Spike Lee’s “Highest 2 Lowest” is an adaptation of Akira Kurosawa film “High and Low,” which was in turn based on the novel “King’s Ransom,” by Ed McBain. Now set in New York City, Lee’s film about a wealthy man in a showdown with a kidnapper is a showcase of skill, but also disjointed and overstuffed in terms of content and style.

The film opens with a beautiful montage of scenic New York cityscapes that evoke memories of Woody Allen’s 1979 film, “Manhattan,” all tied to a soaring rendition of “Oh, What a Beautiful Morning.” This introduction leads us to the posh Brooklyn penthouse of David King (Denzel Washington), a legendary music executive who is trying to buy back controlling interest in his record label.

We watch him navigate his daily business, shuttled around New York while everyone from lobby loiterers to his own son Trey (Aubrey Joseph) try to pitch him on aspiring new artists. We meet David’s wife Pam (Ilfenesh Hadera), and Paul (Jeffrey Wright), David’s driver, whose son Kyle (Elijah Wright) attends the same basketball camp with Trey. Then, just after a candid conversation with Pam about the label deal, the story takes a hard-left turn when a mysterious caller tells David he’s kidnapped his son.

From here the film lurches into a more dramatic plot that complicates further when it becomes clear that the kidnapper grabbed Kyle by mistake. What follows is a strange if engaging mix of suspense and drama that gives the audience everything from moral dilemmas to subway chases to dark commentaries on the modern record business, underscored by the haunting social media refrain that, “attention is the greatest currency.”

The result is a curious collection of often excellent elements that never quite coheres. For its part, the dialogue is excellent, and so are the performances, which will be no surprise to anyone familiar with Washington and Wright’s past work. There are also great individual sequences, such as the aforementioned subway chase that plays out against an energetic live performance from the Eddie Palmieri Salsa Orchestra at a Puerto Rican Day festival.

The Kurosawa film and the original McBain novel were built around the same core premise: a wealthy businessman is forced into a moral dilemma when his driver’s son is kidnapped by mistake. But though Lee’s contemporary interpretation feels relevant, it also makes the film feel overstuffed. Along with the montage opening and some amusing cutaways of rabid Yankee fans, the festival footage implies that “Highest 2 Lowest” is a tribute to the energy and culture of New York City, which seems odd transposed against a kidnapping plot. Elsewhere the film points a finger of accusation against the modern society, where even criminal behavior can merit that precious attention.

By the end of the movie, it’s easy to nod in approval with much of what Lee is saying, and to admire a lot of what he does along the way. But “Highest 2 Lowest” feels more like a collection of compelling parts that don’t quite fit together, a collage more than a finished portrait.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the way Lee’s style—and especially Howard Drossin’s gorgeous piano-driven score—just don’t feel like a match for the film’s subject matter. The lurch into the kidnapping plot just doesn’t fit the established tone and style of the film, and that dissonance continues throughout its runtime.

For a filmmaker like Lee, this might be entirely intentional, and it does have a way of keeping you attentive rather than tuning out. But to paraphrase “Highest 2 Lowest’s” critical messaging, not all attention is good attention.

“Highest 2 Lowest” is rated R for generous profanity, as well as some scattered violence and mild sexual content.

The post Jarring ‘Highest 2 Lowest’ tries to cover too much ground appeared first on Utah.Film.

“Thunderbolts*” is Marvel’s version of “Suicide Squad,” which was DC’s version (versions?) of “The Dirty Dozen.” So if this story about a rag-tag bunch of outlaws banding together against a common foe sounds familiar, now you know why.

In this case, the outlaws are at least a little more familiar, having popped up in half a dozen Marvel outings over the last five to ten years. Yelena (Florence Pugh), Black Widow’s sister assassin from the 2020 movie of the same name, is the closest thing to a main protagonist. As the film opens, she’s getting bored running black ops missions from CIA honcho Valentina (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), but agrees to the traditional “one last job” before making some career changes.

The job in question takes her to a secret vault, where she encounters a few other not-ready-for-prime-time heroes. John Walker (Wyatt Russell) is still reeling from the failure of his five-minute stint as Captain America, Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) is still in action after playing the misunderstood heavy in the second Ant Man movie, and speaking of five minutes, brainwashed Taskmaster (Olga Kurylenko) gets her first screen time since the Black Widow movie.

When Yelena and co. figure out that Valentina sent them all to the vault to have them killed, they team up with assassin-turned-congressman Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Red Guardian (David Harbour) and a mysterious character named Bob (Lewis Pullman) to take their down their former employer.

