Death of a Unicorn (2025)

 

So far my favorite horror film of the year is this entry starring Paul Rudd and Jenna Ortega along with some other veterans, in a tale that mixes fantasy and science. The easiest way to summarize this film is that it is a cross between science gone wrong movies and creature features. Think of it as Jurassic Park only with unicorns instead of dinosaurs.

An estranged father and daughter are traveling to a remote luxury retreat for a weekend so that he can be evaluated as a potential executor of a will for a dying millionaire. He already works for the company at a high level, but hopes to be entrusted with managing the heirs when they take over the company after the death of the patriarch. Rudd's character has brought his daughter, because he believes that the family that is about to lose its founder, values family above so many other things, that a demonstration of his own family values is necessary.

As usual I try to avoid giving away too much in the movie, if not entirely spoiler free, I certainly try to avoid things that make the movie distinct or valuable. Let's say that through a confluence of events, the patriarch, his family, they're small coterie of servants and the perspective executive are all soon threatened by some animals that are angry about the events taking place in the story. It is a little hard to warm up to most of these characters as they are either narcissistic or greedy and come off as entitled a holes, that or they are sniveling sycophants unable to take an action that they know is right but which might be perceived as weak by the others.

Richard Grant, Tea' Leoni, and Will Pouter managed to make privilege one of the most unappealing characteristics shown on screen this year. Pouter's character's amazing superpower is the ability to rationalize any stupid decision that he wants to make. It's fun listening to him talk and try to convince both the willing and the unwilling to accept his delusions. Leoni plays his mother, not as a nurturing parent but as an enabler willing to put up with his whining. Grant, as the dying patriarch, manages to create a transformation of selfishness so quickly that we are perfectly willing to let his character die, even though the Fates seem to be in his favor at times.

I can't make it a secret that there are unicorns in the movie, there are. The creatures depicted here are a nightmares version of the traditional mythology of the Unicorn. That is at least to some degree, because it is the failure of the humans that produces eventual mythological creature. The movie has very funny moments but it never reduces itself to a slapstick or parody of more serious movies. If we can accept the fantasy premise in Jurassic Park, we should be able to accept the fantasy in this film, and treat the threat with the same degree of seriousness that we did the Rogue dinosaurs.

The story does take a few shortcuts, and there is one huge inferential leap that is required in order for us to understand the nature the unicorns. Once we passed that point however, I think the film plays it straight with the story that it is set up. There are a couple of ex machina moments near the end of the movie that might undermine the credibility of its premises, but let's face it, we are talking about a movie about unicorns, let's not get carried away with story verisimilitude.

Hell of a Summer (2025)

 

We got a chance to see this fun little horror film, a little early, as it was being presented in a promotional screening that included streaming Q&A from two of the Stars who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film. Finn Wolfhard and Billy Bryk, are our young actors who have come up with a script and somehow got the green light to make the movie. Wolfhard would be familiar to most of you as Mike from “Stranger Things”. The youngsters have been watching their '80s horror movies and they have a pretty good grasp of the tropes that they want to take advantage of in their little concoction.

The movie is set at a summer camp, had a remote location, with the camp counselors arriving early in preparation for this season's Camp session. One of the counselors is returning for the 6th time as a counselor, at the age of 24 is a little old be working this as a summer job, but it appears to be his dream, and he loves what he's doing. The character is Jason, as if that is not a tribute to earlier horror films, and he is a nebbish but sincere guy who just wants to have the best summer ever. The younger counselors, come from a slightly different generation, and they have a hard time understanding Jason and his enthusiasm for outdoor activities.

The film is a comedy, but it takes the murders fairly seriously. The only time one of the deaths has a cartoon quality to it is in the opening scene, when a guitar is used as a grizzly marker for murder. Other than that tuneful moment, the deaths themselves, even as they pile up, are treated as real murders and not as the punchline to an elaborate joke where the death of a teenager is supposed to be laughed at. So the film is very much in keeping with the tone of the early Friday the 13th or Halloween movies.

