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. 

Phantom of the Opera (2004) Watch Party

 

Alamo Drafthouse is a Theater chain which is also a restaurant and a culture center. The Alamo Theaters frequently program older films, indies and foreign fare and it would be to say they don't put in an effort to satisfy as many people as possible. This week, they celebrated the 20th anniversary of the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the Opera".  Directed by the man who nearly killed the Batman Franchise with his color palate and costumes with nipples, Joel Schumacher. This was really a fortuitous combination, because Schumacher's sense of style matched up well with the romantic extravagance of the Broadway musical.

This was a watch party, so unlike the strict silence policy usually in place at Alamo, the audience is encouraged to cheer, sing along, shout out quotes when they come up, and generally have a more interactive time. We had a hostess for the party who distributed masks, candles, wristbands and roses with black ribbons as we entered the theater. We were treated to trailers for other versions of this property, including Brian DePalma's film, Clause Rains as the Phantom and even the Phantom of the Mall.  Before our film started, the hostess set up the ground rules and encouraged us to respectfully interact with the film and one another. She also got two fans up to do their best operatic delivery of a line from one of the songs. They both were great. And then the movie began.

I had seen the stage musical several time before the movie had come out. The family had gone twice when the touring company was in Hollywood, so we looked forward to the movie a great deal. It was our family Christmas film in 2004 and we were all pleased with it. That has been up to now the only time I saw it in a theater. This experience justifies a little more attention as I am prone to with a theatrical experience. Of the criticisms I have heard of the film version, the most typical is that Gerard Butler was not as good a fit as many wanted. Watching him in the gritty roles he plays nowadays, it might be hard to imagine him in this romantic musical. He was not a trained singer, but he was effective enough. Christine is supposed to be a singer, the Phantom is a secret tutor. I don't think tutor in singing would automatically be an accomplished vocalist. Also, the Phantom is supposed to have some physical deformities, so his slight imperfection works fine. Butler was young and handsome in the role and it was easy to see the appeal he had in spite of the mask.

There are some structural changes in the story that purists might object to. The chandelier crash occurs at the end of the film rather than at the end of act one. There is an extended swordfight between Raoul and the Phantom that was not in the original production. Finally, fans of the stage musical might be confused by the bookend flashback sequences, which work for a film but would have been complicated on stage. 

On the plus side, the three main leads all do their own singing, only Mini Driver, who actually has trained as a singer, was dubbed. I have to give special attention to actress Emmy Rossum who plays and sings the part of Christine. She was only sixteen when the movie was being shot, and at the risk of seeming a little creepy, I think she is one of the most beautiful women I have seen in a movie. It doesn't hurt that she is in some period lingerie that accentuates her physical beauty. When you hear her sing, the image is complete and we know why the Phantom was obsessed with her. Patrick Wilson, who plays Raoul, is also very young and he looks baby-faced compared to his subsequent film roles. 

Director Schumacher did some nice work setting mood and visualizing a bigger canvas. In the opening, we see the footlights lighting up, as we transition from the sepia tone black and white bookend of the auction, to color as the first performance in the Opera house begins. You can see that moment in the trailer above if you like. The arms holing the wall sconces in the chambers leading to the Phantom's lair are actual human arms that are gold and sway to the melody of the scene. Later, when Raoul is descending through those hallways, the look is gothic, and black grey, which suggests that the Phantom's voice influenced Christine's memory of the trip. This was a nice flourish that feels very much like something Schumacher would do.

If you are not a fan of Lloyd Webber's music, you are noy going to care for this. If however, you are a romantic, and a theater geek, and a horror fan, "The Phantom of the Opera" is excellent. It is best with an audience in a theater to get the ambient sound of the music right. Lucky for me, that is the party I went to last night. 

The Monkey (2025)

 

Okay, I have given writer/director Osgood Perkins two chances now, to show me something worthwhile  in his horror films, he has not passed my smell test. I could tell ten minutes into this film that it was a stinker, but that some people were going to like it. I had almost the exact same reaction to it that I had with "Longlegs". The longer the movie went on, the less I cared about anything that was happening. The only element of this that I can say might work, are the gory deaths, which are shown in plenty of detail to satisfy anyone who only cares about how gruesome something can be. 

