes Eleanor such a layered and tragic figure. Whether a viewer infers that Eleanor suffers from depression, feels shame over sexual desires, or has endured countless other types of malady, Eleanor feels ostracized by her community, societal norms, and those closest to her, causing her to call out into the unknown darkness for any respite from this otherness. Tragically, it’s Orlok who has answered the call, serving as the manifestation of any seemingly nefarious entity plaguing one’s life. Depp manages to not only depict these many layers of emotional conflict and torment, as surface-level as missing her husband to the emotional torment of betraying morality, but also has the opportunity to bring a frenetic physicality to Eleanor’s more frantic moments. As seemingly meek as Eleanor is through most of the film, one confession with Thomas later in the story takes Depp’s performance to an entirely new level. Depp’s performance and Eggers’s script transform the story into something far more romantic and far more empathetic, feeling both timeless and entirely modern.

Ever since audiences knew that Skarsgård would be playing the iconic monster, they wanted to know how he would physically embrace the role. Eggers and the marketing materials have made it a point to keep the beast shrouded in secrecy, though we can safely say that this Nosferatu‘s Orlok is not what you’re expecting. Anticipation should be tempered to some degree, as this Orlok might not change everything you know about vampires, but that isn’t to say that the physical transformation Skarsgård undergoes isn’t really like anything we’ve seen before. Much like how Eggers tonally honors Max Schreck’s Orlok from 1922 but also Lugosi’s Dracula, Skarsgård similarly borrows a number of influences so that his Orlok is frightening, alluring, sophisticated, and monstrous all at once. Skarsgård intimidates the characters and elevates the omnipresent influence of Orlok not solely through his physicality, but the actor also mutates his voice into a chilling register that we can feel in our bones.

Depp and Skarsgård are the standouts of the picture, but supporting actors Hoult, Willem Dafoe, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Emma Corrin, Simon McBurney, and Ralph Ineson also help carry the gravitas of the endeavor. In any other project, the supporting stars would earn the majority of accolades, with it being a testament to how captivating Depp and Skarsgård are that the supporting cast’s complex portrayals feel at all overshadowed. (As expected, though, witnessing Dafoe as a Van Helsing-esque scholar obsessed with cats and the occult is as delightful as one could imagine.)

Eggers broke onto the scene with his movie The Witch, and while some horror audiences were expecting all manner of witch-related mayhem, that movie was a period-specific exercise in paranoia. The filmmaker’s devotion to authenticity makes Nosferatu the perfect showcase for those priorities, as he immerses audiences in everything from snow-covered forests to rat-infested city streets to cavernous castles. These settings and environments feel all the more rich thanks to the movie’s score, sound design, and cinematography, only for the realism to be perverted when Eggers leans into the more surreal elements of the concept. Whether it be the shadowy, outstretched hands overcoming an entire city or a ghastly silhouette billowing behind a curtain, the realism of much of the film makes these moments feel all the more unsettling. Eggers even manages to channel the spirit of Murnau’s seminal experience without merely replicating him. One of the most iconic visuals of the original movie, for example, is the silhouette of Orlok ascending a staircase despite audiences not seeing his corporeal form, and while Eggers finds a way to channel the spirit of that sequence, it’s done in a way that’s unexpected and effective.

Eggers has been vocal about his desire to make his version of Nosferatu for more than a decade, only for his earlier attempts to see setbacks that required him to pivot to other projects. Those obstacles would understandably be frustrating for both the filmmaker and for his fans, but the final product has proven to be the pinnacle of all of his talents, as his previous exploits allowed him to hone his craft and learn the importance of restraint. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Eggers’ work could have predicted that his Nosferatu would be visually striking and tonally sophisticated, all while being both romantic and terrifying, but it’s Depp’s enthralling performance and Skarsgård’s nightmarish metamorphosis into Orlok that makes this not only Eggers’s masterpiece, it also serves as a seminal interpretation of a century-old text that will be the defining gothic horror for a generation of filmgoers.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Nosferatu will land in theaters on December 25th.

The post Nosferatu Review: Gothic Horror at Its Finest appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Can Moana 2 go Beyond the original on Rotten Tomatoes? Reviews are in for Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Moana sequel ahead of its nationwide release on Wednesday, and the critics’ consensus seems to be that the seafaring adventure is “see-worthy” — if not quite as shiny as its beloved predecessor (which remains Disney’s most-streamed movie of all time on Disney+). Meanwhile, the new movie broke Inside Out 2‘s trailer viewership record as the most-watched trailer for any animated Disney film and is tracking for a record-breaking Thanksgiving box office opening, so expectations are high.

First announced as a Disney+ streaming series in 2020, the Moana TV show was eventually reworked into a feature-length film that reunites the titular wayfinder (Auli’i Cravalho) and the shape-shifting demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) for an expansive new voyage alongside a crew of unlikely seafarers.

RELATED: Walt Disney Animation Studios Chief Explains Why Fans Should Be Excited for the Live-Action Moana (Exclusive)

Moana 2 Rotten Tomatoes Score and Metacritic

Moana 2 set sail on Tuesday with a 70 percent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes (from 71 reviews counted thus far), and a 57 average on Metacritic, indicating “mixed or average” reviews. To compare, 2016’s Moana is certified fresh at 95% — the sixth-best score for an animated Disney movie, behind only Pinocchio (1940) at 100 percent, Zootopia (2016) at 98 percent, One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) and Cinderella (1950) at 98 percent, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) at 97 percent — while over at Metacritic, it averaged a score of 81 (“universal acclaim”).

When compared to Walt Disney Animation Studios’ most recent films, the Moana 2 Rotten Tomatoes score is higher than 2023’s Wish (“rotten” at 48 percent) but lower than 2022’s Strange World (72 percent), 2021’s Encanto (92 percent), 2021’s Raya and the Last Dragon (93 percent), and 2019’s Frozen II (77 percent).

Moana 2 Reviews

Critics praised the animation as “stellar” and “gorgeously colorful” with “some of the most vivid animated water put to film,” but note that the story is weaker than the original. There is plenty of praise for Moana’s little sister, Simea, while the “archetype” characters around Moana — Loto (Rose Matafeo), Kele (David Fane), and Moni (Hualālai Chung) — are less memorable. The film’s villain, the mysterious Matangi (Awhimai Fraser), is being compared to “complex,” “classic” Disney villains like The Little Mermaid‘s Ursula.

While some critics have criticized the limited screen time between Moana and Maui, the consensus seems to be that Moana 2 is a worthy followup to the original — and worthy of being elevated to the big screen. Here are what critics are saying about Moana 2:

Chicago Sun Times: “Moana 2 is a brightly colored and heartwarming high-seas adventure with a terrific percussive score and a bounty of infectious original songs, beautiful messaging about honoring ancestral traditions and the benefits of community and teamwork, and some lovely voice performances from the talented cast.”

Associated Press: “Directors David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand and Dana Ledoux Miller have made an often dazzlingly animated film that is, visually, a step up from 2016’s Moana. But in a story that brings in a literal boatload of new characters, it’s hard to shake the feeling that Moana 2 got caught in the crosswinds — too blown between shifting studio imperatives to really find its own way.”

Variety: “Moana 2 is an okay movie, an above-average kiddie roller-coaster, and a piece of pure product in a way that the first Moana, at its best, transcended. The new movie wears you down to win you over; it’s a just efficient enough delivery system for follow-your-dreams inspiration to be a major holiday hit.”

The Hollywood Reporter: “Moana 2 … might have worked better as a longer series. While the highly anticipated follow-up features stunning animation, it lacks the cohesive narrative and emotional intimacy that made its predecessor special … Where Moana focused on the relationship between the titular adventurer and her reluctant demigod companion, Moana 2 divides its attention among more characters. These personalities — which includes fellow Motunuians and new villains — become window dressing in a movie short on time.”

IndieWire: “You know what helps drive an animated adventure forward? Songs! And while Moana 2 might not be rife with all the instant hits of the first film, there are plenty of bangers on offer here … Mostly, they delight because they help push the story along, on its own spirited wavelength. It’s always a tough ask to improve upon an original, but Moana 2 is a sprightly addition to this sea-faring legacy. It does something nearly impossible in our sequel-glutted world: made me want further adventures. Moana 3, ahoy?”

AV Club: “[Moana 2] is a ramshackle Franken-ship still seaworthy enough to navigate its theatrical release, but it’s got more in common with straight-to-video sequels than the clever original … There are recycled versions of the first film’s slapstick and songs. It all threatens to come together, if not for an unseen and all-powerful deity throwing a wrench in these plans for reasons beyond the understanding of us mere mortals. Alas, it’s lost at sea.”

The Film Verdict: “Moana 2 is always a joy to look at, but this remains firmly the kind of sequel aimed solely at people who want to watch the same movie again, only with a number in the title.”

Moana 2 sails into theaters November 27.

The post Moana 2 Reviews: What Critics Are Saying About the “See-Worthy” Sequel appeared first on ComicBook.com.

It has taken Wicked 20 years to make it to the big screen. Though speculation could abound for days about why that was, the first film in this two-part adaptation proves that it was worth the wait. Even as other Wizard of Oz-adjacent stories and spinoffs have come and gone, Wicked flies onto screens with a bold spirit and a stark level of technical craft that is starting to feel more and more rare in Hollywood. Wicked is not only one of the most entertaining blockbusters of the year, it’s one of the most confident.

Diving into the history of the Wicked Witch of the West in Oz, Wicked reveals the interconnected backstory of Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo) and Galinda Upland (Ariana Grande) and their formative years together at Shiz University. Elphaba is quickly enrolled at Shiz when Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh) notices her potential, while Galinda herself strives to learn the ways of magic despite being rebuffed by the professor. Although Elphaba and Galinda are initially forced into being roommates, they ultimately develop a bond, their lives becoming tied to a larger conspiracy at the core of Oz itself.

Erivo and Grande receive co-billing at the top and in the credits of Wicked, but, in truth, the film succeeds in large part because of how compelling Erivo’s performance is. There’s confidence in every step that Erivo takes as Elphaba, even before the character really arrives at a moment where her larger ambitions are starting to make themselves clear. She delivers a fully realized character from the moment she steps onto the screen, but also manages to evolve Elphaba over the course of her own growth in the film. It’s spirited and dynamic acting, showing off Erivo’s range and ability.

