“The Social Reckoning” is a lower-case “g” good movie undercut by two issues: first, it is effectively a sequel to a better film (2010’s “The Social Network”). Second, it suffers from its own ideological biases.

Written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Reckoning” tells the story of how the social media Goliath Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg were investigated and called to account for the effects of its product. The story is mainly told from the perspective of Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee-turned-whistle blower who becomes an inside source for a series of Wall Street Journal investigative pieces around the time of the COVID outbreak in 2019-2020.

When we meet Frances, she’s working on Facebook’s Civic Integrity Team, a barely-tolerated effort to provide public accountability and internal moderation for the company. When she comes across footage of an old friend who seems to have made a dramatic ideological shift in her politics, Frances suspects Facebook’s content recommendations may have had something to do with the change. But her co-workers aren’t interested in her findings, so when an investigative reporter named Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) reaches out on behalf of the Wall Street Journal, she begrudgingly cooperates.

In a parallel plot that takes place two years later, Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong) is prepping to testify before congress regarding Horwitz’s findings. As he grapples with a former associate turned critic turned consultant (Bill Burr), we are offered a glimpse of the media mogul’s rationale.

“Social Reckoning” isn’t quite a suspense thriller, but it is engaging, well-performed and relatable as it explores a present phenomenon involving a company that somehow is over 20 years old (an admittedly remarkable feat, even if to do so my feed has been reduced to a series of recommendation pages and other advertisements). Madison and White are especially solid in their roles, and the dialogue, as you might expect from Sorkin, is strong.

Strong’s performance is a good pivot to “Social Reckoning’s” more ambivalent elements. The actor’s mannerisms are a solid match for Zuckerberg, and he certainly looks the part. But that might actually work against him. Where Jesse Eisenberg’s take in “Social Network” felt familiar yet distinct, Strong’s work almost feels more like an impression, and taken in comparison with David Fincher’s earlier film, “Social Reckoning,” while still good, lacks the drama and impact of its predecessor.

Also, for anyone paying attention, the primary concern–that Facebook’s algorithm is helping to radicalize its users–only seems to move in one ideological direction. Based on its examples and illustrations–including its opening prologue and some rather heavy-handed intercuts with the January 6th riot–Sorkin’s idea of radicalization only seems to take place on the right-wing end of the political spectrum.

Altogether then, “Social Network” feels like a lot of sequels that come more than a decade after their predecessors: a flawed echo with enough merits to give it some consideration, but not enough to stick with you, or feel like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Not unlike Facebook itself.

—

“The Social Reckoning” is rated R for sporadic profanity.

The post ‘Social Reckoning’ is a flawed follow-up to ‘Social Network’ appeared first on Utah.Film.

Avengers: Doomsday hits theaters on December 18 and to build hype for the latest installment in the Marvel machine, they have released Endgame for fans, new and old, to revisit the film. Except this time there is extra footage that ties into Doomsday. I will just give you my honest answer about whether or not the film is worth revisiting in theaters with this added footage: not particularly. 

I will be transparent: Endgame is still a good time. I was a Sophomore in high school when that film came out and to call that the movie event of my generation feels like an understatement. I have not revisited Endgame since the early days of the COVID-19 Pandemic, when I binged through the whole MCU franchise up to that point with my family (what else was there to do?). That said, I have kept up with the MCU over the past several years, with my interest wavering depending on the project. I am glad to say I still really enjoy Endgame and I find that I appreciate the emotional beats and celebration of the films within the “Infinity Saga”. 

My screening was far from full, but that may have been due to going on a Thursday afternoon when most screenings are empty. That said, there wasn’t a whole lot of cheering and excitement in the theater like there was back in May of 2019; it felt muted. So, there is no guarantee that you can relive the hype of the portal scene like during the film’s initial release. If you have never had an interest in going to repertory or revival screenings, save your money. Personally, I enjoy seeing a movie I am very familiar with in theaters. Some of my favorite memories of going to the theater consist of seeing John Carpenter’s The Thing for its 40th anniversary and The Wizard of Oz, both movies I have seen many times. It is a fun experience, but there are arguably better things to do with your time and money. 

