Like many others, I must have seen the trailer for this movie at least fifty times. One of the reasons why I was happy about this film finally coming out was that I knew I wouldn’t have to watch that trailer again. It is the same trailer that had me worried about Argylle from the beginning, as it seemed… not great. February release, big names, everything looking fake and the premise that seemed to have relied heavily on who the real agent Argylle was. I had a strange feeling that this might be a first flop by Matthew Vaughn, who’s done well despite not all his movies hitting as hard. And Argylle is… okay.

Whereas the first Kingsman movie (Kingsman: The Secret Service, 2014) was an awesome love letter to all spy films (but mainly the James Bond franchise), Argylle is fractured. Part of it takes place in the author’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) head, another in real life; there is a twist coming our way, and it… simply doesn’t mesh well all together. The entire film feels disjointed, contrary to the past when Vaughn knew how to combine action with comedy and understood how to film them effectively. Argylle still has some fun moments and great action scenes (mainly in the second half); however, the CGI creeps in heavily and takes you out of the illusion. The opening scene featuring Henry Cavill and Dua Lipa has one of the most outrageous “driving away” CGI scenes I have ever seen in the cinema. The CGI is so bad that instead of Greece (where that story is supposed to take place), you are pulled out of the movie, and it hasn’t properly started yet!

What’s probably not helping is that I am watching (and re-watching) all the James Bond movies, and even the weaker ones have one thing going for them – they were shot in real locations, and it shows. The CGI in Argylle is not necessarily bad, but there is something about these big set pieces that don’t photograph well yet, and you can always tell the actors are in the studio. The shadows, elements, the scene… everything just looks more realistic when shot on location because it is! And I get it; if they did it today, this movie would have doubled its budget because it’s expensive and a logistical nightmare to travel, but… Hollywood needs to figure something else out if they want to continue shooting these “worldwide adventure” movies, and the world we see is a projection of Greece, Italy or Japan rather than the actual locations.

One thing this film did well was the casting. Bryce Dallas Howard is an underrated actress who should have been the lead in more films, and she is great in this film. I won’t talk more about her because then we would have to go to spoilers, but her performance worked for me, no matter what was happening on the screen. The same applies to Sam Rockwell; I thought he was a great pick for a more realistic agent, and I liked his comedic scenes as much as his serious ones. Cavill, Dua Lipa and John Cena were all fine with what they had to work with as those characters were stuck in this fantasy world where they had to perform a certain way. I thought it was a waste of mainly Henry’s time, but hey, I hope he had some fun.

As someone who recently adopted a cat, I appreciated the cat element, even though I am still not sure whether the movie had to rely on that cat for as much. There are only so many times seeing this one cat in that one bag can be funny. I wouldn’t be surprised if they added more cat scenes purely so they could use more of her in that one trailer, so that tagline “once you know the secret, don’t let the cat out of the bag” makes more sense.

The main issue with Argylle is that this film is trying to do a bit too much at once, and only some of those elements work. The cast – mostly works. The CGI is mostly bad. The twist – it’s fine. But it’s nothing that would blow your mind or even change how you feel about the movie. The story itself is also okay, but this department was where the film struggled the most in balancing the comedy element with the real-life spy element while having some stakes. And don’t even get me started on the last scene, where the reality just breaks entirely, and it felt as almost Vaughn put it there just to fuck with us.

And it’s this intentional “fuckery” that hurts this movie the most. Vaughn understands his schtick and reputation, which makes his choices more predictable because it feels like he is embracing his image too much if it makes sense. Let me put it this way – if we go back to Kingsman, it worked not because it was Vaughn being Vaughn. That movie worked because you could feel the love for the genre from that movie. It worked because it also did not rely on just that and tried to do a spy movie for modern audiences. Argylle, on the other hand, feels like Vaughn said: “They expect this from me; therefore, this is what I will deliver.” He gave us some fun scenes (although I can see how, for example, the ice skating scene will split the audience), but they all felt like the bare minimum. They all felt, for the lack of a better word, soulless. The same as the CGI, it felt all artificial, somewhat expected and predictable. Also, this film is long. The runtime of 139 minutes is something you have to justify to your audience, and I don’t think this movie did that. You can easily edit around 20 minutes from this movie, and who knows, maybe it might have resulted in a much better picture…?