The result is good enough to feel like Marvel is firing on most of its cylinders again, but a film that feels like less than the sum of its parts, especially once the third act starts to play setup for future installments. There are plenty of good elements—a first-act stunt from Pugh that is apparently 100% real, and Harbour’s performance as Red Guardian injects an energetic comic vibe that pushes against the movie’s bleak color palette. “Thunderbolts*” ultimately ranks above many of the post-“Endgame” Marvel movies, but that’s like saying taking a football to the groin is one of the better gridiron injuries.

Like many recent Marvel outings, “Thunderbolts*’” strength doubles as its weakness. Coming to theaters 17 years after 2008’s “Iron Man” kicked off the MCU, director Jake Schreier’s film is built into an existing universe, drawing on existing pre-established characters in a familiar and comfortable world. But that also means the movie can’t entirely stand on its own, and inevitably must be compared to everything that came before. It also means that the film must grapple with a tone that initially feels grounded and real, but later has to accommodate more supernatural content and characters.

Weirdly, Yelena’s early movie malaise feels like an apt reflection of many non-superhero movie diehards—at least the one writing this review—who need more than hints about peripheral movie team-ups to get excited about spending another two hours with characters they don’t really know and don’t care about yet. “Thunderbolts*” is far from bad; it just doesn’t bring anything all that new or worthwhile to the table. It’s routine. It’s content.

Is “Thunderbolts*” a decent way to kill a couple of hours in the theater? Sure. Does it restore some of Marvel’s pre-2020 glory? Kind of. Will it land on anyone’s Top 10 MCU offerings? Not mine, though I suppose it doesn’t really have to. Are you wondering why I’ve been putting an asterisk at the end of the title through this whole review? I’ll let you either see the movie or turn to Google for that one.

“Thunderbolts*” is rated PG-13 for standard CGI mayhem and violence, as well as some profanity and frightening moments.

The post Familiarity is a strength and a weakness for ‘Thunderbolts*’ appeared first on Utah.Film.

Based on the true story of the LeRette family, young Austin (Jacob Laval) navigates life with brittle bone disease and autism, which–try as they may–can’t break him down.

Far more than I expected

I was anticipating a cheesy, possibly religious family flick, but I was surprised by the quality and how stylized it was right off the bat. It’s fun and colorful, taking advantage of opportunities to highlight the imaginations of a child versus a parent. The stylized structure also helps build tension, since the story is told a bit out of order, so there is a greater emotional investment, and we pick up on more patterns throughout.

The cast and their performances were all incredible. Zachary Levi (as Austin’s father, Scott) is the reason I knew about and wanted to watch this movie. At times, he is playful and fun, but can also pull off some powerful, deep struggles that any adult (especially parents) can relate to. His chemistry and conflict with Meghann Fahy uniquely and accurately captures married life. Above being a movie about autism, I really think it’s a movie about parenting, especially when facing extenuating circumstances.

Laval was also fantastic, matching the other more seasoned actors in believability. It helped that Laval is also autistic, but as he has pointed out during interviews, he did quite a bit of work to capture Austin’s personality and mannerisms, so it feels very real. There’s something similar to “Peanut Butter Falcon” (2019) here; we have a featured main character with disabilities, but the movie doesn’t make that their only trait and finds a way to flesh them out in a sincere way.

Humor is also a key point to this movie when it comes to the delicate tonal balance with the topics presented. The dialogue is so fun, and very needed at times when there are heavier elements addressed like alcoholism, mental health, and that constant question of if you are doing right by your kids. This story is all about breaks and repairs, going far beyond Austin’s bones. I love how outside conflicts perfectly parallel the inner turmoil the family faces through the years.

I could go on and on about all the little details because every aspect felt very intentional (in particular with costuming, set & sound design, and lighting). Everything came together harmoniously, united in that theme of things breaking and healing, in a way that made me walk away saying “THAT’S how you make a movie!” I highly recommend it for anyone wanting that spark of inspiration and gratitude for life.

Parents Guide

The alcoholism and raw parental struggles might not make this a fun, entertaining movie for younger kids. There are also many trips to the hospital, mostly played off lighthearted without showing anything. It’s appropriate for all ages–it’s just up to a parent if the familial struggles might be too distressing for their kids.

The post What I admire about “Unbreakable Boy” appeared first on Utah.Film.

While this conversation isn’t anything new, I noticed an interesting trend with my favorite movies I watched this last year–they were primarily foreign films. As we all have witnessed, movies and shows coming from other countries have become more accessible and mainstream thanks to streaming services, and there are always a few movies highlighted each year during the awards season. I think what has really struck me this month reflecting on the last year was that I preferred less traditional options as I compared everything I watched to each other, and here are the ones that impacted me the most.