The bonus footage. The real reason people might leave their house to go see the re-release. It’s okay; some fairly by-the-book Marvel material. If you see the film in Infinity Vision, you get some extra footage that regular screenings will not get, but either way, there is bonus footage. Some of the bonus footage consists of an extended scene towards the end of the film. I am going to avoid spoiling it, despite the footage being very easy to find on the internet. The extended scene looked and felt a bit different than the rest of Endgame. There is something a bit dystopian about going into the film and meddling with the ending to better serve the purpose of a franchise that has been tripping in the dark for the past six years and has failed to properly set up their next event film, but here we are. The three additional post-credit scenes are about what one would expect from a Marvel teaser. They reveal more about the plot and characters who are in the film that have not been previously announced. Once again, if you are not a die-hard fan of these movies, I think you will be okay not seeing the film again; these scenes will probably be a part of Doomsday. 

Now, Infinity Vision. As mentioned, Doomsday is coming to theaters on Dec. 18, but so is Dune: Part Three. These are both two major event films releasing on the same day and IMAX, a screening format that is considered one of the best for event films like these, has decided to give its screens to Dune. This could affect the box office of Doomsday because IMAX is only becoming more and more popular. So in response to this, Disney brings us Infinity Vision. Infinity Vision is considered the best format to see Doomsday and Endgame in and probably many more Marvel titles going forward. It is best not to be confused; Infinity Vision is not a new format for watching movies, despite how it is being marketed. Infinity Vision is more of a checklist: A screen that is 45 feet or higher, Dolby Atmos or 7.1 surround sound and laser projection. If the screen meets those requirements, then it is an Infinity Vision screen. At the end of the day, it is a marketing tactic and it probably will not be the end of the world if you do not see either of these films in the “intended format”. 

I feel comfortable saying that for most, Avengers Endgame: Encore is not a race-out-and-see-it-now event despite how it is being advertised. If you want to refresh yourself on the high points of Marvel, there is nothing wrong with going out to see it, but do not feel bad if you are unable to work it into your schedule during its limited run. On a similar note, if you want to fork out the extra money to see it in Infinity Vision, go ahead. Movies are fun on a massive screen with great sound, but in this case it is not essential. 

The post Is ‘Avengers Endgame: Encore’ and Infinity Vision worth your time and money? Kind of. appeared first on Utah.Film.

Coming on the heels of last year’s documentary, “Predators,” “Primetime” is the live action, “inspired by true events” story of Chris Hansen and TV’s “To Catch a Predator,” the mid-2000s NBC program that purported to hunt child predators and broadcast the results to the world.

Given the subject matter alone, it’s easy to understand that whether it’s a quality production or not, “Primetime” is not going to be an enjoyable watch. And sure enough, in spite of some strong performances and a compelling story–not to mention some conscious, stylish direction–director Lance Oppenheim’s effort leaves you wondering whether the experience was worth the tradeoff.

We meet Hansen (Robert Pattinson) in 2006, just as he’s about to confront one of the titular predators in the show’s established TV sting formula. By this point, the process is already in place: show employees lure predators online by pretending to be underage kids, arrange for an in-person meeting, then have a “decoy” (an adult who looks young enough to pass for said child) meet the target at the door before delivering them into the hands of Hansen, who confronts them with a host of TV cameras and, shortly afterward, law enforcement representatives.

So far the formula is working, though you get the sense the people hunting the predators may not be as noble as they present themselves. There’s no question the target’s intentions are abominable, but there’s something about the methodology that feels off, especially the publicizing and commercializing of the encounters.

“Primetime” continues to explore this tension as we go behind the scenes of the show, getting to know Hansen, his producer Andie (Merritt Wever), and a newly recruited decoy named Dan (Skyler Gisondo), who is thrust into a sting operation thinking he’s on set for a traditional acting gig. Contrary to his pious, smug confrontational attitude, Hansen has his own skeletons, Andie is being lured away from the show by a competing network, and Dan’s storyline clearly indicates that “the business” is every bit as unpleasant as the world Hansen’s show is presumably trying to infiltrate.

The plot escalates as NBC executives decide to ramp up their promotion of “Predator” by pitting it against ABC’s “Lost,” and encourage Hansen to target even more deplorable predators. This leads to a high-level target in Texas that becomes the narrative focus of the film.