Grande is at her best when she is actively making her performance of Galinda into something that is her own. There are times when it feels like she’s leaning too hard into the characterizations that Kristin Chenoweth made iconic within the original Broadway show, a facsimile that doesn’t hold up. Luckily, this is not the bulk of what she does in the film, and Grande excels most when she relies on her own comedic timing as well as finding ways to sit in a dramatic moment.

The remaining ensemble for Wicked may be one of the only places where the film version doesn’t fully reach its potential. One standout is Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero, the Winkie prince who quickly makes a mark on Shiz after his enrollment. Bailey is not only charming and funny throughout, but exudes an energy that many of the other supporting players simply lack. Ethan Slater as Boq and Marissa Bode as Nessarose are good in the few scenes they get, but the characters themselves don’t have a lot to do just yet. Even Michelle Yeoh, despite a captivating presence, feels underutilized, and the same can be said for Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard of Oz. This is where the two-part division of the story hangs over the head of the entire film, giving some parties much less to do as it prepares to develop them further in the sequel.

There are, however, two masterful tricks that director Jon M. Chu wields that elevate the storytelling of Wicked while also making it feel like a cinematic event. The first is that Chu uses the familiarity audiences may already have with the musical to subvert their expectations about what will happen next. Many times throughout Wicked, Chu knows that the audience is likely well aware what the next beat in a song will be or how it will transition into another musical number, but he takes these instances and stretches them out with a pause. It leaves the audience captivated; not only are they taken by surprise by the fact they’re expecting the next part of the musical itself, but they don’t know when this specific interlude will end.

This leads into the second big trick that Chu manages to pull off: using those engrossing pauses as an opportunity to capture the minutiae of a personal sequence in the story. On the stage, the actors in Wicked have to be big to make the emotional beats of their performance easily visible in the back row; on the big screen, Chu allows the performers a chance to express something that can’t be glimpsed from every seat of a Broadway theater and transforms it into the only thing you can see.

I would be remiss if I didn’t specifically shout out the cinematography of Wicked, which was expertly executed by Alice Brooks, a frequent Chu collaborator, having worked on In the Heights and other projects with the filmmaker. There is a sweeping quality to the movement and scope of the camera in Wicked. Brooks makes sure to enhance these previously noted emotional beats by putting the camera in a place that a stage performance cannot offer, but, on the macro scale, she also deliberately showcases every dollar on the screen. These are huge sets with energy embedded into them by not only moving parts but the choreography itself, and she manages to display it in a way that is always captivating.

Wizard of Oz fans may balk at some of the forced connectivity present in some of Wicked’s plot, as some of the prequel elements do border on providing answers to questions we never needed to know, but even with that as a minor hindrance, the level of craft that has gone into bringing this to life is undeniable. The movie version of Wicked doesn’t take anything away from the stage show; instead, Chu’s film enhances the original musical at nearly every turn.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Wicked lands in theaters on November 22nd.

The post Wicked Review: One of 2024’s Most Entertaining Blockbusters appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Gladiator II arrives at a cursed time when the world is reeling from reality, which is perhaps exactly the moment that it should have been released. In the film, Rome is subject to tyrannical rule and though much of the population thirsts for the blood of the arena, others cling to the dream of what it was and what it could be. It’s an always topical framing for a narrative, and it’s the first of many ways where the new movie feels like it’s following the well-worn path of its predecessor with seldom an opportunity to attempt a new direction.

Paul Mescal leads Gladiator II as Lucius (the character played by Spencer Treat Clark in the original Gladiator), introduced under a different name and living a city that is quickly conquered by Rome’s army (lead by Pedro Pascal as Marcus Acacius, a role that ends up largely becoming thankless for him). The forked story of Gladiator II unspools from this moment in a few directions: Lucius comes to terms with his early life and parentage (a shoddy ret-con of the first movie is made here that Gladiator II is forced to bend over backward to make sense of) while also fighting in the arena for his desired revenge; Marcus and his wife Lucilla (Connie Nielsen, one of the few returning faces from the first film) who pine for a life free of war and tyranny; plus Denzel Washington’s Macrinus, the trader that purchases Lucius and brings him to the coliseum to suit his own interests. In large part, the plot is always easy to follow and never feels overly complicated (despite being dense); it’s a gift that filmmaker Ridley Scott has managed to hone across his decades-long career, so he’s suited for the task. But this leads to the biggest issue of Gladiator II on the whole: it’s more of the same.

It took over two decades for Gladiator II to arrive, but what is clear before the movie is even complete is that in that time, the best idea they could conceive of was a sequel that hits nearly all the same beats with minor tweaks. The entirety of the film reminded me of the cursed George Lucas mantra, “It’s like poetry, they rhyme,” which seldom offers the audience anything new to really chew on, instead simply existing on a cyclical repetition. Both films offer us a soldier sold to a gladiator-training merchant, tyrannical albeit eccentric leaders, and several other spoiler-laden similarities. Even the places where Gladiator II does manage to diverge, it finds its way back to the structure of the first film.

RELATED: Russell Crowe “Slightly Uncomfortable” With Gladiator 2

One of the few places where Gladiator II does outpace its predecessor is in the cutting and photography of its action moments. Though we may have fond memories of these moments from Gladiator, they’re one of the elements that has not stood the test of time. Gladiator II, by comparison, has precise, fast cutting within its action and clear camerawork to fully dictate the movement and emotion of each swing. It helps that the sequel has more sequences in the arena than its predecessor so it can quickly show off everything that has advanced since the first movie. That said, there are still instances where the action in the new movie fails to rise above modern conventions; a sequence where Paul Mescal does battle with a CG baboon, for instance, cannot be completed without the aid of visual effects, and it’s unable to rise to a level of realism and feels like watching an incomplete video game.

The biggest bright spot of Gladiator II, and the part that feels like a near-guaranteed Oscar nomination, is Denzel Washington. In true Poochie fashion, whenever Denzel is not on screen, the audience is wondering where Denzel’s character is and when they get to see him next. He attacks the movie on all fronts, injecting energy, levity, and gravitas into the moment depending on what is called for. By contrast, Paul Mescal, while charismatic in his performance, does mostly deliver a dour and one-note Lucius. This isn’t isolated and extends further into the Gladiator II cast as well.

Pedro Pascal, while good in his role, does not have much to do. Connie Nielsen’s return as Lucilla falls flat, walking in the same circles that she did 24 years before. The duo of Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as Emperors Geta and Caracalla certainly bring a bit of dynamic energy any time they’re on screen, but the contrast of their characters compared to Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus in the first movie is that they’re somehow more cartoonish versions of a similar mold. This is a symptom of the Gladiator II script overall, as almost all the characters are underwritten to a degree where the performances can only take them so far, and with all due respect to everyone else, it’s clear that only Denzel Washington was up to the task of elevating what was on the page.

Those with a fiendish love for the first Gladiator, which was at its best when opining on a philosophical level about identity and legacy, may find enjoyment in what Gladiator II has to offer. The fact that it brings the same meal back out to you again isn’t a dealbreaker for some, as the filmmaking itself remains dynamic, and Denzel is captivating every time he’s on screen. It’s why, despite feeling recycled, it’s difficult to not find some appreciation for what’s on screen. Hollywood studios don’t really make huge period pieces with massive sets anymore, so for that alone Gladiator II has my respect. Should the gods find favor in this tale and see fit to deliver us another, I just hope it picks a new trail to follow.

Gladiator II lands in theaters on November 22nd.

The post Gladiator II Review: A Retread With Spectacle Worth Admiring appeared first on ComicBook.com.

One of the most refreshing and exciting franchises of the past decade was spawned from 2018’s A Quiet Place. With John Krasinski starring in and directing the project, he earned the lion’s share of the credit for its effectiveness, despite the script being something he rewrote after being initially written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. To a degree, it felt a bit like stolen valor and that Beck and Woods’ contributions were entirely overlooked. With their next directorial efforts, 2019’s Haunt and 2023’s 65, it seemed like maybe Krasinski was ultimately the one to provide the right alchemy to make A Quiet Place a success and was rightfully earning praise, given those films’ shortcomings. With Heretic, Beck and Woods get much more intimate and much more personal in a tension-filled adventure about questioning one’s faith that has just as much to do with organized religion as it seemingly does with succumbing to the studio system.

Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who head to the home of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who claims he is interested in learning more about their church. While the conversation starts jovial enough, Mr. Reed begins pressing the missionaries on their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of their church, leading to much more extreme challenges to their faiths. The Sisters, along with the audience, question whether admitting holes in these belief systems at the betrayal of their faith will allow them to safely return to church or if doubling down on their convictions will result in tragedy.

An icon in the realm of romantic comedies, Heretic provides Grant with the opportunity to lean fully into abject villainy, resulting in a character nearly as nefarious as his villain in Paddington 2. Much of the movie is centered merely around characters talking, with Grant deftly delivering complex monologues that detail the overlaps in mythology across a dozen religions, while also breaking down how Lana Del Rey’s “Get Free” rips off Radiohead’s “Creep” which rips off The Hollies’ “The Air That I Breathe.” It’s a massive challenge to make a villain this intimidating based solely on verbal manipulation, with audiences themselves sure to be drawn in by Mr. Reed’s playful mania. If nothing else, we hope that Grant’s performance in Heretic results in being inundated with more treacherous roles in the future.

Thatcher already has a built-in following thanks to her work in Yellowjackets and last year’s The Boogeyman, but East manages to steal a number of scenes from her costar and even rival the screen presence of Grant. While Thatcher gets to lean into the more hardened personality we’ve seen from her in other projects, Sister Paxton’s naïveté is alarming and bewildering to audiences, which is excused away by her faith. This, then, makes her quick wits and resourcefulness feel even more surprising to the viewer, which also makes her competency more rewarding when she’s pressed by Mr. Reed.

The first act of the film is some of the most engaging material in a horror film of the year, as something as simple as three characters talking is milked for every ounce of tension. Whether it be a flicker of lights, the lighting of a candle, an off-screen conversation, or a question that comes across as an interrogation, audiences will be screaming at the protagonists to escape, only for our shouts to go unheard (after all, we’re shouting at fictional characters in a movie). Had the final two acts been nearly as tense as those first 30 minutes, Heretic could be considered one of the most effective horror stories of the year. Sadly, nothing in the back half of the movie lives up to that introduction.