5. 3 Idiots (2009)

This one is more of an honorable mention because I like pointing it out whenever I can, and I feel like it still adds to this discussion. I have watched this film so many times, and it still leaves me with more thoughts and tears every viewing. It is the best film I’ve ever seen about the education system, critiquing and praising in ways that still apply to American universities. As a Bollywood production it, naturally, has many musical numbers with songs that are warm and funny while still thoughtfully exploring serious subjects of economic pressures, castes, and even depression and suicide. Anyone thinking of or currently pursuing higher education NEEDS to watch this movie! 

4. Conclave (2024)

This is technically a Hollywood production as it was produced by FilmNation Entertainment and Indian Paintbrush, but director Edward Berger is Swiss-Austrian and this was largely shot in Italy, so it sort of counts. At the very least, it shows how a blend of cultures can make for incredible art. “Conclave” is total Oscar bait as a drama with a stacked cast, but that’s the kind of stuff I love. The shots were stunning and the sound design was impeccable. What struck me the most, however, was how the premise (the fictitious selection of a new pope) allows for thorough discussions of how ‘church leadership’ can be oxymoronic. True men of god must be sinless and humble, but their worst tendencies might come out when one of the highest positions of power in the world is on the line. It’s meant to spark thought and debate, so you may not agree with everything brought up. Regardless, I think the film balances it so well, so you can see the arguments on all sides and feel free to come to your own conclusions. 

3. Along with the Gods: The Two Worlds (2017) & The Last 49 Days (2018)

This was an interesting Korean series I stumbled upon on Amazon Prime, and it ended up having way more depth than I ever anticipated. The film explores the perilous Buddhist afterlife journey a man goes through so he may earn reincarnation. It’s a richly elaborate world that is very much still tied to those still living. The nuance explored about human flaws and the message about forgiveness is so touching. 

I also included the sequel since they have to be seen together. I loved the first film as a stand-alone allegory, but the sequel takes everything to another level. We delve more into the backstories of the characters and their world. Unfortunately, I can’t go into too much detail, but I can say that it shows what we all want from a sequel: something that is (1) thoughtfully tied to its predecessor so they have to be watched together (ex. The Lord of the Rings trilogy), but (2) everything is still new and a delight to watch every minute of.  So, if you are someone who likes the crazy action sequences mixed with touchy-feely moments, you have to check these films out.

2. Godzilla Minus One (2023)

As the first film I watched last year, nothing came close to how I felt watching “Minus One” in my theater seat. This is one you might’ve heard a lot about if you haven’t already seen it yourself. Much like the newer “Godzilla” (2014), you follow people on the ground facing an insurmountable, monstrous threat following the devastating aftermath of WWII in Japan. While I was caught up in the physical danger, the theme about the value of a life explored from the perspective of a Kamikaze pilot deserter makes me tear up when just thinking about this movie. Watching “Minus One” while sitting in front of a big screen makes you feel so small yet somehow enough for the ones you love. The quality of filmmaking is also so incredible, especially when it comes to the sound design and special effects, which is reason alone to see it.

1. RRR (2022)

No film I have ever seen before comes close to the majesty and oddity that is “RRR”. You come for the insane Bollywood action sequences and stay for the bromance. It’s not unpredictable, per se, but the execution hits all the right narrative and emotional beats. You see the strength of two men willing to attain their goal, no matter the cost, with the 1920 British occupation of India as the backdrop. It tackles racism, “modernization,” and sacrifices in many symbolic shots. It’s simply so fun to watch, while also seeing history from the Indian perspective. It’s crushing, and heartwarming; it’s all you could ever want in a movie. Oh, and did I mention that it also has amazing musical numbers and choreography??

Conclusion

I still loved many of movies that came out last year, and that’s why I’m wanting to get back into writing reviews! While I enjoyed Wicked, Fall Guy, and Twisters as much as anyone else (and I could totally talk your ear off about all of them), none of them reached the emotions I felt while watching these foreign films.

Why would one connect more with something outside of their culture? In part, there is simply more available to us thanks to the vast amount of content on streaming services, so we can sift out the best of the best. I’m also always one to be a cynic and point out that we are craving more quality at a time when Hollywood is still primarily feeding us half-baked-expensive time killers. Other countries are utilizing the same technology we have to tell actual stories that are fun and have thoughtful and emotional impact. I also think that the biggest factor is due to our curious human nature. We love seeing other perspectives and experiences that isn’t Americanized. It broadens our views and expands our hearts in ways we never expected. So give that subtitled film a chance when going to the theater this year!

If you watched some great films last year, give them a shout out below, and I look forward to watching upcoming movies with you in 2025! 

The post My Top Viewing Experiences of 2024: The Year of Foreign Films appeared first on Utah.Film.

Thanks to 2018’s “Bumblebee,” the bar for “Transformers” movies was raised after a decade of overstuffed schlock. Unfortunately, “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” takes the franchise back toward Bayhem.