Again, the performances here especially effective. Pattinson plays Hansen as a figure unable to fully empathize and connect with anyone as he struggles to separate his professional persona from his real-life interactions, even introducing himself by his full name when calling his wife. Wever’s effective turn as Andy shows her character’s wrestle between her professional aspirations and the lingering doubts that tug on her morality, and Gisondo’s Dan is the most sympathetic of all.

But, as you might imagine, the subject matter and the related discussion–which includes recitations of lurid online chat discussions and some frankly unnecessary instances of graphic nudity–confirms that “Primetime” will not appeal to general audiences. It’s an effective document of a television show that was problematic at best, and a nuanced portrait of its creator. But coming on the heels of a documentary on the same subject, it may not exactly be essential viewing.

“Primetime” is rated R for profanity, graphic dialogue and nudity, and some violence.

The post Lurid ‘Primetime’ goes behind the scenes of polarizing 2000s show, ‘To Catch a Predator’ appeared first on Utah.Film.

It may be best to know going in that “Heart of the Beast” is a dog movie. It isn’t essential in order to appreciate director David Ayer’s film, but it will account for a transition late in the film that feels awkward–and maybe even disappointing–on its own.

“Heart of the Beast” is a survival story about a pair of war veterans trying to make it out of the Alaskan wilderness following a plane crash. The first vet is James Belmont (Brad Pitt), a quiet and resourceful ex-Special Forces operative who has elected to spend his retirement as far away from civilization as possible. The second is his dog, a German Shepherd named Odin, who is also suffering from a life of active duty and the traumas of war.

We meet them in the middle of an excursion into remote Alaska, traveling from site to site in a small prop plane along with enough gear to set up a modest campsite. For the everyday outdoorsman, it feels like an idyllic life: fishing and camping and flying through a truly beautiful landscape, far from the hassles and distractions of the modern world. But nightmares and flashbacks suggest the origins of this routine continue to undercut their quest for peace, and when another lonely soul (J. K. Simmons) stumbles upon their excursion, the tension is palpable.

Soon after the rare social encounter, James is flying Odin to the next stop when a sudden heart attack leads to a crash in another nearby lake. The good news is that both parties survived; the bad news is that they are 50 miles from the nearest road, and that’s just the start of their troubles.

What follows is best summarized as, “one thing after another,” and as things go from bad to worse James is forced to employ all his skills to keep moving. At times the story feels a little like 2013’s “All is Lost,” which pitted Robert Redford’s lonely sailor against the ocean in a memorable solo performance, and Pitt’s effort is equally strong. But the presence of Odin is a helpful reminder that Man’s Best Friend will never let you truly be on your own.

As a metaphor for life’s often insatiable need to hammer you with trials and ordeals, “Heart of the Beast” is effective if not ground-breaking, and admittedly some of the more extreme perils (like the plane crash) feel like they are stretching believability a little too far. But the biggest problem is a protagonist shift late in the film that leaves the story feeling too empty for its own good.

Along with a lengthy narrative voiceover and some detailed pre-credits titles, “Heart of the Beast” concludes with the kind of explicit messaging that indicates the filmmakers didn’t think the audience would get the point otherwise. They may be right, but it undercuts the impact of the film, and leaves it feeling more like a public service announcement than a movie. As usual, it would have been better to show instead of tell.

—

“Heart of the Beast” is rated PG-13 for scenes of peril and some fairly gruesome gore.

The post Ayer’s ‘Heart of the Beast’ is better when it shows instead of tells appeared first on Utah.Film.

“Spider-Man: Brand New Day” marks ten years since actor Tom Holland’s debut as Marvel’s beloved web-slinger, and oddly, the fourth standalone film for the character that features a three-syllable title. And yet, unlike most Marvel releases from the last six years, director Destin Daniel Cretton’s “Brand New Day” leaves you thinking you wouldn’t mind seeing more.

The story picks up after the traumatic events of 2021’s multiverse adventure “No Way Home,” which, in addition to the death of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), left Spider-Man’s closest friends unable to remember him. Girlfriend MJ (Zendaya) and Ned (Jacob Batalon) have graduated high school and lit off to MIT, in a film-opening montage that shows Spider-Man tracking their exploits through social media while trying to attend to his friendly neighborhood duties.