Overall, Argylle is not as bad as I feared, but it’s also the most okay film Matthew Vaughn has made until now. There are great things about it (mainly the cast) and some bad things about it (mostly the CGI). The worst part is that I enjoy Vaughn’s movies, and I don’t mind when directors make big swings and miss or strike out. But Argylle didn’t even feel like a big swing; it just felt like a by-the-numbers spy movie, which is not a sentence I wanted to write alongside the name Matthew Vaughn.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Indiana Jones is one of the most recognised characters of all time, and his movies have always had something special to them. After all, the original trilogy redefined and resurrected the adventure genre Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) cemented Harrison Ford as a mega star who will forever have two iconic characters to his name (the other, of course, being Han Solo) and also helped Steven Spielberg to confirm his status of one of the best directors of that era (which he promptly turned into one of the best directors of all time). I was (and still am) one of the few people who wasn’t as offended as the rest of the fans by Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2007). Yes, the movie has flaws (and they have been explored by thousands of others), but you can still have campy fun with it. The same, unfortunately, can’t be said about the latest (and final?) adventure of one Indiana Jones.

I need to clarify I was excited about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. I didn’t go to it being cynical or hoping this movie would be bad; why would I? I hoped James Mangold (who I always defended before he became “popular”) would have what it takes to give us one last hurrah, one last great Indy adventure. And he had all the “ingredients” that worked in the past, from witty woman sidekick (Phoebe Waller-Bridge was fun in this movie), child sidekick who saves the day, to old favourites returning (albeit for a few minutes in some instances), and he even gave Indy Nazis to fight against! Everything aligned, and this should have been at least enjoyable fun if nothing else. But instead of that, we got a bland adventure film that didn’t know how to use those ingredients. Think of it like this, if you gave Gordon Ramsey and me the same ingredients, he would make you a feast you won’t forget. I, knowing my way around the kitchen, would give you an ok meal. I wouldn’t necessarily burn anything or fuck it up, but you’d walk away with a different experience from having my meal especially compared to Gordon’s.

I understand it’s not fair to judge Mangold for not being Spielberg, and I am not, even though it might seem like it. But he invited that comparison when he went near a franchise that had never been directed by anyone except Steven. Plus, the one advantage Mangold has (or so I thought) worked against this movie. I always thought Mangold had no distinguishable style, as every movie he has ever made is different. That might sound like a backhanded compliment, but I assure you, it’s not. I have always admired directors who are solid enough that can do any genre. But it seemed like in this movie, he couldn’t give it the “something extra” this franchise has been known for, and yes, even the Crystal Skull had some set pieces that were fun.

That was another thing I never had “fun” with this movie. Yeah, there were some jokes, but nothing in typical “Indy” fashion. Every action sequence was shot up close with many cuts, and there was little to no of the “playful action” this franchise became known for, almost a staple. Everything here is “ok”. Every single action sequence is a perfectly fine action of 2023, but I couldn’t help but want more. This was supposed to be the big final movie in this franchise, one that could have escalated Mangold to similar heights as Steven if done correctly. I am afraid that didn’t happen. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure Mangold will get more movies and deliver some outstanding ones too, but with Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, he just bit off more than he could chew.

There were a few things I liked about this movie. The already mentioned Phoebe I thought was a great addition; she delivered everything from action to comedy, and her character fit Indy’s world. I loved Mads Mikkelsen, and his villain was scary because you could tell how clever he was at every step of this adventure. The movie set him up as this alternative Indy, if he was a Nazi, knew his stuff, knew how to handle himself and was always a menacing presence. I also appreciated the scene towards the end with Marion, even though it was extremely short. One thing Mangold understood about this franchise was that Marion has always been the one true love in Indy’s life, and the ending felt just right.

However, the “ending” before this one… I wasn’t too sure about it. Without going into spoilers; yes, Indiana Jones has seen some things he couldn’t explain, as he says in the movie. But the ending of this one felt a bit too out there. I understood the sentiment, especially where Indiana’s character was coming from, but I think this will become the “Indy survives a nuke by hiding in the fridge” scene of this movie in the upcoming years. And that brings me to my last point.

I will make a prediction, and we will see in a couple of years whether I am right or not. But I wouldn’t be surprised if, due to this movie’s blandness, many will go back to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and appreciate it a bit more. I am not saying that suddenly there will be this massive uproar of love for that movie, but I can see a future when the dust has settled, and people will compare these two against each other they may find more appreciation for the previous movie. You can say many bad things about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it has problems for sure, but even from my memory (it’s been a couple of years since I have rewatched all Indiana Jones movies), it at least felt like an Indiana Jones movie. Now, we can debate the quality of it, sure, but Dial of Destiny misses that feeling, that playfulness. Again, I might be wrong here; only time will tell.