Mr. Reed makes it clear in the first act that he was, at one point, in search of the “one true religion,” a quest many people embark upon. As the movie unfolds, Mr. Reed makes a number of valid complaints about the contrarian nature of most religions and the many fallacies they perpetuate, as well as the countless tragedies and traumas they’ve caused throughout history. Some of these ideas will sound valid to even the most devout believer, yet the further we get into the film, the more Mr. Reed sounds like a mix between Robert Langdon from Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and someone you get trapped at a party with who just completed an “Intro to Religion” course. The movie feels less like a narrative about these characters and more like the filmmakers putting their entire emphasis on lashing out against organized religion, inundating both the characters and the audience with “revelations” that aren’t entirely fresh.

The whole film doesn’t serve as a takedown against organized religions, because it also showcases how Sisters Barnes and Paxton persevere due to their faith, leaving audiences to speculate whether their faith is granting them power or they’re merely misguided. Horror fans who are familiar with the New French Extremity movement well see Heretic as reminiscent of Martyrs, both thematically and in its narrative premise, but while that film made its thoughts on religion quite clear, Heretic‘s message gets a bit muddled and makes the whole experience feel like it was a fruitless endeavor.

One of the major components of religion that Mr. Reed latches onto is the idea of control and how organizations weaponize that facet of the church, thus impacting the actions of all members. The disappointments of Beck and Woods’ previous film 65, compounded with their A Quiet Place script transitioning into something entirely new, mean that Heretic could also be seen as a reflection of their own frustrations when it comes to losing control of something they’re passionate about. After that initial story of A Quiet Place was transformed into a major box-office sensation and their collaboration with Sony in 65 netted only 36% positive reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes, Heretic feels immensely personal in not just its commentary on faith, but also on the idea of losing control of something that came from a place of empowerment and excitement. If Heretic is a more apt reflection of the filmmakers’ talents, we hope that this only scratches the surface of what they’re capable of and we get far more intimate terror from them as opposed to bombastic spectacles.

If nothing else, Heretic entirely succeeds at delivering audiences something they’ve never quite seen from filmmakers Beck and Woods or star Grant before. For that alone, the film is fully worth experiencing, and while the questions it presents about organized religion and belief might not feel entirely new to virtually anyone who’s ever personally grappled with those ideas, it’s admirable that the film is at least attempting to say anything at all. Whether the messy and overcomplicated delivery of those ideas lands with all audiences is yet to be seen, but we’ll take a thought-provoking genre film over a superficial slasher that emphasizes shock over sophistication any day of the week.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Heretic lands in theaters on November 8th.

The post Heretic Review: Hugh Grant Weaponizes His Charm in a Middling Thriller appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Venom was the first of Sony’s Spider-Man spin-off films — and the first to establish the not-so-proud legacy of Sony’s Spider-Man Universe franchise. Despite its rocky start, the Venom franchise managed to win over many viewers — largely due to the performance of Tom Hardy as both Eddie Brock and Venom. The sequel, Venom: Let There Be Carnage, got shaken up by the pandemic, but doubled down on the unhinged fun of symbiote buddy-comedy with the addition of Woody Harrelson’s Carnage. Now, Venom: The Last Dance comes along to finish off the trilogy strong — but ultimately comes in at last place as a half-formed attempt at a serious superhero movie blockbuster that would be considered average even by 2000s comic book movie standards.

The “story” of Venom: The Last Dance sees Eddie Brock and Venom (Hardy) snatched back to their native reality after a brief (and very pointless) hop over to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (see: Spider-Man: No Way Home). Eddie returns to his reality to find that the battle with Carnage in San Francisco has made him a fugitive. Eddie thinks (for some reason) that relocating to NYC will be the fresh start he needs, and begins his journey there. Unfortunately, Eddie is unaware that Knull, God of the Symbiotes (Andy Serkis) is awake and searching for the codex, a powerful artifact (read: MacGuffin) created when a symbiote and host fuse their lifeforce.

Naturally, Eddie and Venom are the holders of the codex, so Knull sends some symbiote beasts out across the universe to retrieve it. After barely escaping a first encounter, the symbiote reveals the whole mess of the situation to Eddie, informing him that fully manifesting as Venom acts as a homing signal to Knull’s monsters, so they must travel in human form, with limited (budget-saving) symbiote abilities. However, the threat of Knull is also being tracked by a shadowy organization of scientists (Juno Temple’s Dr. Teddy Payne) and soldiers (Chiwetel Ejiofor’s General Rex Strickland) who have been tracking, containing, and neutralizing symbiotes since they arrived on Earth. That organization also targets Venom, knowing that killing either Eddie or the Symbiote ends the threat to the universe for good.

Kelly Marcel should get praise for arguably directing the most visually coherent and action-heavy Venom film — especially since it is the first movie she has ever directed. Marcel was a writer of the first Venom film and was the sole writer of both Let There Be Carnage and The Last Dance, so she clearly has some creative authority and love for this version of the character. That’s what makes it curious to see Last Dance fall into the trap of feeling like another Spider-Man spin-off film that’s only half-fitted to be part of a bigger universe. The entire storyline about the symbiote-hunting organization and characters like Payne and Strickland are only half-explained but ultimately get positioned to be a bigger part of the franchise going forward. The inclusion of Serkis as Knull seems more like a prank played on the comic book nerds, as the “King in Black” is largely a non-element in the film, and featured in a few scenes where his face isn’t even shown to the audience. If Sony was hoping this was the Avengers “Thanos moment” for the Spider-Man spinoffs … it’s not.

It certainly draws a lot of screen time away from Eddie and Venom, which is understandable: Tom Hardy is largely walking through the film looking worn out from this run — a fact hilariously driven home by an included montage of all three Venom films, which all but demonstrates the diminishing returns for both actor and audience. In the few moments where Hardy does once again muster the chaotic rom-com energy of Eddie and Venom, we get reminded of what (if nothing else) this series achieved. You almost wish Hardy and Co. had leaned into all the online jokes about how Venom 3 didn’t need to do anything more than provide a final showcase of Hardy’s one-man show. Instead, we get an overstuffed, overly serious comic book movie that could tarnish some of its top-talent supporting cast.

Poor Chiwetel Ejiofor (Doctor Strange) is in a military drama only he seems invested in; Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, House of the Dragon) collected a check to chew the scenery as a hippie dad named Martin; Stephen Graham (Boardwalk Empire) has the weirdest bit part (and a two-time wasted villain role) as Patrick Mulligan/Toxin; only Juno Temple (Ted Lasso, Fargo) finds the line between quirky comic book hyper-realism and gravitas so that her scientist character can charmingly run the audience through all the silly symbiote exposition and CGI effects required to set up the third act.

Without spoiling it, it’s hard to get into the absurdity of Venom: The Last Dance‘s final act, climax, and ending. Once again, it feels like Sony has no handle on this universe or what any of it has to do with Spider-Man — heck, fans won’t even leave with a clear resolution over whether this Venom movie saga is over or not (making even the title of the film feel like a misstep).

Venom: The Last Dance is a disappointing Sony-Marvel release to go alongside Madame Web. And the odds for Kraven the Hunter to complete a single-year trifecta of Spider-Man spinoff misses are going way, way up.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Venom: The Last Dance will be released in theaters on October 25th.

The post Venom: The Last Dance Review: Sony’s Next Madame Web appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Paramount returned to its Paramount Scares 4K box set for the second year in a row, kicking off October with a four-film set that includes some first-time remasters and quite a few physical bonuses. Approaching a review for a collection like this, though, is a little different than most other physical media reviews, where I typically focus most of my attention on the quality of the disc itself. This review will obviously touch on how the films in the new Paramount Scares collection look at sound, but it’s also necessary to talk about the collection as a whole, and just how important it may or may not be to add to your collection.

Released on October 1st, Paramount Scares Vol. 2 includes 4K editions of Friday the 13th Part II, Breakdown, World War Z, and Orphan: First Kill. The collection, within its exclusive (and very good-looking box art, also comes with a Paramount Scares glow-in-the-dark pin, some iron-on patches, a domed Paramount Scares sticker, a special issue of Fangoria written exclusively for this collection, and a poster from cover artist Orlando “Mexifunk” Arocena.

You do get a lot of goodies in the box set, and it looks pretty nice on a shelf. At the current $69.99 price point, the whole collection doesn’t feel overly expensive, but certainly not cheap. What it comes down to is the actual film selection, and that’s where Paramount Scares Vol. 2 falls frighteningly short.

The first Paramount Scares collection was an all-star lineup for the studio. It includes 4Ks of classics like Rosemary’s Baby and Pet Sematary, popular new hits like Crawl and Smile, and the “secret” 4K release of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Top to bottom, that’s a fantastic run of horror titles that any fan of the genre would love to have, especially since many of those titles hadn’t been released in 4K before.

By comparison, the lineup for Paramount Scares Vol. 2 feels weak at best. Friday the 13th Part II is an easy choice, especially since it hadn’t received a 4K transfer from Paramount to this point (though the UK is getting a solo release of that transfer this month). Breakdown, an underrated Kurt Russell thriller, has long been due for some love and is a fun addition to a bigger collection. World War Z has a lot of fans but has already received a 4K release via Shout Factory, so its inclusion here as one of just four titles feels frustrating. And then there’s Orphan: First Kill, which is new enough to have received a standard 4K release but didn’t get one upon release. It’s also not a major fan-favorite or growing cult phenomenon. The Orphan prequel is just a movie many seem to have already forgotten about.

There are so many great horror releases from Paramount over the years that this Scares lineup just doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. It doesn’t feel like a set you absolutely have to have in your collection, unless you’re an enormous fan of at least a couple of the titles. And as fun as the extra goodies are, none of them are really enough to push this thing over the edge and compel you to add it to your cart.

The real saving grace here is that the actual discs themselves are fantastic. The movies may not be ones that you’re dying to have in your collection, but Paramount did a great job with all of the transfers and remasters. Personally, Friday the 13th Part II takes the cake; there’s something about that cheap ’80s slasher look that translates so well to 4K when done properly. Orphan: First Kill technically looks and sounds the cleanest, which should come as no surprise, given that it was released just a couple of years ago.

I’m not going to say Paramount Scares Vol. 2 isn’t a solid 4K effort from a studio that has been doing a good job with its releases in 2024. If you love a movie or two in this lineup, you won’t be disappointed. But all in all its a largely lackluster set when it comes to its actual selections, especially after Paramount did such an excellent job with Volume 1.

Paramount Scares Vol. 2 is available now. A copy was provided for the purpose of this review.