Lately those duties have come to involve dealings with a super-villain named Scorpion (Michael Mando) and a complicated relationship with a fellow super-vigilante named The Punisher (Jon Bernthal). But these challenges pale when Spider-Man encounters a mysterious new adversary who seems to be able to possess the minds of innocent bystanders, and even worse, leap from person to person to evade capture.

When the activities of this mysterious villain start to threaten Ned and MJ–now returned to New York as freshly minted MIT graduates–Spider-Man’s past, present, and future collide, and the results are one of the more enjoyable Marvel adventures of recent years.

A lot of this is due to Holland, who remains relatable and sympathetic in the lead role. Bernthal provides a nice foil as the persistently-agitated Punisher, and a few other newcomers (who won’t be identified for spoiler’s sake) add strength to a cast of generally likable characters. And even if he doesn’t get a lot of screen time, fans of TV’s “Better Call Saul” will enjoy seeing Michael Mando as Scorpion.

As you might imagine, one key function of “Brand New Day” is to lay the groundwork for “Avengers: Doomsday,” set to release at the end of this year. One of the best elements of the new film is the way it manages to do this successfully while remaining true to its lead character. “Brand New Day” does justice to Spider-Man and his arc, and manages to deliver a satisfying story that leaves you excited for more.

Ten years on from Holland’s first turn as Spider-Man in “Captain America: Civil War,” that’s not a bad compliment.

—

“Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is rated PG-13 for comic book-style mayhem and violence.

The post ‘Brand New Day’ signals hope for future Marvel outings appeared first on Utah.Film.

Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is a good movie that should have been better. 

Based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name–with some key bits of The Iliad thrown in for good measure–“The Odyssey” delivers in the areas you would expect from a Nolan film. The IMAX scale and cinematography are engaging, the battles are exciting, and the soundtrack from Ludwig Goransson has a way of ramping up the tension in key spots. As a three-hour piece of eye candy, “The Odyssey” isn’t bad as a summer blockbuster.

The premise: having won the Trojan War thanks to the help of a certain hollow wooden horse, King Odysseus (Matt Damon) sets out with three ships of weary warriors for the long journey home. But an unfortunate encounter with a cyclops during a rest stop offends Posiedon, the sea god, so the journey becomes beset by additional trials as a result. Giant warriors, some sirens, and in perhaps the film’s most memorable scene, a crafty witch (Samantha Morton) all chip away at Odysseus’s party, and the various adventures prolong the journey by years.

In the meantime, a host of suitors have been hounding the queen back home. Penelope (Anne Hathaway) has been waiting faithfully for the king’s return, but the long years are taking a toll, and pressure is mounting to take a new husband under the assumption that Odysseus has been killed. Her son Telemachus (Tom Holland) could inherit the throne from his father, so as a threat to the suitors, certain parties like Antinous (Robert Pattinson) are plotting to murder the heir.

True to Nolan’s form–though the source material may also have input here–“The Odyssey” is told out of sequence, mostly in flashback while Odysseus finds himself marooned and a little short of memory on an island with a woman named Calypso (Charlize Theron). This allows Nolan to include episodes from both of Homer’s books, and pack plenty of action sequences into the film’s three-hour run time, but strangely it also leaves you feeling as if you are only seeing highlight clips of the epic.

The bigger problem is Nolan’s decision to interpret the classic Greek myth with modern “sensibilities.” The film has earned controversy for certain casting choices, but the more problematic issue is the use of contemporary dialogue–especially some R-rated profanity that sounds completely out of place in a story that is supposed to be taking place 3,000 years ago. And without being more knowledgable with the original source material it is hard to say for sure, but this interpretation of Homer’s epic feels like it leans hard into modern fixations on hero deconstruction and existential malaise.

Another way to say it is that “The Odyssey” is mopey. Very, very mopey.

Throw in some spotty acting in a few key supporting roles, and “The Odyssey” feels like a big and brash blockbuster with some healthy room for improvement. For many audiences, its strengths will be more than enough, but the truth is that this should have been a better film, and it wouldn’t have taken much to get it there.

—

“The Odyssey” is rated R for scattered profanity, brief male nudity, and sequences of action violence (comparatively tame for an R-rating).

The post Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ needs more epic, less mope appeared first on Utah.Film.