Overall, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is as average as they come. It’s your stereotypical adventure movie that almost feels like a copy of an Indiana Jones movie rather than an official continuation. There are no big set pieces the classical Indy fanfare occasionally plays throughout it, but it never feels “earned” or right and everything reeks of CGI. I didn’t hate this movie by any means, but I also felt nothing toward it. That’s something I definitely didn’t expect when I sat down in the cinema, about to watch the last Indiana Jones movie, that it would leave me feeling cold towards it and that this will (unfortunately) be the best example of the word “average”.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

This movie confused me. But not with its story or twists. It confused me how can this stunning film with such a great pedigree be so boring and mediocre. When you have Christian Bale in the leading role, one of the supporting characters plays young Edgar Allan Poe, and it’s a murder mystery (wannabe) thriller. This movie should have been something outstanding! Instead, we get a sluggish drama/mystery, and by the time the ending happens, you are no longer interested in the resolution.

Let’s start with the positives; The Pale Blue Eye has an amazing cast. From Christian to Harry Melling, Timothy Spall, Toby Jones, Robert Duvall and Charlotte Gainsbourg, these actors usually guarantee an excellent time, but in this movie, not so much. Sure, Christian does his standard (he is never bad), and Harry plays the young Poe well, but nobody stands out. They all do a fine job, which is a shame, given all these actors are usually more than “fine”. The one thing that is outstanding in this movie is the cinematography. This film has some stunning shots, especially in the dark (and given most of this film is quite dark, that’s a crucial redeeming quality), and Masanobu Takayanagi did an excellent job. If I were to at least consider recommending this film, it would be due to his work and his work only, as some of these shots… chef’s kiss.

As alluded to above, this movie’s biggest issue was its pacing. I am no stranger to slowly paced films; on the opposite, I tend to defend those films as not everything should be fast. Some films must take their time to work, to convey their message or for us to sympathize with the movie’s characters. However, The Pale Blue Eye simply isn’t it. The film seemed bloated; the main storyline wasn’t as intriguing as it should have been, and the ending… I won’t go into spoilers, but I will hint at some things, so tread carefully.

The film leads you to this one path, where everything seems to be finished, wrapped up, only for it to be another 30 minutes because we had to have a twist ending. But did we tho? Did we really need it? Maybe one of the biggest reasons; why this film didn’t work was the “twist” did nothing for me. Sure, it is explained and makes sense, but why should we care? The thing about twist endings is they should pack a punch; they should hit you with something. And this film just tells you the actual reason; how all these murders have happened and why. But given everything we have learned before that moment, it isn’t as big of a shock. So, that element of “surprise”, that shock simply wasn’t there.

Another thing about that ending was, if you had this plan from the beginning, did we really need those extra 20/30 minutes? Wouldn’t it be best for the film to end with everybody thinking the actual killer(s) were punished and only for us to see that it wasn’t them? And for the sake of argument, for young Poe to realise it whilst we are learning about it too and for the film to end like that, rather than how it ended? A perfect example of what I am thinking is the end of The Illusionist (2006), where the detective realises, based on all the clues, what has actually happened. But he didn’t “catch” anyone because they are long gone, so he is almost “proud” of how they got away with it. I would have loved that kind of ending rather than what we get here, where we see what happens and then have a conversation about it.

Also, when you have a character of young Edgar Allan Poe in your film, and he kind of is “just there”, you know there is a problem. I need to repeat myself I think Harry Melling did a good job portraying his character; this isn’t a jibe at his performance. This is more of a complaint about the script that seems to want to have young Poe in the film, throw some of his references (raven) into some scenes and call it a day like this case inspired his entire life. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit simplistic to me. If his character had been more fleshed out, it might have worked then, but in this film, he could have been named James Miller III.; and there would be no difference.

