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

I am one of those “nutcases” who have watched every single Halloween film. Yep, all the “original films” (eight movies in total), both Rob Zombie remakes and now this new trilogy that is continuing with the story of the original Halloween (1978) while ignoring all the sequels. Just like Michael Myers, this franchise won’t just die. Yet, for the most part, you understand these movies are “just” dumb slasher films that shouldn’t be taken seriously, so you try and have some fun with them. And that was my mindset while going into this film. I knew the film was received very poorly, yet I was still intrigued to see why, because to tell you the truth, I liked this more than I thought. Better said, this film has some great set pieces that are way better than the film those set pieces take place.

Halloween Kills continues where the previous Halloween (2018) ended. But unlike the last film, this movie felt more all over the place, and there was a reason for that. The people behind this new trilogy didn’t know they were making a trilogy when the first film came out because Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends (2022) were announced in July 2019. And this is the biggest problem with this movie in my eyes; it felt like a bridge that has one purpose and one purpose only – to set up many things for the “final showdown”. Look, bridges are important, same with second films in trilogies as long as they are fun to watch. And this one was, until the last 20 minutes.

As I have alluded to above, I preferred certain set pieces and thought they were done very well. For example, the car scene where Michael kills four people was fun. I even liked the “this night we fight back” mentality because that is something we haven’t seen in any sequel, the entire town effectively hunting down Michael. It might have been over the top, but I don’t know what to tell you; if you “give in” to this element, you might enjoy it too. What I didn’t like and where this film started to fall apart was all the survivors from the original Halloween film started to tell their stories, and this movie had to retcon many characters from the original film into this one to have a story to tell! I will be honest I didn’t really care for that.

Another thing I didn’t enjoy was putting Jamie Lee Curtis‘ character in the hospital for most of this film. I get it; it makes sense logically since she got injured at the end of the previous movie, and of course, we want to “set them up” even more for their inevitable clash in the last film, but come on. You have this icon, legend, somebody who helped to coin the term “scream queen” and put her on the sidelines… When I realised what was happening and that Jamie would be “out” for most of the film, I hoped they would at least use this film to establish Judy Greer‘s more, and they… kind of wasted her character again!?!?

A mini-rant incoming – poor Judy Greer. She has been typecasted as “supporting actress only, never the lead”, and I think that’s just wasting her talent. Because she can do it all, she can be funny and dramatic and has the charm and the “it factor” to lead a film franchise. I hoped this movie would at least do something interesting with her character, and they gave her a few scenes, sure. But then… Ok, I will have to go to spoilers because I wanted to talk about the ending of this film anyway, and the mistreatment of Judy is just one part of why this movie fell apart for me at the end, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Can somebody explain to me why Judy’s character had to die? Like the actual fuck? Wouldn’t it be kick-ass to see all three generations of Strodes (as she is supposed to be Jamie’s daughter) taking one (hopefully last) stand against Michael in the final film of this new trilogy? I guess her death will fuel Jamie’s character even more, fine, but Jesus on a toast, what a waste of a great actress.

But believe it or not, that was only the cherry on top of that cake of disappointment some call Halloween Kills finale. Because, here’s the thing, until the last 20 minutes happened, I kinda liked this sequel. I did not “love” it by any means, but I thought it was an ok continuation with some flaws but enough “filler” to be fun. And then the last 20 minutes happen where the mob finally “gets” Michael. I didn’t mind that the altercation was shot like a ’90s rap video, but I didn’t like what happened after that. Yes, we knew Michael would survive it; no surprise there. But in those last scenes, there is no sense of space or direction as the “mob justice” happens on a crowded street. And suddenly, he was capable of killing everyone without alerting more people that should be close? Also, for him to kill Judy (who was upstairs in the house SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE), can someone explain to me how he managed to sneak past all those people to get to her? Is he actually a mythical creature now where he can materialise anywhere he likes? I don’t often complain about these things, but this genuinely threw me off the loop as suddenly I had no idea what just happened, how did he not alert more people (while killing the mob) and how this big dude managed to sneak past everyone to go upstairs and kill poor Judy.