Most of the humor occurs when the counselors panic about how to respond to all of the death, and they false the accused Jason of being the murderer. They're attempted solution to the problem offers lots of opportunities for us to laugh at the callousness and the cluelessness of this new generation of campers. The two step brothers, who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film, also offer us a lot of humorous moments as they bicker like siblings might, over little things such as who gets to sit in the front seat of the car. They did a pretty good job letting us know something about the characters in the film, so that we care a bit about the outcome. There are one or two small Clues as to who is responsible for the killings, those come early on and if you are not paying attention it would be easy to miss them and have to wait for the reveal when it shows up. I'm perfectly willing to say that I miss them the first time around, but I appreciate it that the screenwriters made an effort to give us a chance to honestly solve the puzzle before they do.

In addition to the humor, the main draw of the film will be the Practical effects that are used to present the deaths. There is solid work done by the makeup team, but they don't go overboard and try to make things so gross that we are reacting to just the physical image more than the concept of what's been done to these poor kids. The character of Jason is also a rich source of humor in the film, since he wants to be at the camp at all, and eventually wants to take on the role of hero, in spite of being accused by and tied up by the other counselors.

Maybe it takes a while to get things started after we had those initial kills, but I just thought that that was good storytelling. I have no objection to a slow burn as long as it pays off, and I think hell of a summer paid off pretty well. It's a solid first part of the Apple for the two aspiring filmmakers, and it should satisfy people who have a love for horror movies rooted in the 1980s.

Locked (2025)

 

Here's a simple premise for a film that should be able to be shot on a budget with the exception of salaries for the two main stars. We have been on a bit of a Bill Skarsgård kick for the last year or so, and this film features him in every scene, and he doesn't have to share the screen with anybody for any 80% of the movie. He does have a co-star, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who only appears by voice for the first two acts of the film, and shows up in the last third for an extended sequence with a more direct confrontation between antagonists.

Skarsgård's character plays a petty Thief, who's trying to get enough money together to pay for repairs to his van. He professes a desire to stick to the straight and narrow, in a job is a delivery driver. It is clear however from the cold shoulder he gets from former acquaintances, that he is used up any Goodwill and Trust he might have had, as they all refuse to assist him. He attempts a few minor crimes before encountering I'm unlocked luxury SUV. Thinking he's hit the jackpot he jumps in and discovers that it is an elaborate trap by frequently vandalized and victimized wealthy doctor, who is decided to take some justice individuality form by imprisoning any car thief who deems to try and Rob him again.

We have to suspend our disbelief a little bit, because the technology involved here, well it is all possible, seems very complicated to utilize intervene plot like this. We do however discover that the doctor is motivated by Deep resentment against criminals who have taken the life of his daughter, a promising college student. Scarsgard finds himself locked in the car unable to escape and subject to tortures imposed by his invisible Captor. The actor manages to convey appropriate degrees of panic, resentment, and remorse. They're also frequent outbursts of anger that give an actor the opportunity to stretch those skills that are so often prized by directors. Although at some point we are supposed to pity the thief, there is plenty such to suggest that what he's getting up to a certain point is not undeserved.

The high point of the film occurs when Hopkins takes remote control of the vehicle and drives it to a location that he is found. He gets in and takes physical control not just virtual control of the situation. The film does suggest some political themes, most of which have been around for at least 50 years. Echoing the problems confronted by Dirty Harry or by Paul Kersey in the death wish films, Hopkins is enraged by a system that seems to tolerate criminal Behavior, and value the rights of repeat offenders over the need for justice for victims. Up to the point where he makes clear that he's going to take skarsgard's life, he has a very rational philosophy. When however he oversteps his bounds, Hopkins himself becomes a similar kind of monster, and we are left with rooting for one monster or the other. Because Skarsgård's characters daughter is still alive, it becomes apparent that that is where our sympathy is supposed to lie.