I went into “Rise of the Beasts” with mixed expectations. “Bumblebee” was so good—really, the “Transformers” movie I think fans of the original toys and TV cartoon always wanted—that there was a feeling a course correction had taken place for the Robots in Disguise. At the same time, noting that the new 1990’s-set movie would incorporate the Maximals—a second-generation “Transformers” line introduced long after I swapped my toys for pickup basketball games—suggested “Rise of the Beasts” wasn’t meant for me personally.

The film opens with promise, introducing the planet-munching super-robot Unicron (voiced by Colman Domingo) as he’s about to go to town on a distant planet. Longtime fans will remember Unicron from the infamous 1986 animated Transformers movie, which Hasbro effectively used to wipe out an entire line of toys and replace them with new product.

Before Unicron eats the planet, a handful of Maximals—led by a gorilla-robot named Optimus Primal (Ron Perlman)—use something called a Transwarp Key to travel galaxies away to Earth. The hope is that without the Key, Unicron will be stuck in his own galaxy, and forced to survive on local planets (nuts to them, I guess). But of course that hope is dashed when Unicron sends his minions the Terrorcons to Earth in search of the Key so they can open the door to Armageddon. Munchageddon? Whatever.

The only thing standing in the way of Unicron and co. are the Maximals, two unnaturally talented 20-something humans (because these kinds of movies demand unnaturally talented 20-something humans), and a small group of good-guy Transformers led by franchise icon Optimus Prime (voiced as always by Peter Cullen). If that sounds like a pretty small resistance for a potential planet-wide annihilation, you aren’t alone.

One of the things that made “Bumblebee” work was its small scale, which had fun with the Transformers concept while holding back on the roiling chaos that all the Michael Bay movies eventually devolved to. But “Rise of the Beasts” jumps head first into sky beams and inter-planetary destruction while staging its own “Avengers: Endgame” with about a tenth of the cast. At least the Macchu Picchu backdrop looks cool.

“Rise of the Beasts” also falls into the visual trap of similar films. While some of the Transformers—like Prime and newcomer Arcee (Liza Koshy)—look unique, familiar, and well-designed, others, like hologram-trickster Mirage (Pete Davidson) start to look generic and too messy to keep track of next to his counterparts.

The human leads are also a crutch, asked to perform superhuman tasks against impossible odds in a situation where no one would logically put the fate of the planet in the hands of tiny, vulnerable humans that could be stomped at any second by accident. Anthony Ramos and Dominique Fishback do a solid job as a struggling Iraq War Vet and an aspiring archeologist, respectively. But it doesn’t help that their mutual obsession with being from Brooklyn offers a constant reminder that Hollywood thinks 99% of the US population either lives in New York City or Los Angeles.

Altogether, “Rise of the Beasts” remains a clear step up from the worst of the Michael Bay-directed slogs, if only because it clocks in around two hours runtime instead of three. But it’s also a clear step down from “Bumblebee,” and that makes “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” a disappointment.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and general mayhem.

The post ‘Rise of the Beasts’ marks another decline in the Transformers franchise appeared first on Utah.Film.

“Fast X” might be the dumbest movie I’ve ever seen, but when it comes to the Fast and Furious franchise, that may be beside the point. The tenth installment of this joyously bizarre saga suffers from all of the maladies that have plagued its recent releases, and is getting dangerously close to “Sharknado” levels of self-conscious parody, but by keeping the audience in on the joke, “Fast X” just barely keeps from spinning out.

Thanks to a comically overloaded cast (have you seen the promo banners?), “Fast X” is a mess of plot threads, but it boils down to a revenge story. The son of a past nemesis has come to avenge his father’s death and destroy Dom Torretto (Vin Diesel) and his ever-expanding “family” of co-stars.

The son is Dante (Jason Momoa), a flamboyant Brazilian crime lord with a taste for performance and baggy pants. Ten years ago, his father (Joaquim de Almeida) made the mistake of crossing Torretto and company in the fifth and best installment of the franchise, and a quick opening flashback sequence connects the dots to Dante as the new movie opens.

Dante’s master plan is incomprehensible, and really just an excuse to create a series of adventures and scenarios that will put just about every major character you’ve encountered in the previous nine films into some kind of action-packed peril. The primary threads include Roman (Tyrese Gibson) leading a team on a mission that turns out to be a set-up, Dominic’s wife Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) being forced into an uncomfortable alliance with ex-nemesis Cipher (Charlize Theron) in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” arrangement, and Dominic’s formerly estranged brother Jakob (John Cena) taking Dominic’s son Brian (Leo Abelo Perry) into his protection as they mount a counter-operation of their own.

Meanwhile Dominic is hop-scotching all around the world—somehow bringing his signature 1970 Dodge Charger with him—in an international-scale chess match with Dante that ties in even more supporting characters played by Brie Larson, Alan Ritchson, and Daniela Melchior. By the end of the film, “Fast X” takes us to Rome, Portugal, Los Angeles, London, and at least one location that I’ll keep secret for the sake of a joke reveal.