Overall, The Pale Blue Eye had all the potential to be a great, gritty, dark, historical drama/mystery thriller. But instead of leaning into the darkness/horror, it leaned more into the drama and worked against itself; it made itself feel long, bloated and dull. I love slow-burners if they lead somewhere, and this film leads us straight to a twist that just leaves you to say: “Ok, and that’s it?” It’s one of the most “perfectly average” films I have seen in ages. What separates it is the A-list cast and stunning camera work. I am tempted to say just for the camera work alone, it may be worth watching, but I will leave it up to you, as I can’t recommend this to anyone with a clean conscience.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I remember this film coming out in January 2022, one of the first (if not THE first) major film of that year. And I also remember how all reviews and opinions from movie people I trust said the same thing – the most generic film ever, borderline on a bad movie. Despite that, I had to see it for myself, purely on the strength of the cast alone. Where else would you get Jessica Chastain, Penélope Cruz, Diane Kruger, Bingbing Fan, Lupita Nyong’o and Sebastian Stan? And the result was this weird film that’s not bad; it simply is boring.

The main premise feels almost like it should have been another sequel to Fast & Furious, except in this movie; they aren’t racers. We have this all-powerful device that falls into the wrong hands, and several different agents from various secret agencies are trying to retrieve it. And this is where the all-female ensemble comes in; most women here play some sort of agent, except for Penélope Cruz, who plays a therapist. Which was strange, considering she holds her own later in the film, but ok. The 355 main problem was its generic nature. Over the past 20/30 years, we have seen this exact story over and over, and over again, with little tweaks here and there as to what the device looks like, what it is capable of and most importantly, who is coming after it. The main draw of this film is “it’s all women agents now!”

Ok, that’s great. All the actresses are accomplished in their own right, yet in this movie, they all blend in. You can argue Jessica stands out the most as she (arguably) is the main character, so she has the most screen time, but honestly? Even I (a massive fan of all of these actresses) can tell you this film doesn’t do justice to any single one of them. And it is not any of their faults; they are trying their best; they kick ass, double cross each other, you name the cliché of this “doomsday device got stolen” genre, The 355 has it. But it is not enough, given the star power in this film.

After X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019, my review here), I didn’t think much about Simon Kinberg being at fault, as I didn’t hate the film nearly as much as everybody else. However, after this film, I am starting to see that he is a much better producer and possibly even a writer, but director, he just ain’t one. His style is the most generic action mess; that’s cut to pieces, and you can almost argue he has no style. You can’t convince me that someone like Paul Greengrass would have taken the same script and the same cast and made something that at least would be intriguing enough from the action side. Because that is the point, I don’t think I am the only one who is willing to excuse a generic story if shot in an exciting way where the cuts (if you have to cut so abruptly all the time) at least aren’t nauseating. It seems like ever since his Bourne movies, many have tried to mimic his “quick-cuts” style, but none succeeded. I can’t exactly pinpoint why Paul nailed it, and someone else (like Simon) failed, but not every quickly-cut movie is equal. The 355 isn’t a bad film; it is hardly the worst movie you would ever see. What happened here is the film managed to fall into its own trap, where the main selling point (all women agents who can kick ass); is muted by the fact that everything around them is so generic it doesn’t matter they are all great actresses, as the film gives them nothing even remotely interesting to do. And if there is an action sequence, it’s usually cut to death.

Overall, The 355 is as average as they come. That on its own isn’t the biggest sin; however, a film with such a stacked cast should come anywhere close to the word “average”, let alone be its definition. If you happen to see it (and I would only recommend it if you are a completionist and one or more of the actresses are your favourites), I don’t think you will regret it as the film is… just ok. But you will forget about it the next day. The 355 is a cautionary tale; that, unfortunately, proves just because you cast a few of the most talented and likeable people around, it doesn’t make for a great film. You (the director) still must make it great, and this aspect is where this film failed.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

You know when you want to love a film because it’s quite cool-looking, or the movie has many great actors you like and admire? That is Gunpowder Milkshake in a nutshell for me. I knew nothing about it going in except for the cast. I was ready to have a fun evening with what I presumed was at least a decent action flick with a pretty stacked cast list. And the result was… one of the most average films I have seen lately. Also, and I hate that I even have to write this sentence, Karen Gillan was misdirected. As was the film, but her performance, unfortunately, stood out and not in the best way.

The first thing to know about Gunpowder Milkshake is that it “borrows” from everything you can think of, starting with westerns and ending with the modern wave of action films (the most notable example being the John Wick franchise). And look, there is nothing wrong with taking elements from other films and implementing them in your movie. The problem starts when you don’t do anything new with those elements.