The post Paramount Scares Vol. 2 4K Review appeared first on ComicBook.com.

AJ Goes to the Dog Park is described as a “gag-driven” comedy by the filmmakers, and if that doesn’t make sense, then the first five minutes of the movie will tell you exactly what that means, and how accurate it is. In the opening scenes, you’ll find jokes like AJ kicking through a door and creating a man-shaped hole, AJ getting blown away by a leaf blower, AJ reading a brochure telling him what he can eat for breakfast after his buttered toast is recalled, AJ crushing his remote with his hand and eating the pieces, and a series of spit takes that are both escalating and nauseating. There’s also some choice dialogue exchanges like: 

“So apparently what we did is called kissing.”
“So there’s precedent, and I’m not seeing anything in here saying it’s illegal.”

Did you roll your eyes at all that? Or did a sensible chuckle tumble its way out of you at some point? This isn’t a full litmus test for whether you’ll appreciate the humor of AJ Goes to the Dog Park but it’s not a bad place to start, considering the lengths it goes to. 

A surrealist film about happy-go-lucky AJ (played by AJ Thompson) and his quest to get the dog park of his hometown returned to its rightful place, the film plays out like a series of sketches stitched together. On the surface, this could very well be an irritating style that doesn’t translate to a polished, final film project, but writer/director Toby Jones has found a delicate balance. Just when you believe that AJ Goes to the Dog Park has run out of steam and its gags have become tired, it pivots into another direction, finding not only fresh new life, but bizarre depths to mine for comedy’s sake. Sometimes this means an interlude about two characters that were just introduced eight minutes prior, sometimes it means an animated backstory for a brand-new character. 

If there’s something to ding AJ Goes to the Dog Park about, even as someone that appreciates its often bewildering sense of humor, is that sometimes its gags overstay their welcome. The good news is that if you find yourself growing tired of whatever bit the film has committed itself to, you know that in just a few minutes, or maybe even seconds, it will move on to something else

AJ Goes to the Dog Park feels like every episode of an Adult Swim show that airs at 2 a.m. in five minute increments has been supercut together into a feature. I say this in a complimentary manner, but if you have a normal brain that doesn’t giggle incessantly at non-sequitur editing and deliberately obtuse stylings, this may sound like the most irritating thing on the planet. For those of us that appreciate a comedy style equivalent to throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, this will be a cherished little treasure that we can laugh about with our equally minded friends. It’s a movie that you either get, or you don’t.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The post Fantastic Fest Review: AJ Goes to the Dog Park Is a Comedy You Get or You Don’t appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The Wild Robot book series by author Peter Brown has been a hit with kids for nearly a decade now – which is perfect timing for a new film from Dreamworks Animation, the studio behind greats like Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon. With an all-star voice cast that includes Oscar-winner Lupita Nyong’o as the titular character and a unique visual style that brings the book to life onscreen, the movie adaptation is a big win from a technical standpoint. 

Writer/director Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods, Lilo & Stitch) once again proves why he is one of the greats in multi-level animated storytelling: The Wild Robot movie is both a warm and wondrous parable about parental love, while simultaneously being a sardonic and, at times, deeply cathartic commentary about the trials and deep sacrifices required of being a parent. With both levels working perfectly in tune, The Wild Robot is another big win for Dreamworks Animation – and a guaranteed franchise starter. 

The Wild Robot is set in a future version of Earth where major corporation Universal Dynamics supplies versatile robot assistants (“ROZZUM utilitarian robots”) to homes, businesses, and even farms. However, when one of the Universal Dynamics cargo ships capsizes in a storm, model “Roz 7134” gets inadvertently activated and begins searching for a customer to serve. When Roz ascertains that she is in a location only populated by animals, she adapts to learn their communication patterns and assist in their lives. Unfortunately, those good intentions result in Roz having to care for an orphaned gosling she names “Brightbill” (Kit Connor); lacking any parental programming (so to speak), Roz must lean on the guidance of a wily red fox named Fink (Pedro Pascal), forming an oddball family unit between the three.   

Roz finds herself on a ticking clock: Brightbill must be taught to swim and fly before the winter migration arrives, while Roz is torn between her chosen service to Brightbill, and her deeper programming to signal Universal Dynamics of her location and fulfill her “true” function.

At this point, Chris Sanders is just cementing his run as one of the greats in animated feature filmmaking. With a top-notch team of animators behind him, Sanders creates visual storytelling that often doesn’t even rely on dialogue (especially at the start). From the clever design and functions of the Roz 7134 robot to the wilderness world and various animals in it, the mix of nature and technology is fun and uniquely hopeful in depicting harmony between the two. Narratively, Sanders once again crafts a story that feels poignantly insightful for both young and old viewers, and timeless in its themes about the child-parent relationship (whether biological or chosen). The only critique is that the story may go on a tad too long for younger viewers (102 minutes), but arguably earns that extra 20 minutes or so with a thrilling blockbuster-sized climax. 

The voice cast is an excellent ensemble that includes a wise-cracking Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian), Catherine O’Hara (Beetlejuice 2) stealing scenes as a weary but experienced mother possum, Bill Nighy (Underworld) as an elder goose and leader of the flock, with Mark Hamill (Star Wars) and Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible) appearing as a ferocious Bear and noble Falcon (respectively). Of course, the movie wouldn’t work at all without the vocal talents of Lupita Nyong’o, who gives Roz the entire breadth of personality, sensitivity, and humorous naivete that creates a sympathetic and very “human” robot protagonist. By the end of the opening act, Lupita (as the sole vocal performer) endears Roz to every viewer in the audience, quickly establishing another Dreamworks animated icon. 

With its visual splendor, a mix of ironic humor for adults and slapstick for kids, a talented cast, and some powerful themes about family bonds, The Wild Robot delivers like only the greatest animated features can. It’s another product notch in Dreamworks Animation’s belt – and thanks to Peter Brown’s sequel books, this film has franchise potential written all over it. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The Wild Robot is now playing in theaters.

The post The Wild Robot Review: Wondrously Cathartic Adventure for Parents & Kids appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The 2024 edition of Fantastic Fest is here, and ComicBook is once again covering this celebration of niche and genre cinema from around the world. We have two more reviews from the event, both horror films, including the upcoming Shudder release Daddy’s Head and the UK folk horror movie The Severed Sun.    

Daddy’s Head

It has become a bit of a trope in recent years that grief-based horror has become its own subgenre, and Daddy’s Head continues the trend for good and ill. Written and directed by Benjamin Barfoot, the film is about a grieving wife and her stepson who have been put in a near-impossible position: the boy’s father, her husband, has passed and left everything to her, with her final choice being should she even keep the kid around. Immediately it’s an interesting carve-out that sets itself apart from other films of the same ilk, and Barfoot starts to position it with unique, dreamlike imagery and some fun jump scares that give this its own identity. 

Despite solid performances and a stellar first half-hour, Daddy’s Head almost immediately tumbles into the mold of The Babadook and its many imitators. This can be seen not only in the creepy voice of the monster that is haunting this house, but also in the way it moves around. The trouble is that even with these big elements that feel like imitation, it leaves out any larger mood setting that can cement those elements even more. As far as derivatives of Jennifer Kent’s original movie go, I’ve seen worse, but this one doesn’t do enough to stand apart from the other films that have tried to ape that movie’s success either.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

The Severed Sun

The Severed Sun is captivating largely due to the cast. Emma Appleton anchors the film as Magpie, a young member of a religious sect that dares to…march to the beat of her own drum. Though given a bit of leeway thanks to being the daughter of the main pastor (Toby Stephens in a tremendous turn), that doesn’t stop other members of the community (like Jodhi May in a paranoia-fueled performance for the ages) from speculating about what she’s really up to on the outskirts of where they live. The Severed Sun is at its best when getting into the personal lives of these characters and the web of weirdness surrounding them.

Dean Puckett’s folk horror film checks a lot of the boxes from the subgenre that viewers may be expecting, but doesn’t offer a lot of anything new to viewers. Shades of everything you’re thinking of can be found, from The Wicker Man to The Village, from The Witch to The Blood on Satan’s Claw; it’s all there. One place where it does excel is by not playing coy about the monster hiding in the wings as the opening credits immediately announce “JAMES SWANTON AS THE BEAST.” That said, playing as a greatest hits of this specific subgenre isn’t the worst thing in the world and clocking in at just over 80 minutes means that this thing is lean, mean, and fun to watch.  

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The post Fantastic Fest Reviews: Daddy’s Head & The Severed Sun appeared first on ComicBook.com.

After sitting completed on a shelf for two years, the new adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘Salem’s Lot is finally getting released by New Line and Warner Bros. as an original to the Max streaming service. This is the first time the beloved King novel is being adapted to the film medium — as opposed to the previous TV miniseries iterations — and it shows. This new take on ‘Salem’s Lot looks wonderful from start to finish, but struggles to deliver a cohesive or well-paced story from time to time.

Salem’s Lot tells the story of author Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman), who returns to his hometown of Jerusalem’s Lot to work on his new book. Around the same time he gets to town, a vampire (Alexander Ward) and his familiar (Pilou Asbæk) show up in the lot posing as antique furniture salesmen. When a young boy goes missing, and his brother tragically dies, things in the Lot start to change. Along with a beloved teacher (Bill Camp), his new girlfriend (Makenzie Leigh), the town doctor (Alfre Woodard), a drunken priest (John Benjamin Hickey), and a young boy (Jordan Preston Carter), Ben uncovers the truth about the new evil now operating in the shadows of his home and attempts to end it once and for all.

Of King’s most popular novels over the years, ‘Salem’s Lot might be one of the toughest to adapt into a feature film. There are a lot of relationships between these characters that have to build organically in order for the events of the third act of the story to have as much pull as they should, and it takes time for people to figure out what to do about vampires suddenly taking over their town. These elements are what gives writer/director Gary Dauberman the most trouble.

At just under two hours, Salem’s Lot is an easy watch, but the time doesn’t allow for those relationships or discoveries to take place organically. Instead of finding creative workarounds for issues like that, Salem’s Lot simply jumps from Point A to Point C or D, making you wonder how they got there. When teacher Matthew Burke is attacked by a vampire, why does he immediately run to the new-in-town writer he has only met once and not speak to anyone else about it? Well, because the plot needed both Burke and Ben to be involved, even if there’s not a good reason why. This is just a small (largely insignificant) example, but it also doesn’t give much of anything away.