Horror movies ought to build suspense or dread. At the very least there should be a couple of jump scares to goose us into paying attention. "The Monkey" has none of those things. The main thing driving this story is the cynicism of the characters, and the depression that every one of the main figures seems to be suffering from. Twin brothers, abandoned by their father, inherit a  wind up toy monkey that appears to be cursed. That appearance is because every time the toy is wound up, when it finishes it's musical performance, someone dies a horrible and grizzly death. No one cares why, no one really talks about it, and the fact that the dad ran away from it seems to suggest that the damage could be controlled is the toy is just left alone. There is a supernatural addendum as well, the toy can reconstruct itself. Whatever.

When the twins are younger, in their early teens, one is a bully and the other is a morose wimp who is bullied not only by his brothers but by a gang of girls, for no reason whatsoever. Once they realize the danger of the toy, it gets used once in an act of revenge that backfires, and subsequently, it randomly kills some others around them. The tone of the film is supposed to be nihilistically comic, but the laughs stopped coming for me early on. I can clearly see where the turning point for me was. A minister, delivering a sermon at a funeral is shown to be a naïf  idiot, for no reason except for an audience reaction, but not the audience in the church, the one in the theater. I was not amused and then spent the rest of the time continuing to be unamused. 

Theo James plays the grown up brothers in the second two thirds of the film. Timid Hal has inexplicably been married, had a child and continued to be a miserable trod upon person. The intervening twenty five years are not explained and what pushes the estrangement of Hal from his son is left up to us to imagine. Supposedly, it was to keep his son free of the curse, but why would he think he needed to do that since they were curse free for two plus decades? Bad Bill seems to want revenge, but why twenty five years go by before he seeks to extract it is also unexplained. All we know is that Bill seems to have started the Monkey curse again, and the people from their small hometown are the ones randomly paying for it. The climax of the film creates a series of grim deaths for multiple random people. In concept, some of those should be funny, but in execution, they just are there without an emotional payoff of any type. 

It is clearly the directors deadpan style that does not work for me. Fans of Jim Jarmusch may like this. It reminded me of his "The Dead Don't Die". Which by the way I also did not care for, but at least it had a point of view. This is an exploitation of cynical gore effects, without a story to back them up. The main characters were unpleasant, the deaths while inventive, were not shocking or scary, they just exist in this snow globe of body parts and viscera. 

Paddington in Peru (2025)

 

This was probably my most anticipated film of 2025. I have been charmed by Paddington in two previous films, both of which I can say are of the utmost quality and have huge entertainment value. While our wonderful title character continues to provide whimsical charisma a plenty, it is not enough to overcome the story foundations of this film. "Paddington in Peru" is the first of these movies that feels completely like a children's film. There is not enough here to sustain love for a long period of time, there is just enough to keep it interesting for it's run time, but that's all.

Maybe the fact that the movie switches from a simple visit back to Peru to see Aunt Lucy, to suddenly becoming a missing bear film with a treasure hunt thrown in, makes it feel contrived rather than clever. We still get the bear out of water moments that made the first two movies so winning, but here they feel a little less natural and manufactured. Paddington manages to get the Brown family to accompany him because of a new boss at Mr. Brown's work, who wants the actuarials of the insurance company to take some risks. My, what a coincidence. The pending empty nest of the Browns is also an incentive to take a journey to the Amazon. 

Once they arrive in South America, we can feel that there is something afoot. The new characters introduced are much too blasé about a missing  bear, and the clues are a little obvious. When we encounter Antonio Banderas as a boat captain for hire, we start to cross the line into silliness. The captain has his own quirks and those become a side show to the main story. Olivia Coleman joins Banderas as the characters doing their best to live up to the standard provided by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant in the previous movies, but even their combined efforts fall short. This is the storytelling, not the actors fault.

Too many things in the movie just feel random. I know that happened in the other stories too, but there was usually an explanation or a gag that made it fit together. I never felt like it jelled as well with this film. Maybe, with characters like this, you need a stronger story. Tot Story has succeeded four times, because they spent time making a story worth telling rather than a story that simply allows us to continue with the characters. 