The petty tortures and monologuing provided by Hopkins are the primary reasons that this film is interesting. Most of us would try to identify with the captured Thief and figure out how to survive for the circumstances we find ourselves in. The sense of powerlessness is overwhelming at times, especially when Skarsgård is tortured by lack of water or food. But of course that powerlessness is exactly what Hopkins character felt when nothing was done in regard to the murder of his daughter, or the multiple robberies of his vehicles.

So it is a one-man show for the most part, but when Hopkins shows up in person, it is clear he is having way too much fun playing another villain and savoring the chaos he's imposing on his victim. The climax of the film does involve a lot more action than we've gotten in the previous 80 minutes, so the film is a Slow Burn but with a fairly satisfying conclusion. I can recommend it as an actor's piece, and as a mediation on the injustice of our own justice system.

Black Bag (2025)

 

t's taken us almost 3 months to get to a film that might be worthy of end-of-year consideration for a top 10 list. Stephen Soderberg had a movie out in February that I missed, a horror film called presence. If that movie was as good as this one I'm definitely going to have to go back and catch it, because black bag is a very good film. This is a movie with three or four very brief action scenes, but a whole lot of plotting and clever interaction between the characters. This is a spy film that takes the world of espionage more seriously, and as a result is a lot more complex.

The film stars Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett as married agents of MI6, who in there personal lives sometimes have to close off what they're working on from their partner. When they're responsibilities intersect, there's usually going to be trouble and that's exactly what you get in this film. There is a MacGuffin, but we actually know what it does so unlike the ambiguity of a Hitchcock film, we understand the stakes once the plot reveals itself. Fassbender's character is tasked with finding the person Within the agency who is responsible for selling off a very dangerous piece of software. Blanchette meanwhile is in pursuit of the same software but in the form of a customer trying to lure the technology into the open. These cross purposes are going to lead to complications, but the resolution of these complications will be pretty clever.

I like the fact that there's a lot of conversation, especially in the First Act, most of which is there to establish the secondary characters and Main suspects in the plot. We also get a sense of what our two main characters are capable of, and if you listen to what they say we also get a sense of their Devotion to one another. That commitment is one of the twists that drives the plot, because someone is counting on these two putting their personal lives above the professional responsibilities. The film I think this is most comparable to is the 2011 version of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. That film, led by Gary Oldman, is full of complicated plot twists and characters with multiple motives, that you will get lost in if you are not paying close attention. It would be very dangerous to go to the bathroom and miss any scene in the movie. Black bag is exactly the same kind of film. If you are not paying close attention you are going to miss something. I suspect that this will be a terrible movie for people to be watching on their phone, you are here by warned.

As usual the two leads are spectacular. Fassbender's character seems cold and calculating on the outside, and to be intellectually Superior to everybody else in the agency. This of course also leaves him not with friends but with Associates. He takes advantage of the leverage that he gains over these associates through his personal connections and his professional responsibilities. The way in which he uses this power seems cruel at times but it certainly is efficient. Blanchet is a field agent and we get a couple of opportunities to see her in operation, and she certainly seems ruthless herself. At one point she makes a decision, one which would probably not be supported by her superiors, but which shows that she is decisive and capable.

Black bag may not be for everyone, because it is a slow burn in the first half, and a rapid goalie coalition coalescence of Clues and threads at the climax. I thought the resolution was quite satisfying, and there's even a political element to the film that is not wholly objectionable. At least it doesn't have the same irritating element to it that I found in the last James Bond film,

Novocaine (2025)

 

In the last few years there have been a number of films that have tried to milk humor out of violence or gruesome images. Just this last month the monkey and Love Hurts tried to accomplish just that and feel completely. Those filmmakers would have done well to watch Novocaine first so that they can see how you balance the violence and humor with characters that you give a damn about. this movie works primarily because we care about the main character.