The narrative inconsistency here doesn’t do the characters themselves any favors, either, and very few of them are able to rise above two-dimensional archetypes. That’s a bummer, not only because the characters in King’s book are so rich, but also because most of this cast really comes to play.

Pullman, in one of his first true leading roles, is outstanding as Ben Mears. He can bring the charm and terrified bewilderment in equal measure, reminding you he’s every bit as talented as his dad. Unsurprisingly, Bill Camp runs away with each and every scene he’s in. One of the best character actors of his generation, he wows you with absolute ease every time he’s on screen. Jordan Preston Carter, playing the young Mark Petrie, is the breakout of the film and he should have a great career ahead of him.

As frustrating as the narrative elements (and overall lack of scares) can be, I wouldn’t call Salem’s Lot a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. Where Dauberman fell short in scripting, plotting, or characterization, he makes up for in staging and shot selection. If judging by looks alone, Salem’s Lot is one of the better King adaptations we’ve seen. It definitely looks more like the IT films than the beloved Salem’s Lot miniseries.

There’s also a bit of a ’90s/2000s throwback to the structure of Salem’s Lot that I really enjoyed, especially in the first act. Some quick scare scenes that jump cut to softer sequences, meet-cute character introductions, and a few cheesy-but-funny one-liners give Salem’s Lot a feel we don’t experience much anymore. It feels almost cozy, in a way, like many comfort horror films from that era do.

There are certainly better Stephen King movies out there to watch, and Salem’s Lot isn’t going to stick around in your brain for a long time after you watch it, but it’s definitely not a film bad enough to warrant a two-year shelving and an unceremonious streaming release. For all of its flaws, of which there are several, Salem’s Lot still makes for an enjoyable Halloween season watch.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Salem’s Lot hits Max on October 3rd.

The post Salem’s Lot Review: Comfy Horror Throwback Bites Off More Than It Can Chew appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The 2024 edition of Fantastic Fest is here ComicBook is once again covering this celebration of niche and genre cinema from around the world. We have two more reviews from the event, both documentaries about iconic pieces of the film industry: actor Christopher Lee and Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  

The Life and Deaths of Christopher Lee

A titan of cinema like Christopher Lee cannot be contained by a mundane talking heads documentary, and the filmmakers of The Life and Deaths of Christopher Lee know that. Though the film does include interviews with friends, family, and collaborators that offer a compelling and well-rounded understanding of the man himself, that’s only half of what it’s doing. Anchoring the entire film is Peter Serafenwicz, who puts on his best possible impression of Lee to narrate his entire life. His performance starts off a touch shaky, but after a time he embodies so many qualities of Lee’s own voice that you do forget you’re not hearing the man himself. Serafenwicz’s voice is accompanied by none other than a small marionette puppet of Christopher Lee in addition to artistic renditions of other key moments in his life. There’s a tremendous amount of style put into these that keep this one both engaging and informative.

Though it clocks in at just 90 minutes, there’s a tremendous amount of ground covered, ranging from Lee’s early childhood to his service in World War II and naturally his decades of acting (Hammer, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc), but also elements of his career like his heavy metal albums. Even viewers that enter The Life and Deaths of Christopher Lee knowing him from only a handful of roles will come away from this with a complete picture of who Christopher Lee was and how he continues to define elements of entertainment after his death.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Chain Reactions

Director Alexandre O. Philippe is back with another film-focused documentary, this time examining Tobe Hooper’s classic, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Phillipe’s style has evolved over the years from having talking heads dissect the production of the movies (or sometimes just single scenes) to now having them break down the place that these movies have in their own subconscious, and by extension, its place in culture. 

Like his previous film Lynch/Oz, this half-doc/half-essay brings in five notable voices to break down the film. Included this time are comedian Patton Oswalt, Japanese filmmaker Takashi Miike, Australian film critic Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, horror icon Stephen King, and director Karyn Kusama. Each bring a personal flair to their interpretation and examinations of Chain Saw, zeroing in on different aspects of it that have personally impacted them. Miike, for example, who is notable for his films like Audition and Ichi the Killer, shares an anecdote about how he arrived for a showing of Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights, which was sold out. So rather than leave, he saw something else: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Upon extensive reflection, he notes that without having seen that movie, he may not even be a filmmaker today. The five voices that Phillipe selected for the film all bring their own path to and from Chain Saw, which cement not only its special place in film but in how the entire artform is capable of being dissected.

Chain Reactions isn’t just a talking head doc, though, as it is framed around new still photography that evokes Daniel Pearl’s original cinematography from Chain Saw. This, coupled with actual footage, plus B-Roll, outtakes, and more from the production of the movie offer us actual images of the movie itself that we’ve never seen. As longtime viewers of Chain Saw, we get to see moments in time that are totally new but evoke what we know, giving this movie major visual prowess over your typical retrospective feature. What makes Chain Reactions so compelling is not only that it solidifies how a film this iconic remains that way, but how, even decades later, we’re still finding unique burrows within it to explore. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

The post Fantastic Fest Reviews: The Life and Deaths of Christopher Lee & Chain Reactions appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Apartment 7A had a tough hill to climb even before it arrived, as the idea of “Rosemary’s Baby prequel movie” immediately sounds like a cash grab built on a bad idea. That’s what makes its strong start immediately disarming, as director Natalie Erika James’s take on the material kicks off and you can not only see she has her own ideas about this world, but is using the iconography of the original Rosemary’s Baby to try something new. In addition, there’s clearly money being put behind this, with actual period-era sets and costumes. The immediate confidence on display in the first half of Apartment 7A makes so many of the choices in the latter part so baffling, as if the movie is at war with itself about what it really should be. 

Primetime Emmy Award-winner Julia Garner stars as Terry Gionoffrio in Apartment 7A, playing a character that Rosemary’s Baby viewers know well due to the handful of moments she has in the original movie. Her introduction in Apartment 7A is a lot like how she arrives in Roman Polanski’s movie (where she was played by Angela Dorian); she’s unassuming, casual, a working woman with a life and things to do. When her career as a professional dancer is totally derailed by an accident, it sends her down a desperate path, one where she falls prey to vices while also trying to crawl back up. One of the more powerful moments of the movie that encapsulates this is when Garner is faced with a condescending request from a major Broadway producer (Jim Sturgess), only to stand her ground and refuse his invitation to humiliate herself for his amusement. It becomes clear that this moment is the entire throughline of the movie. 

Like all prequels, there is immediately something working against Apartment 7A: what viewers of the original movie already know. In this case, it’s which characters die, which ones have ulterior motives, and which places and people have a specific function. To its credit, Apartment 7A does not shy away from the fact that many people watching the film already know these things. So when Terry is befriended by Roman and Minnie Castevet (Kevin McNally and Dianne Wiest, respectively), we know what’s going on here, and very quickly are reminded that the facade of this nice elderly couple is just that. When they invite her to live in the titular apartment, we already know what is in store for her.

McNally and Wiest are a very charming addition to Apartment 7A and deliver two of the standout performances beyond Garner herself. Though Kevin McNally is perhaps best known for the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, his ability to channel Sidney Blackmer’s entire look and mannerisms from the original Rosemary’s Baby are nothing short of remarkable. Wiest’s take on Minnie Castevet is certainly more her own than McNally’s portrayal, but given the larger-than-life personality of the character (which won Ruth Gordon an Oscar in the original movie), her work doesn’t feel too far off center.

Considering the legendary status that Rosemary’s Baby has on the whole, it might seem like climbing Everest to even attempt to match some of its ideas. One of the most unique sequences in Apartment 7A is a moment where it really embodies Garner’s lead character in a similar way to the original. Where Roman Polanski took Rosemary out onto a boat and the open sea for one of her early hallucinations, Julia Garner’s Terry takes on a major song and dance number. The scene is compelling not only from a character standpoint, but also visually, as her drug-induced haze gives way to a well-choreographed costume change and dance sequence, including big sets and surprise moments. It culminates into one of the best scares in the entire film, which keeps up the wicked production design but with, naturally, a bit of a satanic influence.   

Another thing that really works in the favor of Apartment 7A‘s status as a prequel is that it doesn’t actively fall into the worst kinds of habits one might expect. There’s no on-the-nose moment that details why a specific something was done a certain way in Rosemary’s Baby, nor is anything actively disrupted to the point where now something “doesn’t make sense” in the original film. Naturally, there are some recurring motifs or imagery, and a familiar-looking pair of demonic hands appear in a crucial moment to deliver the best jump scare of the film, but so much of Apartment 7A really does feel like a daring and original take on the material.

That said, about an hour into the movie, there’s a pivot and Apartment 7A‘s descent into this wicked world becomes clumsy. It’s worth nothing that Apartment 7A is about 45 minutes shorter than Rosemary’s Baby. The original film gradually constructs its paranoia so that it builds to a fever pitch. Apartment 7A has no such luxury available to it, so the patience and meticulous unfolding found in Polanski’s film is forced to be repeated not only very quickly but without much of the nuance built into it. Rosemary unraveling the conspiracy around her feels earned and is well thought out, but Terry’s similar journey here feels like a committee decided “well, she should figure it out like the old movie!” This leads to a sizeable chunk of the movie where the spark has gone out and instead a list of things are being checked off. Luckily, the final scenes make up for this in spades with a moment deeply rooted in its main character. 

Like the original Rosemary’s Baby, a pervasive theme throughout Apartment 7A is the larger political issue of a woman’s reproductive rights, but it manages to get deeper than just a surface-level take on the idea. It’s not just grappling with the larger play of someone trying to fight for themselves, but someone who is consistently being blocked at every turn by alleged wealthy and powerful people that “know better.” The movie is about a woman whose body and decisions have been taken from her; even as she tries to pilot through life, she knows there are roadblocks around every corner that won’t allow her to do what she wants. This is both literal and metaphorical for Julia Garner’s Terry, but also nearly all the young women in the movie. One moment has Dianne Wiest seemingly reflecting fondly on the young woman that stayed with them before Terry, calling her “a gifted young woman” with a lilt in her voice, only to immediately throw her final belonging into the trash with a pounding thud and without a second thought. It’s not subtle, but in today’s world, why should it be?