So yeah, the ending kind of spoiled a bit of the fun I was having. I am not saying because of it I hate this film now, no. I still liked it enough, but Halloween Kills is the unfortunate example of what might happen when you are juggling too many ideas at once. When you are focused on making a trilogy while forgetting that the film that bridges the first and the final one should make some sense on its own, they have tried a few things here, and I am afraid most of them didn’t work in the “most satisfying way”, to say it politely.

Overall, Halloween Kills is a step back for this new trilogy. Where the first movie was a decent surprise, this film feels more convoluted, contrived, less like a film and more like a tool that builds to “this epic conclusion”. But you have to wait and pay extra money to see that conclusion. That is another thing about this sequel – if they somehow manage to make a satisfying finale and use some elements from this film to make it happen, upon a further rewatch, this movie might be viewed differently. But we won’t know it until we see the last movie. So until then, this is one of the weakest Halloween films. And a film that (yet again) wasted Judy Greer.

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

Until next time,

Luke

One thing I admired about Nobody is how quickly the movie announced itself. For better or worse, you know what you are in for after the opening two minutes of this film. And, paradoxically, that opening (or the decision to start your movie from the ending) informed me that I might not have the time of my life with this film. And I wanted to like it so bad!

Nobody couldn’t be more John Wick if it tried. The only way this film could get more like John Wick (and I half-expected for this to happen, by the way) is for Keanu Reeves to show up unexpectedly, and say “Woah. There truly is Nobody like you.” and then disappear. No explanation is needed. Because whether you like it or not, this is what Nobody is underneath it all – a movie that sacrificed everything for the sake of being “cool”.

Let’s start with the things I enjoyed – the casting is excellent. Bob Odenkirk pulls this role off and is the main reason this movie wasn’t more laughable in my eyes. Although even an actor of his calibre couldn’t pull off the “Give me the goddamn kitty cat bracelet, motherfucker!” line and make it sound cool. He tried, I will give him that, but he didn’t manage. But it wasn’t his fault as this is just one of many examples of how this is just a “copy of a copy” kind of film. “-The films we are copying all had a line like this, so we need to have our own! Quickly, what could set him off? -I don’t know, boss, what about a kitty cat bracelet? -Brilliant, that’s why we are paying you the big bucks!” And as much as I would like to write “I’ve enjoyed seeing Connie Nielsen in this film” I can’t, because sure, I did see her in this film, but the people behind this film wasted her character. This movie didn’t give her anything meaningful to do; one can’t help but wonder why they didn’t copy the “our protagonist has a dead wife” from John Wick too? It wouldn’t make this film any better, nevertheless, it might at least “kind of” excuse the movie for wasting Connie Nielsen.

Whom I absolutely loved seeing was Christopher Lloyd. I just wished they would have given us more scenes with his character kicking ass. Yes, this is a film where Saul Goodman kick-ass alongside Doc Brown, and I couldn’t enjoy it, even though I’ve tried. And don’t even get me started on RZA; who is here for five minutes…? Why do modern movies do this? Why hire some great actors or entertainers and give them not even five minutes of screen time?

My biggest issue with this film is simple. It really is John Wick if he were older. And also, if the stakes were much lower and the world-building wasn’t as intriguing, and the way our main character “gets pulled back in” was absolutely random. Because here’s the thing – the movie starts with one route (he is going after the people who broke into his home). And even if that were predictable, I would still like this more than what the movie evolved into after. Where our hero takes a random bus (presumably home), and because some random Russians crash into the bus and then board the bus, and then LOUDLY threaten to rape the only girl on the bus. Only then our hero randomly stumbles into the main “big bad” (by proxy, of course, because naturally, the big bad is the brother of one of our rapey random Russians, or RRR, how I like to call them), only then the rest of the movie can happen.