Your capacity to get through Olivia Wilde’s “The Invite” should be measured by your interest in spending almost two hours watching miserable people argue and/or conduct lengthy graphic discussions of their dysfunctional sex lives. 

The premise is pretty simple: an unhappy married couple in San Francisco invites their bohemian upstairs neighbors over for a dinner party, and hijinks ensue. It’s a little like the famous Dinner Party episode of TV’s “The Office,” only four times as long, with a lot more profanity and sex talk, and no Jim and Pam to ground the chaos in reality.

Joe (Seth Rogen) is a music teacher at a Bay Area middle school, and his wife Angela (Olivia Wilde) is passionate about interior decorating. They have a teenage daughter we never meet, and after we watch Joe and Angela interact for a little bit, we don’t blame her for not being around. The opening of the film is an extended argument between the unhappy couple; on the surface, it’s about the impending dinner party, but the subtext makes it clear these two could come to blows over the three different shades of blue that Angela is currently testing out in the master bedroom.

If you can make it through this opening salvo, things calm down a bit once the neighbors arrive. Hawk (Edward Norton) is a retired firefighter who comes across more like a guidance counselor, and Pina (Penelope Cruz) is an actual counselor who periodically displays the intensity of a firefighter. These two couples are a mismatch, and they almost seem to revel in making each other uncomfortable, but there is an additional source of tension. Hawk and Pina’s nocturnal activities have become increasingly noisy in recent weeks, and Joe is almost desperate to address the issue, to Angela’s obvious horror. 

The “odd couple” dynamic sets into a rhythm, and for a time, “The Invite” almost becomes enjoyable. Then comes the explanation for the upstairs activities–Hawk and Pina are swingers who have become fond of throwing sex parties on the weekends–and after a lengthy description of their deviant lifestyles to a now enraptured Joe and Angela, “The Invite” reveals the specific meaning behind its title.

Then: more hijinks, more fighting, more arguing, rinse and repeat.

“The Invite” is a remake of a Spanish film called “The People Upstairs,” and beneath the profanity and graphic sex talk, Wilde’s film is meant to be a comedy–punctuated with the hard-hitting reality of the complexities of marriage. To its credit, the script does offer some scattered laughs, as well as some well-chosen needle drops. Best of all, once the dust settles, “The Invite’s” ending offers a quiet and thoughtful contrast to everything that came before.

The problem is getting through everything that came before. Sometimes you have to go through the lows to get to the highs, and “The Invite” is clearly trying to show you Joe and Angela’s worst in order to appreciate their best. When you get past all the unseemly exterior, “The Invite’s” main characters wrestle with common challenges, but Joe and Angela–who are altogether way too quick and too happy to accept Hawk and Pina’s indecent proposal–will only remain relatable to a narrow sliver of the audience.

The question is whether the payoff is worth the journey, and if you’re asking me, the answer is no. I hated the beginning of the movie, and the middle exhausted me. The ending was good, but it wasn’t good enough.

—

“The Invite” is rated R for persistent profanity and graphic sexual dialogue, along with some brief violence (done for laughs).

The post Exhausting ‘Invite’ has a nice ending, at least… appeared first on Utah.Film.

5.Toy Story 4 (2019)

To put it simply, there are a lot of poor and lazy kids’ movies made every year. Movies that are just colors and lack any depth to help the development of a child. Toy Story 4 is not that and it deserves to be celebrated for that reason. Toy Story, on its worst day, is better than 90% of content made for children. Whether or not audiences really needed another film in this franchise is up for debate, especially since the third instalment is a perfect ending. 

Toy Story 4 is far from perfect, but the voice cast from both new and returning players is great. Toy Story 4 works as a thoughtful exploration of how we find purpose when life starts to change, which is a thematic idea that is probably relevant for most of the fans who grew up with this franchise and are not in their adult life. If you haven’t seen Toy Story 4 in a while, it is worth the rewatch and reexamination. 

4.Toy Story 5 (2026)

The latest installment in the Toy Story franchise follows the gang of toys as they are threatened by technology replacing what children know as “play time”. Bonnie, the toy’s owner, has recently been given a tablet called “Lily Pad”, as her parents hope that this will help Bonnie fit in with all of the other children who have devices. 