The real tragedy of Apartment 7A is that the film is being dumped onto streaming and not being given a proper theatrical release. Natalie Erika James’s film not only has unique ideas at play, but clearly had a lot of money put behind it. This isn’t a cynical attempt at retaining film rights like 2023’s Pet Sematary: Bloodlines and is instead an instance of a filmmaker having a confident idea that the studio seemed to support based on sheer production value alone. Even though some elements of Apartment 7A feel like they’re present for the sake of expectation, it’s a film that at least brings something different and new to the table, though at times the sacredness of the original movie is perhaps held onto a little too closely. 

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Apartment 7A lands on Paramount+ on September 27th.

The post Apartment 7A Review: Daring Ideas Shine Through This Rosemary’s Baby Retread (Fantastic Fest) appeared first on ComicBook.com.

In recent years, the Autobots and the Decepticons have kept their war for Cybertron and Earth’s future on the silver screen focused on the live-action world. Not since Transformers The Movie, released in 1986, have we seen Optimus Prime and Megatron do battle in theaters in the animation realm. Thanks to the success of the live-action movies, Paramount has decided to once again explore the animated Cybertron with a prequel film that explores the friendship of Orion Pax and D-16, the future leaders of the Autobots and Decepticons. In this new CG-animated film, Paramount has created one of the best Transformers movies to date, injecting new life into the franchise in an unexpected way.

Taking place long before the Autobots and Decepticons arrived on Earth, Transformers One focuses on the future Megatron and Optimus as they fulfill their roles as “mining robots.” Rather than fighting for their world’s future, the pair are attempting to strive in a society where they both cannot transform and are looked down upon thanks to their stations in life. Venturing forth on a quest that introduces them to good and evil robots alike, Transformers One details how the two protagonists both become the Autobot and Decepticon leaders we come to know and explains what smashes their friendship to pieces.

Transformers One has an exceptionally strong story in relating the friendship between Orion and D-16. Their personalities bounce off one another well, not just thanks to the writing, but also thanks to the voice talents of Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry, respectively. It’s a tough act to follow in terms of taking up the role of Optimus, due to Peter Cullen’s legendary performance, but I was quite surprised with Hemsworth’s work here, both injecting his own identity while making for a worthy fill-in for Optimus’ usual go-to voice actor. The same can definitely be said for Henry’s work as D-16 as the formerly innocent robot starts venturing to the dark side while never feeling like a different character from what we see. The fall from grace for Megatron and the rise to heroism for Optimus feels entirely organic, making for a compelling story that is tragic in how these best friends lose their bonds with one another and create armies that participate in a never-ending war. There are exact moments in the movie’s run time where you, as a viewer, can see the “birth” of both Optimus Prime and Megatron and both feel earned thanks to a strong set-up.  

Of course, while Orion and D-16 are the main characters of the film, that doesn’t mean that they are alone in their quest to learn about a dark secret surrounding Cybertron’s world. The friends are joined by Elita-1 (Scarlett Johansson) and Bumblebee (Keegan-Michael Key), who find themselves joining the leads’ quest. The film itself gives these supporting characters more than enough to work with, especially in the case of Bumblebee, who is put to good use in the run time as the film’s comic relief. Many of Key’s jokes land quite well in his performance here, with a particular running gag never becoming repetitive thanks to its implementation and Key’s comedic timing. 

Transformers One’s story ventures into some meaningful and surprisingly dark territory, making for a compelling tale for both new and old Cybertronian fans alike. The threat that faces D-16 and Orion Pax is one that is not so easily dispatched and sees the two of them taking drastically different approaches to how said threat should be dealt with. For old fans of the franchise, there are some serious Easter Eggs that never feel heavy-handed and will give Transformers fanatics more than a few reasons to re-watch the animated film to see if they can spot some familiar faces during its run time. Without spoiling anything, Transformers One doesn’t just lay out the origins of Optimus Prime and Megatron, as it gives viewers interesting stories for some of the franchise’s biggest characters. 

In terms of the animation itself, Transformers One is a gorgeous movie to look at. The CG-animation used here by Paramount is a style that works effortlessly in bringing Cybertron to life. Unlike the live-action films, this is a movie where there are no human beings to speak of and, in all honesty, it benefits from this strategy in terms of both its animation and its story. The emotions that come from Orion, D-16, and their supporting cast all resonate here thanks to pitch-perfect animation. Alongside its characters, Cybertron as a whole is a feast for the eyes here and it can sometimes be overwhelming in the best way to take in its terrain. 

I would be remiss by not calling this the best Transformers film since the 1980s animated film. If this is the future of the Transformers franchise, then Autobot and Decepticons fans have a bright future to look forward to indeed.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Transformers One will be in theaters on September 20th.  

The post Transformers One Review: Truly More Than Meets the Eye appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Speak No Evil is the new film from James Watkins, best known for his UK horror films Eden Lake and The Woman in Black, the latter being the 2012 Gothic horror throwback starring Daniel Radcliffe. With Speak No Evil, Watkins attempts to give viewers a classic slow-burn horror-thriller, as a seemingly innocuous and normal situation is slowly peeled away to reveal something much darker and horrifying. Watkins achieves that goal pretty masterfully by honoring the concept of the original 2022 Danish film, while also giving it a distinctly American makeover, which both resonates with the deeper themes of the story and leaves enough to interpretation for each viewer to have their own takeaways. 

The story of Speak No Evil follows Ben and Louise Dalton (Scoot McNairy and Mackenzie Davis), two Americans who moved to London with their daughter Agnes (Alix West Lefler) and are taking a holiday in Italy. It’s there that the Daltons meet Paddy (James McAvoy), Ciara (Aisling Franciosi), and their son Ant (Dan Hough), a family as lively and carefree as the Daltons are nervous and timid. Opposites attract, they say, and the Daltons become quick friends with their new travel buddies. However, a meeting on vacation proves to be only a sampling: when the Daltons take up an invitation to visit Paddy and Ciara at their farm in the country, it slowly but surely becomes clear that friendship is not what the weekend away from civilization is really all about.

James Watkins’ script for this remake actually does the work of breaking some necessary new ground with the remake. The best horror stories take everyday experiences of life and twist them into something nightmarish; with Speak No Evil, Watkins turns the screws on every couple that’s ever had to suffer through an awkward outing, trip, or child playdate with another couple – which is to say, every person that’s ever been in a relationship. 

The protagonists are American in this version, and their behaviors and customs as Americans are put to good use, creating delicious subtext in juxtaposition to their UK counterparts in Paddy and Ciara. Watkins takes the story perfectly through the paces, starting at fake pleasantries and friendliness, which gives way to unsettling awkwardness and civil conflict, which eventually arrives at a cringey breakdown of niceties – and in this case, murderous rampage as fallout. The opening act is witty and funny with its dramatic irony, while the second act manages the make-or-break tightrope walk of keeping you intrigued by a vacation drama that gets increasingly uncomfortable. It must be acknowledged that the final act nearly collapses under the absurdness of certain character choices and plot contrivances, but still pulls off a final showdown that’s thrilling enough.     

Speak No Evil wouldn’t work at all if the chemistry of the ensemble cast wasn’t there. James McAvoy is a menace for every moment of screen time he gets, in the best way possible. The entire film is lively and off-kilter thanks to McAvoy’s performance, notably aided by Aisling Franciosi’s Ciara as the “Harley” to McAvoy’s “Joker.” Paddy’s passive-aggressive war with Mackenzie Davis’ Louise is an entire saga in itself – the same goes for the bromance story between McAvoy’s Paddy and Scoot McNairy’s Ben, and its commentary on manhood (or lack thereof). McNairy does a lot of understated but crucial heavy-lifting in the “straight man” role, while the story smartly makes Louise and Ben’s relationship complex enough to create deeper tension and shifting sympathies as the story peels back more and more layers. The younger cast members aren’t required to do as much, but both do their part admirably.   

Even with some groan-worthy moments of contrivance, it’s hard to remember the last time a horror-thriller film has been executed as well, with as many strong performances, as Speak No Evil. It’s another showcase of McAvoy’s immense talent for creating unnerving characters (see also: Split), and a strong endorsement that James Watkins may have found his best lane as a horror filmmaker. 

Rating: 4 out of 5

Speak No Evil hits theaters on September 13th.

The post Speak No Evil Review: Cringy Descent Into Madness appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The Crow went from a cult-hit comic series to a cult-hit movie when the 1994 original hit theaters. Its gothic design and themes perfectly captured the Gen X angst of the 1990s, and inspired a stylistic wave that is still iconic today. The indelible influence of The Crow is a testament to the power of director Alex Proyas’ vision – but it’s also been the biggest impediment to The Crow becoming a larger franchise property. None of the subsequent Crow sequels (City of Angels, Salvation, Wicked Prayer) ever found a way to open up the doors of the franchise to new generations — but has this year’s The Crow finally done it, or is it just another failed attempt? 

Under the direction of Rupert Sanders (Snow White and the Huntsman) and the genuine effort made by stars Bill Skarsgård and FKA Twigs, The Crow isn’t a total failure – but it is a messy mismatch of high-art aspirations and bloody, brutal, B-movie action-horror. It’s both vibrantly alive with creative spark and passion – and a listless, muddled attempt at telling a cinematic story. If you think The Crow is a property that can function simply off style and vibes, Sanders’ film will make you second-guess that assessment. 

The Story of The Crow follows Eric (Skarsgård), a troubled boy whose violent past and deep traumas land him in a rehab facility. While there, he eventually meets Shelly (Twigs), an equally troubled girl also trying to leave a violent past behind – only it quickly becomes clear that Shelly’s past is very much still a threat to her present. After falling quickly for one another, Eric and Shelly escape the facility and start a whirlwind romance – which just as quickly ends in tragedy. It turns out that Shelly has been sitting on proof of local business magnate (and secret crime lord) Vincent Roeg’s (Danny Huston) demonic power – evidence that Roeg is willing to kill for. Eric and Shelly are eventually found by Roeg’s people and are sadistically murdered – but Eric’s soul will not rest, and he finds himself at the crossroads of life and death, being offered a opportunity by the spiritual entity Kronos (Sami Bouajila): Take a crow as his guide back to the land of the living and use the power of immortality to wipe Roeg’s demonic stain from the Earth, and in doing so win back Shelly’s soul.

However, Eric’s soul is already so troubled that taking to his new powers and mission proves to be his biggest challenge – even more so than slaughtering his way through hordes of Roeg’s goons to finally get at the demon lord himself. 