Jack Quaid appeared in the other movie that I've appreciated this year companion from a couple of months ago. He has a persona that comes across as somewhat innocent and open-hearted. In the previous film, his character turned out to be more devious than we anticipated. That was a nice twist. Novocaine has a Twist as well, but that twist is not really about the lead character. Novocaine himself, remains innocently optimistic and surprisingly resilient in the face of what are overwhelming odds. He has his condition working against him, is very little in the way of support, and his adversaries are ruthless.

For those of you who haven't seen anything about the film, the character has a condition that prevents him from feeling pain. It is also prevented him from enjoying life very much. When he finally meets someone who seems to be willing to help him embrace some of the difficulties he's facing, you can understand why he would be willing to go to the lengths that he does to help her. His new girlfriend is kidnapped during a bank robbery, and Novocaine gets involved in a series of chases, fist fights, and shootouts that most of us would have bailed out on much earlier. The earnest and obstinate Novocaine is not dissuaded by the hardships inflicted on him, largely because he is able to brush off what would be painful injuries to most of us. That does not mean he is immune to the damage being done to his body, only that he doesn't respond to it immediately. He still needs to be bandaged up, sanitized, and eventually seen by medical professionals.

The character is not immune to the emotional reaction that some of his confrontations are going to produce. There's a big laugh when he vomits in the moment when he realizes he is just killed an adversary. He gets frustrated by some of the silly booby traps encounters in the house of one of the people is pursuing. Emotionally he's a little overwhelmed by the girl he is falling in love with, and a little taken aback by the reality of his online friend, who is not the imposing presence he was expecting. Jack Quaid as an actor, communicates most of these emotions on his face. Disappointment, fear, and frustration show up there when he has to engage in some physical activity that causes damage to either himself or an opponent. It is those reactions, that let the humor land, instead of just rolling off us like it does in those other movies that I mentioned. 

There are a couple of twists in the story, one which we see coming, and one that was a surprise to me at least. There are a number of characters that are part of the main plot, who could use a little bit more development, but the script does give us a quick sketch of the cops who are following Novocaine, in the crooks that he himself is pursuing. After the twist is revealed, we can see some of the seeds that were planted earlier in the film, so that the change doesn't feel completely out of nowhere. The plot is mostly a device to allow our lead character to man up and take advantage of his unique physical impediment. But there are some emotional connections that also make for your work, we get a pretty good idea why he falls in love so deeply and quickly. There's a little bit of explanation as to why his previous virtual friend turns out to be somebody who can be reliable in real life.

In a film filled with broken bones, nails and knives and bullets doing damage to human being, it would be surprising to know the reactions that these situations provoke. These hard to look at jokes land very regularly, and provoke laughter more than they do disgust. That's why Novocaine has been the most entertaining film I've seen so far this year.

Mickey 17 (2025)

 

The obvious joke here is that "Mickey 17" is not as good as the original "Mickey" but better than "Mickey 16". Obvious would be an appropriate way to go because that is what this movie does, make obvious every point of view that the director has. Bong Joon Ho has made a screed about the economic issues he sees as being wrong in the world, and he has populated it with a mix of cardboard cit out villains, environmental wonkiness and odd visual touches. The movie still looks like a big budget science fiction action film, but it is one of the most unengaging films I have seen in years.

Robert Pattinson, plays the titular character as a naïf, lost among a crowd of zealots who are slowly losing their patience with the circumstances they find themselves in.  It is only his innate ability as an actor, that allows the character to work as much as it does. The script really gives us no reason to care about Mickey, other than the fact that he is the central figure. There is a supposed romance as part of the story, but it happens so fast and seems so perfunctory, that when it is threatened, we really don't care.  

The biggest problem I had was that the tone of the movie changes inconsistently. Certainly the comedic elements are important, but they are off, like a comic with good jokes but bad timing. The humor needs to hit a little bit more quickly at times, and then move on. Too often the comedy feels drawn out as if it is a sketch on SNL that would have worked as a three minute bit, but has been given an eight minute segment to fill. The parts that rely on Pattinson are the most effective, unfortunately, Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette keep showing up and spoiling what might have been amusing. Their cartoon characters are not funny, but obnoxiously irritating. Both Ruffalo and Collette are fine actors but they are being directed to over the top performances which are not funny. The strident parody of privilege is so on the nose and exaggerated that it cheapens the film. 