Again, keeping track of all this is pretty much beyond the point. The objective of each new Fast and Furious film is to overwhelm the viewer with wall-to-wall action and at least one street race to keep the film tied to its distant roots, and it has generally been a winning formula. It also helps that unlike with the Michael Bay-era Transformers movies, you get the sense that the audience is in on the joke, and not being served up a cynical parade of explosions, babes, and terrible dialogue. At one point Alan Ritchson’s character offers the audience a Fast and Furious primer, describing their exploits as a, “cult with cars,” violating the laws of “God and gravity.”

But the truth is that ever since the seventh installment, which tied off the series’ core bromance after lead actor Paul Walker passed away during filming, the subsequent films have suffered from diminishing returns. The “can you top this” ethos has resulted in more and more ludicrous action set pieces, including hilarious death-defying Toretto escape sequences, plus preposterous scenarios that have included nuclear submarines and putting a Pontiac Fiero in orbit around the Earth in the last two movies. For “Fast X” it’s a massive bomb rolling hamster wheel style through the streets of Rome and a scene at a dam that you have to see to not believe. Combined with the film’s refusal to let any character besides Walker’s stay dead, “Fast X” suffers from some very common 21^st century style cast bloat that makes its story unmanageable while gutting any real element of suspense or gravitas.

All of this is to say that “Fast X” has plenty of moments that will leave you amazed and often laughing, but we’re getting dangerously close to just laughing at the movie rather than laughing with it. And the cliff-hanger/twist ending—which reveals that “Fast X” is just the first of what is reportedly a final, series-ending trilogy—just cements that sentiment.

The best part of the new movie by far is Momoa, who seems to be having a joyous time in a wardrobe that deserves its own award. A better version of “Fast X” would have stripped away about a third of its 139-minute run time to focus on the Toretto vs. Dante duel, but unfortunately director Louis Leterrier and Diesel, who is also one of the film’s producers, seem more interested in checking franchise boxes than making a “good” movie.

The excesses of this franchise have usually been fun, but they’re starting to feel exhausting. And we’ve got two more movies to go.

“Fast X” is rated PG-13 for over-the-top action movie mayhem, bloodless violence, profanity, and music video-style images of scantily clad women.

The post Furious Fatigue is setting in with bloated ‘Fast X’ appeared first on Utah.Film.

It’s too long, the plot’s a mess, and it’s pretty moody for one of Marvel’s “funny” franchises, but given the quality of the post-“Endgame” era, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is surprisingly good, and an appropriate capstone for one of the more unique trilogies to come out of the superhero movie genre.

The first movie assembled the oddball “Avengers in Space,” the second one explored the dark past of their leader, and now the third one explores the dark past of their smallest member, the cyborg-raccoon Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper). Directed by James Gunn, “Guardians 3” picks up in the aftermath of 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame,” and seems to embrace the somber tone of that climactic film.

The movie opens with a long slow-motion sequence of Rocket walking around Knowhere, the Guardians’ adopted home, set to a melancholy acoustic version of Radiohead’s “Creep.” Music has always been fundamental to the Guardians movies, but where tracks like Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love” and ELO’s “Mr. Blue Sky” kicked off previous films with upbeat energy, the Radiohead track lets us know that all is not well. Team leader Star Lord (Chris Pratt) is still reeling from the loss of Gamora (Zoe Saldana), who has joined up with a group of space pirate Ravagers, and Gamora’s sister Nebula (Karen Gillan) is struggling to keep the operation together.

When Rocket is critically wounded during an attack by a golden super-being named Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), the Guardians connect the dots to a megalomaniac called The High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), who is responsible for Rocket’s original cyber-modifications, and wants to reclaim his creation as part of a plan to populate his own twisted utopian planet.

As the Guardians fight to save their fallen friend, flashbacks explore Rocket’s literally tortured past, and the plot also ties in supporting characters like Drax (Dave Bautista), Mantis (Pom Klementieff), and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel). Naturally, the story also brings Gamora back into the mix, which leads to some heartbreaking exchanges with Star Lord, and in a more hopeful thread, an ex-Ravager named Kraglin (Sean Gunn) struggles to succeed his old boss Yondu (Michael Rooker), whose passing at the end of Vol. 2 offered up one of the most resonant moments of the trilogy.

The Guardians’ story has always had some serious emotional stones in its foundation, but they’ve never been on display the way they are in Vol. 3. It might be a little jarring to fans used to the irreverence and quippiness of the previous films—which is still present, if subdued—but it also provides a meaningful character arc for the team in the wake of everything they’ve been through in their previous adventures. The gang has matured over three movies (five if you include the “Infinity War” and “Endgame” juggernauts), and Vol. 3 reflects that growth. Even the soundtrack has evolved, adding newer tracks like Spacehog’s “In the Meantime” and the aforementioned “Creep” to 1970s pop favorites like Rainbow’s “Since You’ve Been Gone.”