This film is your stereotypical “a hit gone wrong” mixed with “parent left, so the child had to fence for themselves” and sprinkled with “the secret society of assassins are living among us”. Side note – why are all these movies trying to get us into libraries? John Wick movies had a few scenes taking place there, with John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum (2019, my review here) even staging a big fight scene inside a library. I have nothing against libraries (it’s weird that I have to specify that), but it seems a bit odd how these new action films with secret societies always end up one way or another in a library. Anyway, as you can tell from the description of the library mini-rant, we have seen this movie before, many times. But ok, let’s get past that; is it fun? Well… kinda?

There are certainly some fun action sequences where you can tell the people behind Gunpowder Milkshake were trying their best. But there was never one scene that would make me “cheer” that would make me say: “Fuck yeah, now we’re talking!”. Most had me going: “Yeah, I can see what you are going for. I guess it is alright.” A lot of guessing, and I think that’s due to this film’s “vibe”. For most of the film, it is trying desperately hard to combine some quirky fun with cool-looking action sequences whilst trying to say something about parenting, growing up alone and fencing for yourself. Often, movies can have many themes, but this one doesn’t know how to mesh them together, so the tone feels just all over the place. And that brings me to our characters.

I have nothing but love and admiration for Karen Gillan. I know she is a capable actress because I saw her in many better movies (like Oculus (2013) and her role as Nebula throughout the Guardians and Avengers films I also like). So I understand this most likely wasn’t her fault, but she was too serious in this film, to the point that her character felt like she was in a completely different film altogether, mainly in the second half. Even when others around her had some moments of levity, she would never “go down”; her character was so one-sided, one note, it was insane. I thought her character rescuing and possibly bonding with the little girl she saves halfway through the film (portrayed by Chloe Coleman) would loosen her character up a little, but no. I think it’s just a pure misdirection, where Navot Papushado (the movie’s director) was so focused on making everything look “super extra cool” that he forgot to work with the actors and actually, you know, direct them.

Take the trio of librarians/aunties – Carla Gugino, Angela Bassett and Michelle Yeoh. They are all seasoned actresses who can kick ass without any doubt, and they understood what the film needed. All three had valleys and peaks in their limited time on the screen, but with Karen’s character, it seemed she was trapped in the valley all the time. And that’s boring and distracting when you start to think about why you are not enjoying this film. I don’t know whether the director paid more attention to these three legends or whether their experience told them what to do because they had been doing it for a while, but by the end of the film, I wished we had spent more time with this trio rather than Karen.

Even the movie Anna (2019, my review here) had more meat on its bones and was a much better, fun time overall, even if that film was “just” a slightly higher-than-average action film. I actually think it’s fair to compare these two because they are similar – both are woman-led, and the protagonist gets betrayed by the organisation she works for and has to fend for herself. But unlike Anna, this movie’s action scenes aren’t as fun as they should have been. Don’t get me wrong; they are not bad either; they just… are. They merely exist in the vast space of “ok, that’s kinda cool, I guess”, but that no longer cuts the mustard.

Overall, Gunpowder Milkshake is the movie equivalent of Big Mac. It does the job, and you probably won’t regret your time, but it won’t make for a memorable experience. The biggest problem is the misdirection, from not making this film stand out in any way, borrowing from many, much better films, and most importantly, letting Karen Gillan hang out to dry, not telling her to do something more with her character. I would struggle to recommend this movie to anyone as it is the most average thing you will ever see. Sure, the title Gunpowder Milkshake sounds cool, but unfortunately, that is the best thing about that movie. Well, that and the badass trio played by Carla, Angela and Michelle. But we don’t even spend much time with them (let alone getting to know them) to bump this movie’s score higher. I really wanted to love this film.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Since I am a completionist, I decided to watch the original Pinocchio (1940). And even though some things didn’t age well, whether in the film (Pinocchio smoking/drinking or the scene with native Americans) or behind the scenes (allegedly Christian Rub, who voiced Gepetto, was a huge Nazi sympathizer), the movie still works. There are many staples of the “stereotypical Disney film” we now take for granted because they were established in this film (the “Wish Upon a Star” theme song is the most famous example). And as it happens with Disney and their old IPs (intellectual properties), they “have to” reboot them into live-action films. And this was… the definition of mediocre.

Let’s start with some positives – Cynthia Erivo sings very well. Her song and presence were appreciated and made me believe; that I was in for a much better film. I also liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt‘s performance as Jiminy Cricket, even though I could not recognise him at all. And they changed the story just slightly for it to work in today’s age (even though I could do without Gepetto’s clock collection, aka “look at what we own because we are Disney!”). And, to be honest, I thought mainly in the beginning that Tom Hanks’ performance also worked before he became a cartoon caricature. And this is where the positives end.