The Crow isn’t a total failure, but rather a film that’s ultimately dragged down by poor directorial measurements. For all the knee-jerk criticisms of this adaptation, Rupert Sanders and cinematographer Steve Annis (Foundation, I’m a Virgo) manage to depict the gothic world of The Crow in a lavishly dark, almost high-art way that could arguably become its own cult-hit stylistic milestone, in time. That said, Sanders (once again) seems to be overly indulgent in how much high-art imagery and deeper drama he tries to pack onto the bones of what is ostensibly a genre B-movie (see also: Snow White and the Huntsman), throwing the pacing of The Crow off to a degree that nearly breaks the movie by the end of the second act.

The chemistry between Skarsgård and Twigs is palpable, and the Eric/Shelly love story in this film is more convincing than the original – but Sanders invests far too much time early on in building out the world and the story of Shelly’s involvement with Roeg before we even get to the adult version of Eric or learn anything about him. The gothic love story portion of the film works emotionally (and is shot beautifully), but is equally too long, nearly pushing the hour-mark before the actual “Crow” portion of the story even starts. When the supernatural superhero elements do begin, it quickly becomes clear how little investment Sanders has in that side of the film.

The story (by screenwriters Zach Baylin and William Josef Schneider) stumbles into subplots about Eric’s crisis of faith in his love, or his baffling reluctance to embrace his powers from the outset. Nearly all of the hardcore action marketed in trailers for The Crow occurs in about 20-25 minutes of the final act of this nearly two-hour film; the rest of it is a rumination of tragedy, trauma, and grief for the Gen Z era. As many fans called out early on, this new version of The Crow does indeed supplant the “goth” elements of the franchise with a modern “emo” vibe, which is novel, at first, but will lose many older fans by the end. 

It’s not impossible that, despite its flaws, The Crow will follow the path of the original and grow into a cult hit in years to come. If nothing else, it’s one of the biggest showcases yet of Bill Skarsgård’s potential as a leading man (and not just the lineup of odd creatures and/or creeps he’s played). But, after more than a decade of trying to get this reboot off the ground – and all the creative talent that’s been attached to it along the way – it’s almost amusing that middling effort is the end result. 

Rating: 2 out of 5

The Crow is now playing in theaters. 

The post The Crow Review: A Reboot That’s Both Dead and Alive appeared first on ComicBook.com.

Alien: Romulus may very well mark a pivotal moment in fandom franchise filmmaking – a moment where we must ask: Are creators who are passionate fans themselves really the one best suited for handling that beloved franchise?  That answer – as represented by the Alien film: Romulus – is starting to look like a resounding “No,” as this film is a clear example of how a franchise’s past and ever-expanding lore can grow into thick weeds that tangle up any new attempt to grow. 

Alien: Romulus is set in the decades between when Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the crew of the Nostromo battled a xenomorph (in Alien), and when Ripley woke from cryo-sleep to find an entire colony was being slaughtered on the exomoon LV-426 (in Aliens). The events of the first Alien open the doorway to the xenomorph lifeform being acquired and studied in secret – experiments which (naturally) go wrong, turning a space station into a charnel house. 

All of that is unbeknownst to the Rain Carradine (Cailee Spaeny) and her ragtag crew of young (Gen Z) colonists, who are “living” in the toxic and destitute mining colony of Jackson’s Star. Rain and her friends saw their parents sacrifice their lives in the mines, and demand better for themselves – but when the Weyland-Yutani Corporation begins moving the goalposts of service contracts, it becomes clear that the “process” of gaining freedom is nothing but an illusion. To make matters worse, Rain’s adopted brother Andy (David Jonsson) is a synthetic whose programming is increasingly glitchy, making him a target of bigots and bullies.

Rain’s friend (or something more?) Tyler (Archie Renaux) goads her into using Andy for a bold heist. They hijack a mining ship and fly it to the abandoned dual-sectioned space station Romulus/Remus. There they hope to find cryo-stasis chambers that can preserve them for the nine-year trip to a lavish, green planet in a far-away colony settlement. The plan works at first: the tubes are there, but the gang hits a snag when it becomes clear they must venture deeper into the station to find the cryo-fuel needed to power the tubes. When the ill-fated group of youngsters reactivates the ship’s functions, they also re-activate the dormant xenomorphs and facehuggers lurking onboard. Rain uploads Andy with a new set of programming to help them escape the nightmare vessel – but in doing so, may inadvertently create an even bigger threat to their survival. 

Alien: Romulus is directed by Fede Álvarez, the horror maestro who is notoriously picky with his directorial features, having only directed Evil Dead (2013) and Don’t Breathe (2016) – two cult-hit horror films – as well as The Girl in the Spider’s Web (2018), which all but ended hopes for the Lisbeth Salander franchise. Unfortunately, Alien: Romulus is another piece of growing evidence that Álvarez’s talent may be limited to a very specific lane of hardcore horror, because this second step into genre fare is about as disappointing as Girl in the Spider’s Web was. 

There is no denying that Álvarez is a major fan of the Alien franchise – but ironically, the proof of his fandom that he packs into the screen is also the very thing that holds the movie back. Romulus has a slavish fascination with Ridley Scott’s original Alien, it’s stylistic design, tone, and aesthetic – but there’s also plenty of love for James Cameron’s action-packed sequel and all the fun sci-fi gadgetry and world-building it offered. But Álvarez (along with his collaborator Rodo Sysagues) can’t stop there – they have to acknowledge the expanded mythos that Ridley Scott added with his prequels Prometheus and Alien: Covenant – and even wayward child of the franchise get nods – such as Alien 3 (with its dystopian vision of colony life) and Alien: Ressurection, with the latter getting a major head-nod in a make-or-break third act that will leave fans deeply divided. 

Under all that weight of nostalgia and franchise obligation, the actual standalone story, the characters presented in it, and their conflicts and arcs all get crushed. By the time the climatic act is trying to blend every piece of the Alien franchise together, it’s clear that fandom nostalgia – gripping onto to the past too tightly – has mutated into a bizarre and grotesque pile of callbacks and remembrances, which fail to spark new ideas or new excitement for more Alien stories. The set pieces feel like more was done to pack them with Easter eggs or bring back older set designs, props, and visual effects than there was a consideration of how any of it looked, fit together, or functioned in the film; whether anything (thrills, chills, kills, drama) was being earned, or was just expected to have an impact, because it’s Alien. Instead of recreating the world of Alien for fans, Álvarez instead creates a museum of Alien franchise memorabilia – and that’s about all the level of excitement to be had from experiencing it. If not for Álvarez’s sheer visual talents as a filmmaker, this film would have little reason to be a theatrical release. 

The cast of Alien: Romulus should get credit for at least doing the most with what they were given – even though the actual arcs and connections between the characters are understated and muddled. Half of the actors (Isabela Merced, Aileen Wu, Spike Fearn) play little more than paper-thin bit characters and/or fodder; Cailee Spaeny and Archie Renaux are mostly just there as lead characters with muted romantic undertones. It’s David Jonsson who is arguably the biggest “protagonist” of this film, as Andy’s process of awakening and his moral/analytic divide about handling the situation are the most dynamic and engaging elements of the film (and even that is a somewhat faded echo of the synth characters previously played by Michael Fassbender or Ian Holm). 

Alien: Romulus should be a big step forward for the franchise, but instead it’s just a long look backward. It also may be the final proof needed that only Ridley Scott knows the core of what makes Alien a classic horror tale, and may be the only one suited to truly move things forward. 

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Alien: Romulus is in theaters now.

The post Alien: Romulus Review: Nostalgia Can Be Fatal appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The Bikeriders had something of a complicated journey to the big screen over the last year or so, with Disney deciding to pull it from its planned awards season released after it had already screened at festivals. The film was ultimately sold to Focus and hit theaters earlier in the summer. Now, in the middle of August, Universal has sent The Bikeriders home with a new 4K Ultra-HD Blu-ray release.

The Film

The Bikeriders is the latest film from Mud writer/director Jeff Nichols, and it’s inspired by a book of photography from Danny Lyon chronicling a Chicago motorcycle club in the 1960s and 1970s. The film stars Jodie Comer, Austin Butler, and Tom Hardy, as well as Michael Shannon, Boyd Holbrook, Damon Herriman, and Norman Reedus. Mike Faist plays a fictionalized version of Danny Lyon.

This movie plays less like a 1960s Sons of Anarchy and more like a rougher, more violent American Graffiti. At its heart, The Bikeriders is more about the ride — pun intended — than the destination. It’s wisely told through the eyes of Comer’s Kathy, the wife of Butler’s Benny, allows viewers a way into the complicated world of the Vandals.

While not necessarily the best movie of 2024 so far, The Bikeriders is one that you can’t help but want to revisit after watching. It’s all about the phenomenal 1960s aesthetic and the lights out performances from everyone in the case. Comer steals the show, but top to bottom everyone feels lived-in and unique. The Bikeriders even has brief appearance from beloved character actor Shea Whigham, who consistently makes everything he’s in even better.

The Disc

Not only is The Bikeriders a movie about the 1960s, but it’s also based on photographs taken in that era, creating a specific look that’s tough to replicate. Nichols got as close as possible shooting the entire thing on film. That wonderful look from the theater translates beautifully to Universal’s 4K disc. It has that throwback look, especially when the motorcycles are on screen, but it still feels like a presentation for a movie released in 2024. The balance between old and new strikes such a dynamic picture, setting it apart from most other recent releases.

As good as the picture is, the Dolby Atmos track is somehow even better. From the crunching of a fist hitting a face to the rumble of a swarm of bikes passing by, every element of this track is stunning. The Bikeriders also has a great soundtrack that perfectly compliments the sound, neither overpowering the other.

The Features

There aren’t a ton of additional features on The Bikeriders home release, but the ones that are included are excellent. The film comes with a feature commentary from Nichols, and commentaries remain my favorite element of home releases. If they include one, it always means a bump up in my book.

Aside of Nichols’ commentary, The Bikeriders also includes three featurettes. One focuses on the trio of lead characters, one examines the period of the film, and the other takes you behind the scenes with the writer/director. All of them are solid, though it feels like there could maybe be just a little more there.

The Verdict

The Bikeriders is an excellent movie from an excellent filmmaker, and Universal has done right by it with an excellent physical release. It could use a little more on the feature side, but what we get here is still more than a lot of contemporary releases, and they all compliment the movie well.

As far as new movies are concerned, The Bikeriders is one of the better 4K releases of 2024 to this point.