All the moving parts lead to some confusion as the plot spins off into various theaters of action, and though the ending feels satisfying, you’re left with the feeling that the 150-minute Vol. 3 has at least a half-hour of album bloat. But if this is the last adventure we’ll be taking with the Guardians, a few unnecessary tracks isn’t a bad thing. And considering the missteps of its recent Marvel peers, even a flawed “Guardians 3” feels like a breath of fresh air.

I’m always going to have a little trouble evaluating the Guardians movies, thanks to some fond personal memories connected to the first film’s release back in 2014. But I think I can see this new film with enough objectivity to get past my superhero fatigue and personal baggage to acknowledge “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” as a flawed but fitting finale to my favorite Marvel trilogy.

Like the previous films in the trilogy, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and mayhem, but it does include some imagery that might be a little more frightening for younger viewers, and though it is considerably less crass than Vol. 2, it does contain scattered profanity, including a single use of the “F-word.”

The post ‘Guardians 3’ isn’t awesome, but it is satisfying appeared first on Utah.Film.

“Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant” is a good movie that is a tough watch, and a perfect illustration of the way text and context shapes your experience with a film. On its own, it’s a tense and dramatic fictional story of loyalty and honor and brotherhood, but at the same time, it’s a story that plays out under the foreboding non-fictional shadow of what the audience knows is to come in the months after the final credits.

“The Covenant” is set in 2018, almost two decades after the United States sent troops into Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The fatigue of the conflict is obvious in the faces and demeanor of Sergeant John Kinley (Jake Gyllenhall) and his men, who go about their daily routine of chasing down suspect leads on the hunt for ammunitions and evildoers. As they execute their duties up and down the streets of ravaged Afghan towns and villages, we feel a sense of claustrophobia and futility at the challenge of their fish-out-of-water circumstances.

Fed up with the bad leads and bad intelligence, Kinley decides to use more non-traditional channels to yield better results, and recruits a new translator named Ahmed (Dar Salim) in his cause. Right away we get the sense that this new arrangement will simultaneously increase the likelihood of success as well as the level of imminent danger, as Ahmed proves he has savvy well beyond his linguistic skills.

This sense gets rewarded in dramatic fashion as Kinley’s team locates a primary weapons depot, and is immediately ambushed by Taliban fighters. Ahmed and Kinley are the only survivors of a harrowing battle, though the Sergeant is critically injured, and his translator has to transport him miles through the desert avoiding detection to escape.

The heroic episode takes a dark turn when, once home and recovering, Kinley learns that his former translator has been forced to take his family underground as a result of the rescue, in spite of an arrangement that was supposed to have granted cooperative Afghans passage to America for their efforts.

What happens next will not be spoiled in this review, though in a way it doesn’t matter, because anyone who watches “The Covenant” will likely understand what is to come not long after its fictional story concludes. By fall of 2021, American forces will withdraw, leaving many Afghan collaborators behind to face traitorous accusations from an ascendant Taliban regime.

The shadow of the future puts a dour twist on what remains an engaging and thrilling feature, and even when the audience begins to anticipate its dramatic conclusion, Ritchie still delivers in a way that is stunning. No doubt this juxtaposition is intentional, as the closing title cards outline what unfolds across Afghanistan in the months after “The Covenant’s” narrative.

In a way, it’s natural to see “The Covenant” as a microcosm of how Ritchie sees the greater relationship between the United States and the people of Afghanistan…a promise in need of fulfillment. If you don’t have a lot of background on its setting, “The Covenant” remains a moving and gripping war story, one that zeroes in on powerful themes of loyalty and duty. But with that background, its meaning and resonance become that much more sobering.

For their part, Gyllenhall and especially Salim shine in their roles, and play out a meaningful relationship arc from a partnership of circumstance to a noble bond worthy of personal sacrifice. And though hints and flashes of Ritchie’s trademark kinetic editing and storytelling style occasionally remind the viewers who is behind the camera, the style is notably toned down compared to better-known examples from the director’s catalog, like “Snatch” or the Robert Downey Jr. “Sherlock Holmes” films.

As you might expect, “Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant” draws an R rating for a combination of profanity and war violence. But to its credit, the violence is played for authenticity more than spectacle, and aside from a dramatic montage partway through the film, the profanity feels more natural than artificial.

By keeping these more “Hollywood” elements in check, Ritchie is better able to preserve the sincerity of “The Covenant,” and completes one of 2023’s better films so far.