The biggest problem with this retelling of Pinocchio is it doesn’t do anything fresh. Every beat we saw somewhere else and done better. I could see every turn this story takes from a mile away, and not just because I saw the original just a few days before this one, no. This film felt like it was only made to showcase CGI and how we can blend it with living actors, almost like a demo reel. Except in this case, for some reason, that demo reel was a feature-length film directed by Robert Zemeckis. Ok, let’s accept this film on its terms and talk about CGI.

It was… ok. That’s it. And no, I am not trying to be funny. There was nothing in this film where I thought: “Ok, the story isn’t that fresh, but the movie looks stunning.” Because I could see myself not being as harsh on this film if it was for that, but it wasn’t. Pinocchio is your standard Hollywood blockbuster that blends the CGI with real actors and doesn’t do anything new with it. Or maybe it does, but it never translates onto the screen that this is something revolutionary, amazing or even something we have never seen before. And that brings me to Robert Zemeckis.

What happened to him? He’s been in this weird, CGI-experimental phase of his career for a while, and even though he occasionally delivers solid movies (like Flight (2012)), he is no longer a guarantor of an excellent time for me. When movie fans discuss how Spielberg, Scorsese or Scott have “fallen” and their films are not as excellent as they used to be, I feel like (and it pains me to say this) Zemeckis has been steadily average for a long time now. All the giants named before still made excellent films, all within the last five to ten years but go through Robert’s filmography and stop when you stumble upon an excellent movie. I would argue (even though I enjoy Cast Away (2000) a lot) his last truly excellent movie was Contact (1997). And, as you can see, that was almost 25 years ago. And look, that doesn’t mean he is any less “legendary”, he gave us many excellent films, especially throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but maybe that is why it hurts to see him like this, directing “ok” films that for the vast majority of them, feel soulless.

This was the biggest downfall of Pinocchio; most of the film felt empty. And that is plainly not good enough for a story about a wooden puppet who wishes to be a real boy. That should be one of the easiest things, to pull on some heartstrings and make us fall in love with him, to care about his journey, and I felt distant like the movie didn’t really care whether I was there for the ride.

Believe it or not, we are getting yet another retelling of this story and another film called Pinocchio (2022), and I am excited beyond belief about that one. Why? Because it was directed (or at least co-directed) by Guillermo del Toro and told using stop-motion. I have an inkling this will be miles better than this film, but we will have to wait and see. Based on the first reviews, we seem to have a pretty decent film on our hands, and you can bet I will review it here too. 😉

Overall, Pinocchio is the blandest, the most average film you will get to stream on Disney+ this year. There are some elements of this film that worked and many that didn’t or didn’t work as much as they should have. I suspect kids might have fun with this film, but adults not so much. If there is one thing that Pinocchio does well, unfortunately, is informing us all that Robert Zemeckis, one of the best storytellers who ever lived, seems not interested in anything but CGI anymore, and it shows. Oh boy, does it show…

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

It’s been a while (precisely 11 years) since we got Scream 4 (2011). I don’t know whether it was because I watched the previous movies quite close to the fourth one coming out or whether it was the “Wes factor” (Scream 4 was his last film before he passed away in 2015), but I really liked it. And since it took me a while to get around and watch this instalment (that’s just titled Scream, not Scream 5, because chaos reigns and nothing matters anymore), I heard many thoughts about this latest addition to the Scream franchise, and most were overwhelmingly positive. So you can imagine, I was excited to watch this film and then surprised when it… didn’t deliver. Yep, I seem to be the only one who finds this film “just ok”.

First and foremost, this movie overestimates how invested your average moviegoer is in this particular world. I am writing this because Scream deals with many characters; who are in some way tied to the “fan favourites”. But I couldn’t care less who was who’s kid, brother, sister, nephew, a third cousin from his dog’s side… This film reminded me, at times a pretty bad telenovela. But that telenovela angle has nothing on the meta-commentary this film was riddled with, and that (ultimately) was its downfall for me.