The Bikeriders 4K UHD Blu-ray is available now. A copy was provided for the purpose of this review.

The post The Bikeriders 4K Blu-ray Review appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The 2024 edition of the Fantasia International Film Festival is coming to a close and ComicBook has some fresh reviews out of the festival’s genre and international film premieres. This time we’re reviewing action thriller Steppenwolf from Kazakhstan and Hell Hole, the latest horror offering The Adams Family.

Steppenwolf

Steppenwolf, an action-thriller out of Kazakhstan, is the hidden gem of this year’s Fantasia International Film Festival. Writer/director Adilkhan Yerzhanov plunges viewers into a dark world where a mundane approach to extreme violence is a survival mechanism, forcing a desperate mother to align herself with a nihilistic enforcer to help find her son. The plot itself has an immediate hook, but Yerzhanov’s masterful direction keeps you engaged and doesn’t allow you to look away.

Berik Aitzhanov takes on the role of Brajyuk, whose performance as a savage mercenary is never not engaging from a visual sense. There are layers to it though and not just a wanton psychotic killer, like moments where he has to connect with his fellow man and it appears to cause him physical pain to be remotely human; but the second he allows his nihilism to return to the driver’s seat of his mind, he functions without fault; it’s a fascinating dichotomy.

Steppenwolf is a two-hander, though, and Anna Starchenko as Tamara walks away as its MVP. From the moment she arrives, Tamara is wandering in a haze, a shell-shocked stupor that borders on comical, at times, and makes others perceive her as weak. One moment sees a group of men she’s traveling with all react to gunfire by falling to the ground, and her non-reaction immediately makes her stand out not only within the narrative, but as a performer.

Adilkhan Yerzhanov’s direction reveals him to be a commander of the camera, with a clear understanding of scene blocking, storytelling patience, and knowing that sometimes what we don’t see is more powerful than what we do. One moment, a nonverbal sequence of communication between the lead and a henchman, is not only expertly crafted as a visual gag but is hilarious to watch unfold. The tiered effectiveness of his visual language confirms he’s a voice to study and eagerly anticipate.

If there is a fault to find in Steppenwolf it’s a minor one, but it’s the foley work, which even casual moviegoers will notice uses almost every generic sound effect that you’ve ever heard, often multiple times. But when every other facet of the film is aces, it’s easy to let that go, and after the first 20 minutes, this issue vanishes. Adilkhan Yerzhanov’s Steppenwolf is a tense film that doesn’t lean on its callbacks to other iconic movies, instead taking iconic things like the doorframe shot of The Searchers and building on it to create an all-new meaning. There’s a universal appeal in Steppenwolf, and I hope it finds its audience. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Hell Hole

The Adams Family have made a name for themselves in recent years for their creative indie horror efforts like 2022’s Hellbender and last year’s Where the Devil Roams. Now they’re back with another Shudder original, the midnight monster flick Hell Hole. Taking clear inspiration from both The Thing and Tremors, there is a kernel of an idea that’s eager to be explored around autonomy, but very little depth beyond a surface-level concept. 

Drillers in Serbia uncover a mystery in the ground, which leads to tentacled terrors that make their way through their isolated camp. The moments where the beasts at the heart of Hell Hole take center stage are a hoot to watch, but they are fleeting, and are seldomly as frequent as one might expect, given the title. Unfortunately, stale writing and dull musical cues haunt Hell Hole, making its 90-minute run time an exercise in tedious characters. There are some minor standouts in the cast, including Olivera Perunicic taking on the role of Sofija and exuding charm and charisma every time she’s on screen, and Anders Hove, whose role we dare not spoil but which largely kicks off the scares.

The camera does know to linger on the unique setting, a desolate building in the midst of the woods, but even that can’t prop up interest too long. All the sequences with the monsters drastically shift the tone of the entire movie, though, delivering an uneven final product. There’s no shame in low/no-budget horror, but without a compelling lead to anchor us through a good story, then it becomes an endurance test instead of a movie.

Rating: 2 out of 5 

The post Fantasia 2024 Reviews: Steppenwolf and Hell Hole appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The 2024 edition of the Fantasia International Film Festival is still going and ComicBook has some fresh reviews out of the festival’s genre and international film premieres. This time we’re reviewing campy slasher Carnage for Christmas and the transcendental horror film Kryptic.

Carnage for Christmas

In director Alice Maio Mackay’s latest, the balance between camp, melodrama, and slasher is less a finely constructed dance and more a juggling act where sometimes one tone lingers in the air longer than expected. It will become immediately apparent to viewers of Carnage for Christmas, a queer slasher movie with an erratic editing style and quippy characters, if they’re going to vibe with its specific style of movie jazz; but even when it’s exploring one of its many faces for one scene and potentially losing you, it may very well win you back with the next.

In the film, Lola (Jeremy Moineau) returns home for the holidays having not only transitioned but having become a notable true-crime podcaster. Their small town is one haunted by urban legends and when they return, those wicked stories seem to crawl their way back. Mackay directs from a script they co-wrote with Ben Pahl Robinson, remixing gory horror movie beats with over-the-top drama; it’s a unique concoction, and not one that always works. One hilarious underlying theme is police ineptitude, though, which is not only spoken about more than once but made abundantly clear by the sloppy dress each cop wears on screen.

Carnage for Christmas does manage to do what it says on the tin and brings gore home for the holidays, but it is trapped between some procedural moments that sometimes bring down its pacing. As the credits roll, some will not be surprised to see Vera Drew of The People’s Joker credited with editing and VFX on the microbudget project, their style permeating through every wicked little cut that is found. It’s a weird one, but you’ll never see another movie like it, and the “let’s make a movie” energy at its core is admirable.

Rating: 3 out of 5 

Kryptic

Directed by Kourtney Roy, Kryptic stars Chloe Pirrie (Black Mirror, The Queen’s Gambit) as Kay Hall, a woman who develops a peculiar fixation on a missing cryptozoologist and the beast she was hunting when she disappeared. It sounds straightforward in that regard, but Kryptic is far from a movie with a formal structure, instead harkening to David Lynch’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me and Mulholland Drive, with some instances where the larger oeuvre of David Cronenberg make their influence clear (buddy, if you’re after some goop, this movie has it in spades).

In simple terms, Kryptic is a dramatic horror movie with sci-fi elements, but it feels aloof to box it down in those terms. It’s more peculiar than that and steers far from jump scares, instead lingering in a pool of existential dread. The Twin Peaks association is cemented from the very beginning of Krytpic, not only with the scenery but also in the bizarre characters that wander in and out of the narrative. As Kay moves through this world, her own self-actualization is put to the test through offbeat conversations and hostile moments. Kryptic is operating on vibes, flowing down a river of identity that’s being pelted with stones, which will no doubt turn off some viewers eager for a monster movie. On the whole, it’s a unique experience, and one that will keep you captivated, in part because you’re not entirely sure what will happen next or what just happened.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 

The post Fantasia 2024 Reviews: Carnage for Christmas and Kryptic appeared first on ComicBook.com.

The 2024 edition of the Fantasia International Film Festival is still going and ComicBook has some fresh reviews out of the festival’s genre and international film premieres. Up first is the dark thriller The G, followed by the surprising documentary, From My Cold Dead Hands, both of which take a stark look at America in surprising ways. 

The G

To describe Karl R. Hearne’s revenge thriller using those words is almost a disservice to the craft put into its foundation. The G has a strange title, a unique plot, and an unconventional protagonist in Dale Dickey. Best known for her roles as a character actor (with notable appearances in Breaking Bad & Fallout), Dickey anchors the film and haunts every frame with a grounded and gravelly performance. Taking on the role of the titular grandparent (identified by just one letter), Dickey’s character arc is closer to John Wick than something more homely and kind. This paves the way for a film mired in the grime of late-stage capitalism and the exploitation found in places no one cares to look. 

Hearne directs from his own script, whose hook is like something you’ve never seen before but which you can immediately buy into by the simplicity with which the story is told. There’s a delicate layering on display, as well, as The G only reveals as much to the viewer as you should know at any given time, it’s always playing coy in a way that keeps your attention, and it’s near-masterful storytelling. Flanking Dickey in the film’s cast is Romane Denis, playing her granddaughter Emma, who becomes the surrogate for the audience in a way that is a delicate balancing act. Act too naive about the world and you might lose us, know too much about what’s clearly going on and the whole picture isn’t clear, but Denis makes it work and bounces off of Dickey’s surly style with ease.

The G takes its time to develop and this leads to a slower pace that rewards your patience, sticking the landing in a way that is both poignant and satisfying. Marking Hearne’s second feature film, it’s the kind of movie that feels like a calling card, something that in a just world would mark a fresh perspective’s ascension to big projects. If there’s one thing at the heart of The G, though, it’s knowing that the world isn’t fair and you have to make your own way.

Rating: 4 out of 5

From My Cold Dead Hands

From My Cold Dead Hands is maybe the most unique documentary you’ll see on a subject, as its footage isn’t talking heads or harrowing footage with narration, but rather quite the opposite. Everything you see from the film was pulled from YouTube and edited together. The framing device is a recurring video where two men break down a list about the best reasons to own a gun, with footage sprinkled in between that exists under that specific framing, but also at times in direct contrast to their point. All of the videos that encompass the doc are made up of pro-gun channels and accounts, so the juxtaposition of footage against whatever point has been made isn’t coming from voices that are on different sides. Instead, what happens is the footage ends up taking on incredibly creepy undertones; EG: “Firearms provide a way for families to bond with their children,” which is followed by bizarre videos of kids doing a walk-through tour of a gun store and another of a young girl disassembling and assembling weapons while blindfolded. Even the sparse moments of sensibility are put up next to people who are cooking bacon on a gun barrel or even shooting themselves in the leg by accident at a target range.

On the whole, From My Cold Dead Hands is not only an illustrative collection about insane personalities on one side of a specific political issue, but also a fascinating look at what people think will make them famous. The most egregious of these is a woman dressed as Cinderella singing a propaganda parody of “Part of Your World” (a song sung by The Little Mermaid‘s Ariel?) about how eager she is to expand her gun collection and to stick it to alleged anti-gun politicians. The entire film may be about the kooky world of gun nuts in America, but it’s also a chilling expose into how some are eager for an easy route to fame by any means necessary.  

Rating: 4 out of 5

The post Fantasia 2024 Reviews: The G and From My Cold Dead Hands appeared first on ComicBook.com.