See, if you are going to rip off pretty much everything from John Wick (evil Russians, secret society, hero with a past where everybody is afraid of him once they realise who he is), why not copy the intention of John Wick? He wasn’t out looking for a fight/problems and randomly stumbled upon RRR; there was a reason he was after them. That was my main issue with Nobody; I didn’t buy the randomness of this premise and therefore couldn’t enjoy anything that came after. And look, I understand I am on an island here, as it’s highly rated across the board (7.4/10 on IMDb, 3.5/5 on Letterboxd), so I realise I am in a clear minority here. I honestly wonder how many people rated this film so highly because of the charismatic cast (mainly Bob and Christopher together). Because let me try this experiment – let’s remove Bob Odenkirk from this film. Everything else stays the same. The same script, action sequences, everything else remains. Put there some random, run of a mill actor. Do you still like the movie as a whole, or does it start to show its cracks?

I generally dislike this type of mental exercise as removing the best part of any movie will always hurt any film, no questions about that. But it does speak to something “deeper”, and it is a simple question, whether the movie works without that person. I can imagine (although this might be sacrilegious to say) that John Wick, for example, has somebody else than Keanu. It doesn’t matter who, because the point is, the film still works as they have developed the secret society of assassins well. The stakes would remain the same. Sure, the movie might not be as successful as with Keanu, but the quality (unless you’d hire somebody who couldn’t act) would remain the same. Whereas Nobody, had you removed Bob Odenkirk, would become a laughing stock of a movie as now I believe, it’s “shielded” from any criticism by the massive fan support for Bob. And he deserves it as he is simply a brilliant actor and seems like a decent guy in real life. It’s almost like there was a meeting, and people collectively decided: “Look, the movie clearly has issues, and it’s just a John Wick rip-off, but we STAN because Bob, ok? All clear?” And I didn’t get the invite to that meeting.

Overall, Nobody is a baffling movie to me. It sacrifices logic and story to being/looking cool every chance it gets (how many slow-mo scenes while old-timey songs play in the background can you have in one movie? The answer apparently is, all of them!) and hides its flaws behind the massive walking charisma called Bob Odenkirk. And the fact his dad is Doc Brown, and they both shoot Russians together at the end also helps. See, that is a sentence I thought I would never write in my life, and yet, here we are. I wish I could enjoy this film as much as others seem to around me. But again, I am clearly on an island here, so I would actually recommend checking out Nobody because who knows? You might like it more than me, and if so, I am happy for you.

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 easy to come at Adam Sandler for making movies like Murder Mystery. But aren’t we missing something obvious? If you think about it, he’s making his living pitching ideas for films, based on one simple thing: “Where haven’t I been yet? I want to travel there, so let’s make a film that fits it; we can worry about the details later on.” And if you look at it like that, he kind of “won” in the game of life, didn’t he?

Murder Mystery seems intriguing enough at first. His paring with Jennifer Aniston works as well as it had worked in Just Go with It (2011), but even that is not enough to lift this movie somewhere higher. The plot of this film, where they try to have a murder mystery going, is appealing at first. Until it gets convoluted, frankly, boring, and something like that shouldn’t happen with such a great cast! If you have Luke Evans, Gemma Arterton, or Terence Stamp at your disposal and the movie is still just “meh”, something failed.

Is it possible that Sandler became such a big star nobody can tell him no? So anything goes? Because that is how this movie felt for most of the time. I get it, Sandler’s character should be this disruptive, possibly out of his depth guy who means well, but even that could be portrayed less annoyingly. At times it genuinely felt like Sandler was actively trying to harm this movie. And believe it or not, I actually like quite a few of his comedies, and I don’t mind him as an actor. But looking at his filmography, it’s been over a decade since he starred in a comedy that was better than just average. I have always had this feeling that Sandler has a massive amount of energy and comedic wit, which, if channelled properly, could result in something funny. But lately, it seems like he forgot to “transmit” it, or he doesn’t work with people who know how to “use” him…?