What’s that, you say? The Scream franchise was always meta, so how come I don’t like it now? Yes, you are 100% correct. The genius behind this franchise (and by the looks of this, it mainly was Wes Craven) was not in its characters; it was more in how those characters played around with the slasher genre they were in. You can say all you want about the previous Scream films, but they all balance that line between slasher and self-aware films pretty well (albeit it’s been a while since I saw them). But Scream went too deep into that. Way too deep, where every “key” scene had to have all the characters aware of the situation and what they should (or should not) be doing, and it became tedious. Yes, the one signature thing about this franchise (besides the Ghost mask) was always the meta aspect, but it was never done “to the bone”. One has to wonder whether it was due to Wes and his brilliance the previous films have always put the actual story first, rather than the meta element. This film felt like the people behind it started with the meta element, and everything else followed.

I don’t know whether I am the only one, but I am starting to get sick and tired of everything being so meta. Come to think of it, wouldn’t that be the best way to honour Wes’ legacy? Because you can tell both directors (Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett) wanted to honour Wes in this movie. And it pains to write this, but I don’t think they did a good enough job. Why? Because the reason this franchise was so popular was the meta/self-aware part of it. But that was due to the fact that in the late 90s, not many mainstream films did that. Now, your average YouTuber has to do that to stay relevant. Wes came and not only revolutionised, but he resurrected a genre that was (some pun intended) dying. And why? Because he loved and understood that genre. But due to his love and understanding, he knew audiences “back then” wouldn’t go and watch “just a slasher” because they had seen one too many. What I am trying to say is – wouldn’t it be a bold move to dial down on the meta aspect of this Scream film because of what’s happening in today’s pop culture? Wouldn’t a way better way to honour such a legend as Wes Craven was to do something unexpected, like what he would have done? I don’t have all the details, so this is just me speculating, but I don’t think we would have gotten Scream if he was still alive. And if he had decided to make it, he would have understood the culture shifted what used to be “cool” in the late 90s is no longer as cool; the film would have looked differently. Maybe. That’s the thing, of course; this is a big maybe and my speculation only.

Scream very much reminds me of someone; who is trying desperately hard to stay relevant. Imagine; if someone you know came up to you trying to talk about Pokémon Go or fidget spinners. Sure, those things still exist, but those have had their moments, my try-too-hard-to-stay-relevant-guy. Find something new. Or at least, if you won’t, focus on the story more.

Because I would understand why they wouldn’t drop the meta aspect, fine, but at least focus on the story a bit more; not everything has to be linked to the past somehow. Not only was this done before, but even I (a fan of this franchise who watched all the previous films) don’t remember every single random character who has ever appeared in this franchise. It will be interesting to see whether, on some future rewatch, where I would sit down throughout a weekend and watch all Scream films, this fifth one would play better or not. Because as it is, it was just an “ok” slasher film that only stands out because of its name, banking on that nostalgia hit.

Overall, Scream was a slight disappointment for me. I think the lack of Wes Craven was all over this film, I believe he was an integral part of why these films ever get so popular, and this sequel was… just there, not doing anything new. Well, that’s not true; it was more meta than ever, so winning…? Don’t get me wrong, this is not a bad film, not by any means. Scream is just your average slasher film that thinks it’s not because it pokes fun of itself, not reading the room (read: pop-culture), and not seeing this (being self-aware) is no longer as unique as it used to be. It’s also confusing trying to follow who is related to who, let alone the fact it’s just titled Scream. Whoever started this trend, where sequels are now named the same as the originals and classics of that genre (Scream, Halloween, Friday the 13th etc.) I… don’t like you very much, you.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Let me start this review by stating something – I love zombie films. Even the bad ones, like most of the Resident Evil franchise (and that franchise has some spectacularly bad movies), I can still find a way to enjoy them. I don’t know what or why, but there is something appealing about zombie films to me as it’s usually not “just” about the undead, but you can see how society reacts (or would have in this movie world) to that kind of crisis. And if you go back far enough to the classic of this genre (Night of the Living Dead, 1968), you can see how zombie films could be used as a device for social commentary. The point of this was to say I really wanted to love Army of the Dead. I thought this might have been the film Zack Snyder needed to go back to his roots (as his previous zombie flick Dawn of the Dead (2004) was a brilliantly simple yet excellent zombie film) to something he knows. Oh boy, if only…

I honestly believe Zack had good intentions but went about it the wrong way. The first problem with Army of the Dead, it takes itself too seriously. The film, whose events start with a blowjob gone wrong, shouldn’t take itself that seriously, yet it does. If he wanted to do something new with the zombie genre and give it a new life (ironic, given the subject matter) because we have seen so many zombie films and TV shows lately, that’s fair enough. What is not “fair enough” is showcasing some of these ideas and then never following up on them.