The opening act should give us more opportunities to see the lives that Mickey is burning through, instead we get a montage that illustrates the points and uses up all the humor from the premise in just a few minutes. Also, I know it may seem strange to look for a logical explanation for why something happens in a film like this, but suspending your disbelief can't work if you are going to break your own rules. Mickey 18 either has a defect, which needs to be explained, or the script just doesn't care about characters, only stereotypes. 

By the time we got to the third act conflict with an alien species and the maniacal cult leaders, I just did not care anymore, and that was with forty minutes at least left in the film. To say that this movie was a disappointment would be an understatement. I thought "Snowpiercer" was over praised but "Parasite" was deserving of the accolades that it got. This movie will probably develop a cult following of it's own. All those people who are fans of bad movies like "Lifeforce" where you can see the potential but the execution leaves you scratching your head and asking "How did this get made?' should enjoy watching this over the next twenty years, I just wish I enjoyed it the one time I've seen it.  

The Social Network (2010) Revisit

 

This movie was released the year I started blogging. I did not cover it then, because for most of my posts in 2010, I was devoted to the Summers of the 70s project I was working on. At the end of the year however, I did post a top ten list for 2010 releases and this movie was listed there. The quality of the picture could hardly be in doubt when it is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher. Fifteen years later, and twenty years after it became the ubiquitous presence in our lives, the story of the creation of Facebook remains compelling. The technical skills of the engineers is really just a side part of the story, the real driving force is the willful personalities of the founders and the motivations they had for their project.

The complex relationships and implied legal commitments are a fascinating history in how start ups come into being and people get rich or go broke in the process. The one factor that I want to focus on for a moment is not really related to the Facebook story per se. The setting of the foundations of Facebook is the Harvard University Campus. Obviously a prestigious institution with a well deserved reputation for producing excellence. It also has another reputation that is less flattering, that of a privileged class of entitled snobs who view others as beneath their consideration. Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed in the film by Jesse Eisenberg, is a great example of this in the opening scene. He snarkly  condescends to his girlfriend who is only enrolled at Boston University. You might think that this is just a personal failing of a brilliant student with social limitations that might put him on the Asperger's spectrum, that is until you encounter all the other elitist behaviors depicted at the University. Elite clubs that engage in juvenile fraternity hazing rituals, parties filled with attractive girls from local schools who are interested in trading sexual favors for contact with the special elites at Harvard, and the entitled whining of  the children of privilege  when they don't get their way. Maybe one of the reasons that some many people in this country have developed a distaste for the elites is that they have seen this movie.

Zuckerberg is a much more well known figure these days, and his time in the spotlight has probably tamed some of the quirks that are depicted in the film (real or imagined). The lawyers shown in the film are mostly despised by the character, who unwisely shows that distain in answering questions and conveying the kind of attitude that a jury in a civil case would punish like crazy. Trump got whacked by juries without ever having testified, imagine what would have happened had Zuckerberg out did the impervious Donald in front of a jury. As was made clear at the end of the film, his case was mostly damage control, and it was self inflicted. 

The film structure is primarily chronological with occasional inserts of later legal proceedings to add context and weight to the things that Sorkin and Fincher chose to emphasize. Eisenberg is terrific as the pig headed genius without the social skills needed to survive outside of the virtual world he lives in. Andrew Garfield as the best friend that Zuckerberg betrays was extremely convincing. Armie hammer plays the twin Winklevoss rival is believable as two distinct individuals. Justin Timberlake steals most of the scenes he is in as the repulsive Sean Parker. who created Napster and became a parasite member of the Facebook team. 

Seeing an older film in a theater reminds me of the original experience when I saw the movie the first time. It's good to be impressed by a cinematic accomplishment in the cinema, rather than on TV.