The post Guy Ritchie’s ‘The Covenant’ is intense, exciting, and depressing appeared first on Utah.Film.

Christie’s famous play has never been adapted for the big screen—more on that later—but director Tom
George is trying to sneak it past the ushers and the ticket takers. In theaters now, George’s British-
American comic mystery “See How They Run” swoops in on London’s West End circa 1953, where “The
Mousetrap” is being celebrated by its cast and crew for staging its 100 th consecutive performance, the
play having opened the prior year.

Saoirse Ronan and Sam Rockwell play a pair of detectives on the hunt for a murderer who is terrorizing
cast members of “The Mousetrap.” The story follows the plucky duo as they find clues, pursue leads,
and interview suspects in the theater world. Meanwhile, a “Mousetrap” film adaption is being
considered by real-life movie producer John Woolf (of “The African Queen” fame), but would-be
Hollywood director Leo Kopernick (Adrien Brody) wants to jazz up the movie version with a fiery, bloody
ending that will be sure to put American butts in the seats. The brash, arrogant director drunkenly flirts
with the play’s female lead, Sheila Sim, whose husband Dickie Attenborough defends her honor in the
traditional way (fisticuffs).

Brody’s exaggerated features make him look like a caricature of a real person. In fact, as we learn (or are
reminded of by Brody), the first victim of a murder-mystery is usually a sleazy scoundrel. There will be
no shortage of suspects with reasons to kill Brody, who narrates the story even after his own death at
the beginning of the movie. I’ve heard of unreliable narrators, like Rachel Watson from “The Girl on the
Train,” but dead narrators? Yes, they exist, because movies make their own rules. It worked for sardonic
Lester Burnham in “American Beauty,” and for “Sunset Boulevard’s” Joe Gillis. That blew me away. Even
the exploits of the Desperate Housewives are made known to us by a deceased housewife.

Compositionally, this movie smacks of a Wes Anderson picture, with snap-zooms, hyper-frequent use of
symmetry, split screens which are often used during flashbacks, a few title cards (one of which is directly
referenced on-screen by foppish playwright Mervyn Cocker-Norris, played by David Oyelowo), and a
jaunty score consistent with the times.

If I was forced to write a one-word review, it would be: Cheeky. This meta-murder mystery might make
for a smashing good time, if you are in the mood and in the know. This movie is overstuffed with so
many winks and nods it will make your head spin trying to keep up.

Ronan plays the eager, young trainee Constable Stalker, doe-eyed and bursting with enthusiasm as she
is assigned to work with a world-weary lush, Inspector Stoppard (Rockwell). The two are assigned to
investigate Kopernick’s death, whose desired film version of the play would bear little resemblance to
the play, but is that a sufficient motive for murder? Much of the comedy is mined from Ronan, whose
love of cinema and the arts cannot be contained, and she helpfully explains to her partner (and by
extension, us) who the main players are and what other plays they were in and why they are important.
She also has the quirky but critical habit of writing everything down.

Although fictional, much of the story within the story is true. Agatha Christie notoriously disliked film
adaptations of her work, and decreed that “The Mousetrap” could not be made into a movie until six
months after the end of its theatrical run. Fast-forward 70 years, and “The Mousetrap” (except for a
brief respite during the Covid-19 Pandemic), is the world’s longest running play. The production’s
apparent endlessness has left more than a few hopeful moviemakers in its wake. Will it ever be allowed
a proper film treatment? This is where the “meta” comes in. “See How They Run” is the closest possible
thing (for now) to a film adaptation of “The Mousetrap,” as all the characters in this movie know about
“The Mousetrap,” are starring in, writing, or producing it, trying to twist it into a Hollywood production
or are anxiously watching performances of it. The meta-nature is many-layered, as “The Mousetrap”
itself is allegedly based on a real murder, and this movie knows that, and then another real murder
occurs among the cast. As to whether Dame Agatha herself makes an appearance, it shan’t be spoilt by
me.

Now, for my opinion.

Did I like it?

Sure.

But be warned: What may be to some people a fun, fast-paced, clever whodunit full of witty one-liners
may for others be an exhausting exercise in indulgence, perhaps too clever by half. I suppose that if you
are a fan of murder mysteries, especially British ones, and most especially those of Christie, you will
understand the references, asides, throwaway lines, and even the significance of the names of the
players. Consider the following: In one scene, Inspector Stoppard is called a real hound. Now, how many
people know that famous playwright Tom Stoppard wrote a one-act play called “The Real Inspector
Hound”? Not me, at least not until I read it online after seeing the movie. This is the type of movie that
likely has the 2019 smash hit “Knives Out” to thank for its greenlighting. But “Knives Out’s” popularity
was due primarily to its populism: It’s a charming, thrilling, funny well-written crowd-pleaser that
required almost no a priori knowledge to enjoy it wholeheartedly.

This is not to say that “See How They Run” cries out for a scholarly mastery of the genre, nor that one
must be well-versed in the works of Christie. But, I could definitely see how it would help. The movie is
forgettable but pleasing escapist fare for its 98 minutes on one level, but I suppose a deeper
appreciation requires the aforementioned depth of knowledge. I’m guessing the deep cuts will be a
bridge too far for most.

I likely fall into the former category. I’m not an especially astute student of the genre it both spoofs and
adores, and I haven’t read more than one Christie book. Having said that, it mostly worked okay for me.
I’m certain that some of what I suspect was supposed to be uproariously funny elicited a chuckle. The
biggest laughs came from the detective duo’s banter, with Rockwell’s pauses, sideways glances, and
other reactions to Ronan’s earnest over-explanations of nearly everything.

If you fancy classic whodunits, you will be happy to hear that, yes, there is a murder (or two?), an
investigation of various suspects, a surprise reveal and a delicious twist. Maybe you will be smart
enough to not only get the references but to discover the culprit before it is revealed on-screen. Or
maybe you will be like me, having a laugh without being fully immersed, always being reminded that
you’re watching a movie that not only knows it’s a movie, but knows it’s a murder mystery while it is also spoofing murder-mysteries, and, even knows that it would like to be faithful retelling of “The
Mousetrap,” but blimey, Dame Agatha has spoken, and it simply cannot be. But, this is the next best
thing.

Although if you have a chance to see “The Mousetrap” live, do take it. I promise I won’t spoil the ending.

By Mark R. LaRocco, 9.23.2022

The post Mild Cheers for this Cheeky Meta-Murder-Mystery appeared first on Utah.Film.

I was reminded of this nightmare while watching Jordan Peele’s latest film “Nope,” which broadly centers on a brother and sister who are determined to get photographic evidence of a UFO. This personal connection—among other things—made me want to like the film very much. Unfortunately, the good pieces never quite came together, and even left me concerned about the eerily familiar trajectory of Peele’s career.

A pair of dramatic opening scenes get “Nope” off to a tension-building start. In the first, a blood-soaked chimpanzee stalks the remains of a television studio he has rampaged. In the second, a pair of ranchers are surprised by a sudden shower of projectiles out of the sky, and one (Keith David) is killed by what appears to be an everyday nickel.

From there the film eases into its present day setting as we meet the characters who have survived each encounter. OJ (Daniel Kaluuya) is the son of the dead rancher, and now the owner of a struggling business providing horses to local Hollywood productions. Jupe (Steven Yeun) is a former child actor who survived the chimp attack, and now runs a Wild West theme park down the canyon from OJ.

We spend most of our time with OJ and his charismatic sister Emerald (Keke Palmer), who suspect that a UFO is responsible for their father’s death and other unexplained events around the ranch. After they recruit a local electronics salesman (Brandon Perea) to outfit the ranch with a high-tech surveillance system, the duo determines that high quality visual evidence of the UFO is their best ticket to financial security.

Tensions with Jupe’s park add to the unsettled feeling around the ranch, and it doesn’t help matters when Emerald steals one of their horse statues to bait the UFO. But eventually “Nope” settles in on a showdown between its primary characters and whatever is causing all the strangeness in the area.

“Nope” benefits from some great raw material, a knack for tension, and the reputation of its director, whose earlier films (“Get Out” and “Us”) have set a high standard for excellence in the horror genre. Like those films, “Nope” also touches on elements of racial tension, though not as predominately, and this time around the social commentary seems more focused on our cultural fixation on spectacle and celebrity.

The trouble is that the different pieces never quite come together into a satisfying whole, and some of the most vivid elements—such as the chimpanzee attack—don’t feel as critical late in the movie as they seemed to be early on. The third act showdown offers a good dose of widescreen wonder, but it doesn’t feel like enough of a payoff after the expectations set by the first act’s cryptic moodiness.

The result is a sci-fi/horror hybrid that isn’t “bad,” it’s just “fine.” But next to its predecessors—especially “Get Out”—it recalls the slow decline of M. Night Shyamalan’s early films, which started strong with “The Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable” before tapering off through “Signs”—another sci-fi/horror film with a so-so third act—and “The Village” before bottoming out in the late ‘00s.

Fortunately, some of Shyamalan’s work has been more of a return to form, but hopefully Peele won’t have to travel quite so far on that same road. “Nope” definitely has enough going for it to justify a peek—especially if you’re a Peele fan—but the key to this one might be managed expectations. It may remind you of your existing nightmares, but it probably won’t inspire any of its own.

“Nope” is rated R for profanity, violence (often implied more than seen), and frightening imagery.

The post UFO sci-fi horror ‘Nope’ is a step down from Peele’s best appeared first on Utah.Film.