All things considered, Toy Story 5 feels like a more appropriate follow-up film to the third installment than Toy Story 4 did. It was inevitable that Pixar would have to acknowledge that technology is arguably more important to the modern child than toys are. While it might seem like this film would take a completely anti-technology stance, it does not. What this installment has to say is a bit more nuanced than “throw your phone in the trash”. The film centers on Jessie and the idea of female friendship, which marks new territory for the franchise. Some of the film’s most exciting moments come in the form of imaginary play sequences, where the animation changes to something that looks a bit like watercolors. Those moments are a lot of fun and show that Toy Story can continue to experiment with the animation medium all these years later. 

That said, it is the only Toy Story film that does not feel like a finale. This just feels like another installment and while it does not work to set up a sixth film, do not be surprised in five years when Toy Story 6 is announced. 

3.Toy Story 2 (1999)

Once again, Woody has gone missing; this time, he is taken by a toy collector named Al. The gang must go on a daring rescue mission to save the cowboy. Toy Story 2 is a movie that works best when expanding the world of the toys and how exactly the life of the toys works. The toys leave Andy’s home and go out into the world, showing the audience just how interesting and weird Pixar can get with these movies. This is the film that introduces one of Pixar’s core characters, Jessie. It often feels forgotten that a character so iconic is introduced in the second film and has not been there since day one. 

While Toy Story 2 is one of the great films to come out of Pixar, it does not quite pack the emotional punch that other films in the franchise do (aside from the Jessie backstory). 

2. Toy Story (1995)

Toy Story is a perfect movie. Truthfully, that’s all that really needs to be said (but I will keep going). Toy Story is not brought up enough in the discussion for the most important films to come out of the 90s. It does not seem like it would be most people’s gut response if they were asked what the 5 or 10 best movies to come out of the decade are. This is a film that completely changed the world of animation and blockbuster storytelling forever. Maybe aside from The Matrix, is there another more influential movie from that time period? This animation style is the dominant mode for these types of movies, so many children’s movies want to have screenplays as perfect as this one and ensemble casts as memorable as this one. No notes, there is no need to elaborate any further.

1.Toy Story 3 (2010)

This movie has a certain magic to it that few other movies have. There is an argument to be made that Toy Story and Toy Story 2 have more perfect screenplays, but there is a level of emotionality brought to 3 that the others do not have. 

We follow the toys as they grapple with Andy growing up and moving on. This is one of the smartest moves the Pixar team could have made, as the audience members who grew up with the first two films will now be in the same age range as Andy. It feels like a natural evolution, especially since this is far and away the most mature film in the bunch. It is a movie that has grown with its audience and is not taking any shortcuts. It is a perfect conclusion to this original three-movie run and a franchise can rarely pull off a perfect trilogy, especially with a third movie. 

The post Ranking the Toy Story Films appeared first on Utah.Film.

Anyone who goes to see Michael Sarnoski’s “The Death of Robin Hood” should abandon any connection to past movies about the legendary outlaw. If you’re expecting something along the lines of Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” Disney’s animated feature, or the classic adventure with Errol Flynn, you’re in for two hours of increasingly painful disappointment.

The title of the film says it all, and in fact carries a double meaning. “The Death of Robin Hood” is about the literal death of the title character, but in a figurative sense Sarnoski’s effort feels like a character assassination, too.

The idea is one we’ve seen plenty of in recent years: the mythic character you know and love wasn’t all that great in real life, and now you’re going to see them deconstructed under the miserable, unflinching light of historical truth. This is a little curious since this particular character is more based in myth and legend than history, but whatever.

We meet this version of Robin Hood late in life, with Robin (Hugh Jackman) living in isolation as a vagabond, staving off vengeful attackers who seek to avenge his past misdeeds. His career was one of theft and criminal brutality, and his golden years are just more of the same. After a little scene-setting, Robin’s literal partner-in-crime Little John (Bill Skarsgard) recruits him to help rescue his wife from some problematic neighbors, and when that gruesomely violent operation goes south, Robin winds up in a priory clinging to life.

The premise is an adaptation of one of the common tales about the end of Robin Hood’s life, and most of the film takes place at the priory, where under the care of Sister Brigid (Jodie Comer), Robin tries to reconcile his past. After a comparatively action-packed and violent opening act, the remainder of the film transitions to an introspective and ponderous pace.