I’ve mentioned the stellar cast, so let’s talk about them. Luke Evans is, as always, solid as a rock. He has always been type-casted in these supporting roles, and I always wondered whether he has got something more in him. I believe he does, but I have yet to see it. Gemma Arterton is playing precisely the role this movie requested her to play – sex on legs. And she does it so well, as she is a stunning and charming actress. And Terence Stamp has more of a glorified cameo in this movie than something you could call a proper role.

The film itself isn’t “bad” by any means – it’s paced well enough, the mystery element works to an extent (until it gets too convoluted to surprise you), and it’s not something you’d be suffering through while watching. But believe me, when I say you won’t remember anything from this film in one week. There isn’t anything standing out – not a single performance or action set piece or “incredibly funny” scene, everything kind of… exists here. I think this might be the perfect description of Adam Sandler’s comedy career at this moment, we are all aware of it, but it’s not something that would stand out (unfortunately).

I wish Sandler would feel the need to challenge himself more and step out of his comfort zone. Because we all know every once in a while, he makes a movie like Uncut Gems (2019), where he shines. And not only did he deliver an outstanding performance, but he did it so well most movie fans were genuinely surprised with the fact he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar that year. And that goes back to my theory about him “winning” the life – maybe he simply wants to exist? Maybe he’s content with what he has (and it’s not “little” by any means, he could stop working altogether, and his children’s children would still be sorted out financially) and does the bare minimum to get by? Honestly, I don’t know because I don’t know the guy. But only a few mainstream actors have such an intriguing career as he has.

Overall, Murder Mystery is the perfect definition of a film that “won’t offend anyone”. What that means is – you will watch it, you might chuckle at times, you will kill slightly over an hour and half of your life and won’t feel too “disgusted” with what you’ve just watched. But you won’t also remember it in a couple of days. Is it worth watching it? If you like Sandler’s style of humour and his pairing with Jennifer Aniston and don’t mind the fact this is yet another “taking a vacation while shooting a movie” Sandler joint, then yes, you might enjoy it. If that doesn’t sound like your ideal form of entertainment, you might want to avoid this one.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have always liked animated movies, but for whatever reason, Bolt has been escaping me ever since it came out. I’ve always (roughly) known what it was about (a superhero dog), but I have never seen it. That is until a few weeks ago, thanks to Disney+ (say what you want about Disney, but it’s handy to have all their films available on one platform), I was finally able to strike another animated movie out of my “never seen” list. And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have missed out on much had this film stayed there for a bit longer.

I loved the first 15 minutes or so of Bolt. Superhero dog, who saves the world? Sure, it’s an animated movie anything goes. And that action sequence was quick, energetic, funny. I thought to myself that I was in for a great ride. I was on board. Then, the “twist” happened. I didn’t know the film was about a dog who only acts as a superhero, not knowing he’s just a regular dog and everything around him is a movie set, almost a dog version of Truman Show (1998) if you wish. And I thought, ok, let’s see where this goes, it could be fun. But where Truman Show managed to say something about our culture managed to dig deep into existence and all that fun stuff, this film just went with the most basic plotline. That could have been still fun. After all, I wasn’t expecting this film to deal with existentialism or anything like that. But it got stale pretty quickly, and the movie got boring.

The biggest issue I had with this film was Bolt teasing the audience with “what could have been”, with the pretty fun opening action sequence, and then the film slows down. Because we need to watch Bolt trying to deal with the fact, he doesn’t have any superpowers. And that goes on for most of the movie. Until the very end, where he, of course, rescues his owner, proving you don’t need superpowers to be a hero. It’s a thoughtful lesson, but the movie takes too long to get there.

Plus, I don’t know about you, but I usually like my animated comedy movies (and Bolt is classed under Animation/Adventure/Comedy) to be funny. And this movie is, for the most part, a miss rather than a hit in the comedy department. Because believe it or not, there are only so many times you can laugh at “he believes he’s got powers, when truly he’s just a regular dog.”

Bolt might also have the weirdest “title” I’d ever given to a film – a movie with the most “I know this voice!” actors in one place. Most of the voice actors here are pretty famous people, don’t get me wrong. But for one reason or another, I could not have placed either voice to an actor. So that was yet another weird thing about this film. I’d spend most of the time going “I know this voice from someplace!” while browsing through IMDb, looking up who is voicing this and that character.

Everything about this film felt a bit weird – from the comedy to the story that, yet again I have to repeat, could have been interesting. I honestly wish we would have stayed in that fictitious world. In a world where a dog with superpowers exists. As yes, it would be a bit silly, but also at least interesting enough to watch. Instead, we get this blend of strangeness that you won’t remember in a week.

Overall, Bolt is as average as it gets. What starts as a funny, intriguing animated comedy quickly becomes a less fun, much less interesting story about a dog who needs to learn and deal with the fact he has no powers. And try to get reunited with his owner in this process. Would I recommend this film? Quite honestly? In a sea of movies and TV shows to watch, no, I would not recommend it. Bolt is but a drop in the ocean, which gets lost easily, makes no real impact, and you won’t remember it the following week.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I knew very little going into this film. I have only seen bits and pieces of The Witches (1990), so I can’t compare them against each other, but this new one was… really bland. My biggest takeaway from this film was that I have no idea, what to expect from Robert Zemeckis, as I can’t think of any other modern director, who is so “hit or miss” for me. Because he’s made his fair share of great movies, but lately, he’s been experimenting and re-doing movies that didn’t necessarily have to be re-done…? This is how this film felt to me, like something that didn’t have to be re-told.

The Witches is a film that should be at least above average, considering the pedigree behind it. Just think about it, we have already mentioned Zemeckis, who managed to get Anne Hathaway, Octavia Spencer or Stanley Tucci to act in this film, just to name the main cast. But even two out of those three usually reliable actors didn’t fit in this film.

Let’s start with Octavia Spencer. She is a treasure and the best part about this film. It is that simple. She holds this film together, she is the glue that is needed here, and she nails her role. You would think Anne Hathaway would be the highlight, given she is the main witch in this film, you know, the show-stopping role. Or at least, it should (and could) have been. But no. I don’t understand whether it was her, who decided to portray her character like that or the director, but it felt flat, monotone and over the top and not in a good way. I think the most annoying thing about her character was that awful accent. I kind of understand what she was going for, but sometimes, less is more. She was trying to give us 110%, but sometimes, it’s fine to “just” give us 80%, especially when you are supposed to be the diabolical villain. From the little I have seen of The Witches from 1990, Anjelica Huston seemed to nail that character. But again, I didn’t see it in its entirety, so I can’t give you a fair comparison. All I know is I have seen this movie in its entirety, and as much as I love and adore Anne Hathaway, this performance was a pain to sit through.

I wish I could say something about Stanley Tucci, but I can’t because his character has nothing to do. Usually, these smaller but somewhat important characters can be scene/movie stealing, but not in this case. And again, we are talking about a more than capable performer. Stanley is one of our finest actors. This honestly makes me think it wasn’t Stanley’s or Anne’s fault, but rather the director’s…? It genuinely felt like Octavia is in one movie, and those two are in a film of their own.

What I appreciated, and since I haven’t read the book, I don’t know whether to give the movie credit for this, is the movie avoiding the “guardian of our child hero dies” trope. When Octavia’s character coughs throughout the movie, and it’s hinted that it might be something serious than your common cold, I was afraid of this trope. Luckily, the film manages to avoid it, so at least, in the end, I was happy with that. I wish I could say that about more things in this film.

Also, the movie drags on quite a bit. This is yet another example of “less is more”, where if you were to trim a couple of minutes from the beginning and a couple of minutes from the end, I think the movie would have worked much better. The more I think about it, the “less is more” could be applied to every aspect of this film – from the performances to the runtime. It seems this movie wants to be this fancy, epic tale of witches. But the result is just an “ok” movie you won’t remember much from a few weeks after seeing it. I am talking from my personal experience here.