Without going into spoilers, there are a couple of characters we should care about and by the end of the film, we don’t know whether they survived the ending. It’s not mentioned we don’t see their bodies, not one line of dialogue, nothing. But for me, this wasn’t even that; it was more about the other thing, like robot zombies. Yes, you read it right.

I don’t think I need to flag this as a spoiler, as again, this goes absolutely nowhere, but throughout the film, you might notice that some zombies, when killed, their heads seem to fall apart, and this blue light appears that almost shuts down. I thought I was going crazy, but once the movie was over, I read about it, and that was one of the most common complaints confirmed by IMDb’s trivia too!

Some of the zombies are robots. This is never explained in the film but Zack Snyder confirmed it: “If you pay close attention, there’s a number of zombies that are clearly not zombies. You see normal zombies and then you see some robot zombies.”

Source: IMDb.com

And this makes my blood boil. You have this new idea that can be intriguing if done correctly, and you don’t even bother to do anything with it. Sure, just show us robot zombies and don’t bother to explain anything about it. Why not? And before you or anybody else comes at me with: “Well, actually, he’s filming a TV show (Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas (2022 – ?), and there might be some sequels to this film…” I don’t care. Filmmakers must start respecting their viewers and fans and give us a solid film with a beginning, middle and end. Not a bunch of ideas that might or might not get expanded upon “if we get that TV show off the ground, or if we get a sequel greenlit”. I understand Zack isn’t the only one guilty of this “phenomena”, but this film encapsulated my biggest issue with current Hollywood. So many great ideas are thrown on the wall to see what sticks in one movie that can’t tell one singular story. Many things are “hinted at” or “winked at”. But not because the story demands it but because there are 10.264 properties linked to the success of that film. So you better pay us to make that first property successful; otherwise, you will never know what this detail means, and we definitely don’t get to explore this cool idea too!

The trouble with this new modern approach is simple – there is so much stuff out there for us to watch your movie/TV show can be the best thing ever made, but sometimes even those require time for people to catch up. Another, possibly even more crucial point, is that we (the audience) deserve full movies. It used to be that only a great movie gets a sequel, either based on the critical reception or the box office numbers (in an ideal case, it was a mix of both, but let’s face it, it’s all about money). But nowadays, films don’t even have a trailer out, and they are already viewed as a “starting platform” for other things, so we get many “hints” throughout the film for “things to come”. And then, when the movie flops, and we never get those sequels, we are left with a film like Army of the Dead, full of intriguing ideas but lacking in execution.

Also, I need to mention something else that bothers me – Zack Snyder was once upon a time one of those directors I watched out for. I wanted to see everything they were making. Because I loved his first two films, the already mentioned Dawn of the Dead and 300 (2006, my review here), is still one of my favourite movies of all time; despite all its flaws, I love that movie unapologetically. And even his version of Watchmen (2009) I liked more than most. However, I need to revisit it now, especially with my knowledge of the tv show Watchmen (2019), to see how that holds up. But lately, with everything Zack is throwing our way, I find myself bored with his style. I understand some people still adore him, and honestly, good for you. But unless one of his next movies does something different, I don’t think I will ever get as excited for his films as I did ten years ago. And why? Because he is all about the visuals, the spectacle, and does not care too much about the actors, as proven by this movie. Take Ella Purnell, for example. Thankfully I know what she is capable of because of Yellowjackets (2022 – ?, my review here), but if I were to judge her based on this film alone… It’s not like she’s awful in this film, but it’s more about she’s not good here either…? It is not just her; I could say the same about any other actor in this film. I singled Ella out for a simple reason; I know she can do better because I have seen her much better in other things, mainly Yellowjackets. And that (good actors being just ‘meh’) goes behind the director, who is focused more on stuff looking cool and setting up thousands of different projects, rather than him being focused on delivering one spectacularly great film. It’s a shame; I used to be a big Snyder fan.

Overall, Army of the Dead is a wasted potential of something that could have been a slick and fun zombie flick. There are still some great and cool scenes to watch, but for every great scene in this film, you get something that never gets explained or a performance that doesn’t hit you at all. You don’t care about any of these characters, and that’s bad, mainly in… you know, a zombie survival movie. You should be rooting for them to survive, not looking forward to some creative way they can die. Would I recommend Army of the Dead? If you are a die-hard Snyder fan, sure. If you love zombie horror, approach it with caution, just like you would an actual zombie.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke