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.

For the “Thor: Love and Thunder” soundtrack, director Taika Waititi uses Guns ‘n Roses the same way he used Led Zeppelin for “Thor: Ragnarok” in 2017. Guns ‘n Roses was a great band, far superior to most all its peers, but it was no Led Zeppelin. And “Love and Thunder,” for all its zany chaos, is no “Ragnarok.”

“Love and Thunder” picks up in the aftermath of 2019’s “Endgame,” which left the titular demigod hero teaming up with the Guardians of the Galaxy for some outer space adventures. When we catch up with the gang, a cheeky voiceover from rock monster Korg (still voiced by Waititi) tells us how Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has shed his post-“Infinity War” beer gut and now acts as a literal Deux ex Machina for the Guardians whenever they find themselves overmatched against some interstellar foe.

The story gets going once the crew decides it’s time to part ways, and the Guardians set off on what will presumably form the plot of their third movie. Thor, for his part, has a more personalized foe to deal with. A mysterious villain named Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale) has been slaughtering Thor’s fellow demi-gods, and even kidnapped some of the Asgardian younglings. So our blonde-locked hero recruits some old friends—like Korg and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson)–to face the new threat.

In the process, he meets up with his old girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who has taken up Thor’s old hammer Mjolnir and transformed into a new hero dubbed The Mighty Thor. What Thor doesn’t know is that Jane is dying of cancer, and only using the hammer to postpone the inevitable.

In the meantime, everyone is getting in on the weapon game. Thor is still swinging his Stormbreaker axe, and to take on Gorr, he and Valkryie conspire to get a magic lightning bolt from Zeus (Russell Crowe) when their appeal for the Greek god’s help falls on mocking ears. Even Gorr is weapon-dependent. He’s only able to slaughter demigods because of a magic sword that came to him when his own deity let his daughter die of starvation.

What’s strange about all this underscores one of “Love and Thunder’s” weaknesses. One of the main points of “Ragnarok” was to show Thor that his powers weren’t rooted in his hammer, or any other weapon. The power was in himself. Yet throughout “Love and Thunder,” the fixation on Stormbreaker, Mjolnir, and the others—while it lends plenty of opportunity for laughs—seems to ignore that point.

The bigger issue is the way the humor—which reinvented (and arguably saved) the Thor franchise in “Ragnarok”—feels so jarring against the attempts for serious moments in “Love and Thunder.” Maybe it’s just because those “serious” moments try to carry more weight this time around—the mourning Gorr is substantially more imposing than “Ragnarok’s” megalomaniacal Hela (Cate Blanchett) on an emotional level—but the back and forth clashes awkwardly.

Even with those shortcomings, “Love and Thunder” still stands as an example of why Waititi and the Thor franchise loom head and shoulders above so much of what Marvel is producing in its post-“Endgame” meanderings. There are still plenty of references to other characters and situations, but witty dialogue and narration go a long ways toward keeping the audience on board, and the result is nowhere near the encyclopedic mess we just got with “Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.” Waititi still seems to be having a great time taking the piss out of the superhero genre, while simultaneously offering some of its most triumphant and outrageous moments. Even if “Love and Thunder” feels more like a sequel than a revelation, fans should enjoy the ride.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is rated PG-13 for chaotic superhero mayhem and violence, as well as some sexual content (Hemsworth’s bare backside, played for laughs).

The post ‘Love and Thunder’ is a step down from ‘Ragnarok,’ but pretty good for post-‘Endgame’ MCU appeared first on Utah.Film.

As much as I enjoyed “Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” and with all due respect to Mr. Nicholas Cage, I think “Top Gun: Maverick” just took over my top spot for Favorite Movie of 2022 (So Far). It is a perfect blend of cheeky nostalgia, thrilling action, and throwback adventure. And this is coming from a guy who didn’t even like the original movie all that much.

The first “Top Gun” was a perfectly good action movie, but I think I was a little more into science fiction when it came out, so I never really embraced it the way some of my peers did. And when I heard they were finally making a sequel, I was skeptical. Sequels have a rough enough success rate after ten years, let alone 35.

All of this is to say that I went into “Maverick” with modest expectations, and enjoyed the movie all the more as a result. Joseph Kosinski’s “Maverick” is a pure, fist-pumping joy. It is a perfect summer blockbuster.

The story opens with Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise) working as a test pilot, still stuck as a Captain after all these years because he can’t help living up to his call sign. But as frustrating as he is to Navy brass, Maverick is still the best, so when they are faced with training a team of pilots for an impossible mission (maybe a mission impossible?), they know there is only one man to call.

Thus Maverick returns to Top Gun, the elite pilot training outfit that launched (pun slightly intended) his career in the first film. Here he finds a dozen highly competitive alphas, a former love interest (Jennifer Connelly), and an even bigger ghost from his past: Rooster (Miles Teller), the son of Maverick’s deceased best friend Goose (Anthony Edwards).

Will Maverick be able to get along with Rooster? Will he get fired from the program for pushing the rules a little too far? Will the team pull off their impossible mission? Honestly, you can probably answer all of these questions without watching the movie, but in spite of some predictability, “Maverick” follows its classic ‘80s action movie formula so well that you don’t mind.

Part of this is because of the skillful use of nostalgia, using music cues and throwback visuals to reconnect the audience to the original film. Yes, there’s even a tribute to that ridiculous beach volleyball scene. The best example by far is a heartwarming and heartbreaking scene between two characters that has powerful ties to real life. (Let’s just say you might want to watch last year’s “Val” in preparation.)

But all the nostalgia is complemented by top notch action production, intense pacing, and impressive execution. Twenty years into the 21^st century, we’ve become accustomed to accepting visuals that look great but are clearly CGI-enhanced. “Maverick” looks and feels 100% real, almost timeless, as if it could have been filmed in 1986, 2000, or 2050.

The third act feels a little rushed, but is still a huge crowd pleaser, and after waiting two extra years to be able to see this IMAX juggernaut in theaters, “Maverick” stands as a perfect example of why some movies need to be seen on the big screen. Take it from someone who only considers himself a mild fan of the first film: “Top Gun: Maverick” is the larger-than-life action experience you’ve been waiting for.

The post ‘Maverick’ is a spectacular return to the Danger Zone appeared first on Utah.Film.

A month or two back I re-watched the original “Ghostbusters.” Re-watching a favorite movie from your childhood can be a tricky thing, but I was happy to see that my memories of greatness weren’t just soaked in nostalgia. “Ghostbusters” really is a fantastic movie, with a swagger and a charm all its own.

I wasn’t nervous going into “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” earlier this week, but I was well aware of the track record for long-awaited comedy sequels. As much as I enjoyed movies like “Zoolander” and “Anchorman”—and I’d put TV’s “Arrested Development” on this list, too—their follow-ups rarely amounted to more than glorified reunion specials.

“Afterlife” looked like it was going to be more of a passing of the torch, like “Force Awakens,” focusing on a new group of up-and-coming heroes to carry the story into the future. I make a point of avoiding as much of the spoiler-filled pre-publicity I can for these kinds of movies, but what little I did see didn’t suggest much participation from the original cast.

So I went in with cautious optimism.

What I found wasn’t perfect, but it was genuinely fun. It also tugged at the heartstrings and played the nostalgia card, though not quite in the way I expected. I would have re-written the hasty and clumsy third act, but overall, “Afterlife” is one of the rare movies from the last two years that I’d be happy to watch again. And for a lot of people, that’s really all you need to know.

But for the sake of everyone else, here’s a little more detailed breakdown:

“Afterlife” picks up in our present day, almost (cough) 40 years after Manhattan first fell under the trance of a paranormal infestation and the witty quartet of heroes who rose to fight it. This time, though, we’re far from New York City, though some spooky happenings at a rickety old farmhouse in Oklahoma hit some familiar chords.

After a mysterious opening scene, a single mother and her two kids arrive in town to inherit the farmhouse, which, since they’re down on their luck, will be their permanent home for the forseeable future. For teenage Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), that isn’t so bad, once he scopes out a pretty girl at the local drive-in. For his kid sister Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), it might mean a ticket out of social isolation. For mom (Carrie Coon), it could even mean a new relationship, in the form of Phoebe’s summer school science teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd).

At a steady pace, the scenes to come reveal what has really been going on at that old farmhouse, and that the previous owner was none other than Egon Spengler, brainiest of the Ghostbusters, and apparently a delinquent dad. Separately, Phoebe and Trevor manage to dig up Egon’s proton pack and the original Ecto-1, and the more they learn about their grandfather’s work, we realize they’ve come along at just the right time.

What results is a charming balance of nostalgic callbacks and clever storytelling, powered by likable new characters and sharp direction from Jason Reitman, whose father Ivan directed the original film. Again, the foreboding build of the first two acts becomes a little rushed once everything goes crazy in the third, but no one should walk away from the theater unhappy.

Movies like this always go out of their way to offer up a strong dose of nostalgia for longtime fans, and “Afterlife” is packed with plenty of knowing nods to its past. But what makes this one different is its very conscious effort to memorialize Harold Ramis, the actor who played Egon, and who passed away back in 2014. “Afterlife” could have a whole host of technical problems, and still be forgiven for the way it is determined to embrace its fallen hero. When you roll in the real-life relationship between Ramis and Bill Murray, then consider how even the original film acted as a kind of memorial for writer/actor Dan Aykroyd’s buddy John Belushi, the “Ghostbusters” films really take on a special and unexpected quality.

Altogether, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” won’t make the short list for Best Picture at the Oscars, but it will be remembered as one of the best movies of 2021.

The post ‘Afterlife’ isn’t perfect, but it is the ‘Ghostbusters’ sequel you’ve been waiting for. appeared first on Utah.Film.

Walking out of the “Eternals” press screening, the snarky jokes seem ready made. You could say something connecting the movie’s name to its two-and-a-half-hour running time, or just say it’s “Avengers, but boring.” Some of the criticism is unfair, because “Eternals” isn’t solely responsible for the glut of superhero burnout fodder it arrives in. But make no mistake, “Eternals” has problems.

The concept has potential, even if it isn’t exactly riveting stuff. The Eternals are a special group of heroes designated by the godlike Celestials to protect humanity from a predatory race called Deviants. They’ve been around for thousands of years, and now live among humans in plain sight, their duties mostly fulfilled centuries ago.

You can sense how this might raise some questions, since as with all Marvel properties, the Eternals are supposed to inhabit the same universe as the Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and every other comic franchise under the late Stan Lee’s tent. That’s why early on the characters have a fourth-wall straining discussion to explain why they never got involved when Thanos decided to wipe out half the universe.

This is a problem. It was awkward enough when “Endgame” had to shoehorn in a weak explanation for why Captain Marvel wasn’t around for “Infinity War.” As much as I love the idea of the shared universe, adding exposition to explain all these plot holes to the audience just makes the issue worse.

Anyway, the plot for “Eternals” gets going when one of their ranks mysteriously turns up dead, suggesting that the Deviants are back on the warpath. Of course, there’s a lot more to the situation than that, and when the Eternals discover some long-hidden secrets concerning the true purposes of their mission, things get dicey, even between the heroes themselves.

As another “team of heroes” ensemble movie, “Eternals” has to introduce us to each primary character, and without the advantage of a previous origin movie for every hero, this leads to some issues. For one thing, there are ten–TEN!–different Eternals, way too many to care about, or in this movie, even differentiate with any effectiveness. It may be unfair to hold “Eternals” to “Avengers” standards, but the result feels like getting blasted in the face with a firehose filled with a soft drink you don’t particularly like.

The biggest problem with “Eternals,” is that it’s just dull. It really does feel like a muted, watered-down version of “Avengers,” without the benefit of years of cinematic familiarity. The direction doesn’t help; Chloe Zhao’s moody, bleak, and ponderous visuals and tone were a perfect fit for the melancholy “Nomadland,” but this movie isn’t about the downside of #vanlife. It’s supposed to capture and inspire the imagination.

Again, some of the criticism here has to be directed at the greater state of the Marvel Universe, and at superhero movies in general. But even if “Eternals” shouldn’t be held accountable for post-“Endame” malaise, it certainly isn’t doing anything to get non-diehard audiences excited for more.

Comic book movies don’t have to be funny, and they don’t all have to be built on ten years’ worth of studio strategy. But they should be fun. “Eternals” is not fun.

The post Marvel’s ‘Eternals’ are not the heroes you’re looking for. appeared first on Utah.Film.