So again, even if you go in understanding that this isn’t Disney’s Robin Hood, you still might be disappointed with what you find. One of my fellow UFCA critics noted some obvious similarities with 2017’s “Logan,” but that film kept up a balance of action throughout its run time.

Credit is due to the film’s production, which establishes a strong mood, and the various elements like cinematography, the performances, the lighting, and especially the haunting score from Jim Ghedi all have their merits. But it may not be enough when the story struggles to move the needle.

To reiterate, “Death of Robin Hood” is a violent movie. There may be more graphic stuff out there, but one of the film’s main intents is to say its titular character is a menacing and uncaring villain, and on more than one occasion we see that children are not exempt from his ethos. 

Ultimately “The Death of Robin Hood” is intended to be an exploration of guilt as a man reflects on and reconciles his past, and for some that may make the film worthwhile. But many will question whether the result was worth the investment.

—

“The Death of Robin Hood” is rated R for episodes of brutal and graphic violence, some involving children.

The post ‘Death of Robin Hood’ is a ponderous, violent, and unnecessary deconstruction appeared first on Utah.Film.

Lots of directors have put aliens on the big screen. But it’s something else to capture the wonder of encountering an alien in person. That’s where Steven Spielberg stands alone. Films like “ET: The Extra-Terrestrial” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” added a human element to science fiction that made them truly unforgettable.

This works for “Disclosure Day,” and it also works against it.

Spielberg’s latest film tells the story of a campaign to release classified evidence of alien encounters to the general public. Emily Blunt plays Margaret Fairchild, a weather reporter in Kansas City who has spent decades trying to suppress an alien encounter from her childhood. But after an otherwise forgettable experience at home seems to unlock a rash of supernatural abilities, she finds herself driven to hunt down a man named Daniel Kellner.

Kellner (Josh O’Connor) is a cybersecurity expert who until recently was employed by a shadowy company named Wardex. Led by an equally shadowy figure named Noah (Colin Firth), Wardex was tasked with the security of 79 years of alien encounter evidence. As we meet Daniel, he’s on the run with his girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson) with a backpack full of incriminating hard drives, determined to share the truth with the world.

Most of “Disclosure Day” is a race between Noah and Margaret to find Daniel. Noah, obviously, wants to stop the release, and he has an armed convoy ready to help him execute his mission with extreme prejudice. He also has a curious piece of alien technology that allows him to infiltrate the minds of people remotely to assist with his search.

For her part, Margaret is trying to make sense of her mission on the fly. Like Richard Dreyfuss in “Close Encounters,” she can’t explain where her knowledge or impulses are coming from. She just knows she has to find Daniel. Hopefully somewhere along the way she will figure out her unexplained ability to speak multiple new languages or read the minds of those she encounters.

Luckily for Margaret and Daniel, they are not alone in their quest. Daniel is part of a conspiracy of ex-Wardex employees led by a man named Hugo (Colman Domingo) who are preparing for the big disclosure event, and to add to the tension, Daniel’s phone calls with Hugo take place while people are constructing what looks like a movie set in the background.

All the elements are there for a standard quality Spielberg outing, but a flawed script drops “Disclosure Day” to the second tier of the director’s alien adventures, more “War of the Worlds” than “Close Encounters,” and nowhere near the emotional heights of “ET.” The third act is the real problem here. Without spoiling anything specific, it’s hard to believe that what happens would actually happen the way it is portrayed. In fact, the events of the third act almost feel like they could (or should?) drive an entire movie on their own.

But “Disclosure Day” deserves its credit, though, and not just for Spielberg’s usual craftsmanship. There’s plenty of tension and artistry and strong performances to go around, and a thoughtful scene between Jane and a former mentor shows a respect to people of religious faith that feels pretty rare in post-COVID Hollywood. The first two acts are a lot of fun, but act three is just so-so.

Altogether the good outweighs the questionable, and “Disclosure Day” should be a fun ride for anyone OK with a film that won’t rank with Spielberg’s all-time best.

—

“Disclosure Day” is rated PG-13 for action violence and scattered profanity.

The post ‘Disclosure Day’ is a solid addition to Spielberg’s alien portfolio appeared first on Utah.Film.