Overall, The Witches is a weird one for me. The movie is full of talented people I admire, yet it fails to be anything more than the most stereotypical, average movie you might see. The only person, who actually shines and holds this film together, is the always spectacular Octavia Spencer. She plays a grandma everyone wishes they had. If only the rest of the film would get on her level, then I would have had a much better time with it.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I know this is something I say a lot. But I don’t think it ever fit as much as with this film. Jumper could be the poster child of how it looks to have a truly great idea executed in such an average way. You almost get unreasonably angry. Because you can easily imagine a much better story with such an intriguing premise, but most importantly, different actors in it. I hate to do this, but our protagonists were either misdirected or not cast well.

Jumper is a film based on a really simple yet great premise – some people can teleport and live among us. From here, you can take this into a variety of ways. You can develop a world with its own rules (aka John Wick franchise), you can play into the “Gods live among us” thing that became popular within our current pop culture, you can take it philosophical… Or, you can make an action movie about a guy who does whatever he wants, and he’s a dick about it. He behaves like a dick even to people who he supposedly cares about. Because if you strip it down, that’s what this film is.

Don’t get me wrong this movie isn’t bad by any means. Some action sequences are shot entertainingly, the film is under 90 minutes, so it never manages to bore you, and it’s full of young, sexy people. They, unfortunately, aren’t great in this and have no chemistry. Yes, I am talking about the leading duo, Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson. Let me start with Hayden. Because if there is somebody, who might be the unluckiest guy in the history of Hollywood, who still has a career, it’s him. Most people think he can’t act because of his performance in the Star Wars prequels. And then others have seen him in Shattered Glass (2003) or Awake (2007), where he proves there is something in him. If you haven’t seen either of these films, I strongly recommend both, because they convinced me that he’s more than capable of acting. Unfortunately, in Jumper he isn’t great. I understand part of it is the unlikability of the character he’s portraying, but he can’t sell it. He comes across as obnoxious rather than the anti-hero we should be rooting for. As for Rachel Bilson… I have never watched any of her TV shows. So I am not familiar enough with her to judge whether or not she is a great actress, but in this, she wasn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if the material wouldn’t allow her to do her best work, but this was rough to watch. And there was zero chemistry in between them.

The whole movie relies on you believing that they were “meant to be” ever since they were children. But if the actors can’t sell it on the screen, the audience won’t buy it. At least, I didn’t. As to the other actors, Samuel L. Jackson did his standard performance, that was fine. Nothing special, but nothing that would stand out either. Jamie Bell could have been an interesting character, had we known a bit more about him, or had he gotten more screen time. And don’t let yourself be fooled by seeing names like Diane Lane or Kristen Stewart. Diane has about five minutes of screen time, and Kristen about two minutes.

The main thing about this idea was the unfulfilled potential. And again, I know I keep mentioning this point a lot too, but this might have been too short. I can easily see this being turned into a TV show, with a better cast, better world-building, establishing rules and then we might have something on our hands that works. Think about it – teleporting is easily one of the most “wished for” superpowers. Every time there is a debate about “what’s the best superpower?” teleporting cracks the top 3 on most people’s list. And it is easy to see why, being able to go anywhere, at any time. Saving so much time, not being stuck in traffic, being able to go on holiday at second notice, seeing your relatives or friends literally any time you want. Anybody can imagine what they would do with it. And here lies this film’s issue – since this is such a simple yet intriguing concept, we all have imagined what we would have done, having this ability. And I don’t know about you, but this film barely scratched the surface.

Overall, Jumper almost felt lazy. It feels like your generic Hollywood blockbuster, where somebody came up with a great idea, but everything else was done “on autopilot”. From casting main characters with no chemistry, to barely defining the rules, establishing any world-building… This entire film feels like it’s been done with most people half asleep. It ticks almost every single box, so it doesn’t bore you, and when the movie is over, you feel like there was something great hidden there, but it leaves you wanting more. But not in the good sense, where you are craving for a sequel. More like in “I need to know more about this world, how it works, some history behind it, just give me anything.” This is where Jumper failed to deliver.

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

Until next time,

Luke