"Paddington in Peru" is not a bad movie, but it was a disappointment for me, simply because my expectations were so high. By all means go and see this film, the main character continues to be a delight. Just hold down you expectations and be sure to take some kids with you, they will probably enjoy some of the treasure hunt. 

Hell or High Water (2016) Revisit

 

For my money, this was the best film of 2016. I originally had La La Land in that spot, but every time I see this movie my opinion of it goes up. We went to a screening at Alamo last week, and once again, I appreciated the movie even more. Jeff Bridges and Chris Pine are exemplary, but Ben Foster steals the movie..

I'm not going to write a new review but here are links to the two posts I did on this film in the past. 

Original Post

LAMB Devours the Oscars Post

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

 

A Brief Video Review of the Anthony Mackie led Captain America film. 

Heart Eyes (2025)

 

This is a rare film that actually did better at the box office it's second week rather than the first week of release. There is only one reason for that, the tie in to Valentine's Day. In fact February 14th was the highest grossing day for the film, almost double the take from the Friday before. People must be desperate for a film that they can share on Valentine's Day, if this is the thing they committed their romantic holiday to. It is not very good. The level of stupidity can be offset just a little bit by attractive casting. 

"Heart Eyes" is a romantic comedy that morphs into a slasher film, in spite of the fact that it starts with a couple of gruesome murders. That is because the murders are so disconnected from anything that we know about this world. The initial couple that we see killed are trying to produce the perfect tick tock video proposal, and you will dislike them immediately. They are self absorbed and controlling, but that doesn't mean they should be murdered or that we should care that they are. The real story starts with a young ad executive who has miscalculated how to promote romance and engagement jewelry, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. We are supposed to see immediately that she is a darling who has just made a mistake and is uncomfortable with her tasks. I see a stereotypical female romantic lead, who is portrayed as clever but makes every silly mistake you can imagine in the first two acts. The meet cute with her rom-com counterpart is actually a nice play on the trope and he is attractively packaged.

The problem is that the psycho killer is stalking couples and they accidentally become one that the killer is focusing on. Because we know nothing about the killer, other than their costume, we have no idea what the motive is or how the killer thinks. We are getting less than half of the usual slasher film here and the romantic comedy stuff gets run over by the repeated attempts on the lives of our two "non-lovers". Once in a while that pays off with a funny bit of business but not consistently.

If the reveal of the killer feels like an anticlimax, that's because it is. There is more to it and we get a stapled on ending in the third act. If you don't feel cheated by the preposterous new reveal, then all I can say to you is I have an extremely rare copy of "Speed" on Laserdisc that I will let go for $200. Look, I'm a horror fan and I forgive a lot of bad storytelling to allow a fright film room to operate in, but this film expects too much of us simply because it centers around a holiday. 

The best "kills" are revealed in the trailer, so save yourself some time, watch that and get your gore fix. Now put on your LED lit goggles and go out and find somebody to share a real movie with. 

Love Hurts (2025)

 

I've put this off for a couple of days, not because I was busy but because I was indifferent. This should be a fun action comedy with a bunch of martial arts fights thrown in. Instead, it is a bunch of martial arts fights in search of something to be fighting about. From the get go, this story makes no sense. How does hiding from your crime boss brother work, when your face is plastered on every bus bench in the city that you both live in? That's not the most mysterious element of the film, why would a woman marked for death, openly court the criminals she has stolen from? If she had a plan, it was never made clear what it was. The arbitrary use of Valentine's cards to troll her former boss and the other criminal gangs is just a justification to open the movie round the Valentine weekend. They get that wrong too. 

Like everyone else, I am enjoying the return of Ke Huy Quan to the on screen movie world. He has a nice presence but he is really a supporting player, not a leading man. His character Marvin is the former enforcer for his brother, but he betrayed him for love. A love that we never see any sign of, we only get exposition that there must be love there somewhere. The comic persona is fine, even the martial arts moves are convincing. It is not however believable that he has transformed from a stone cold killer to a cheery realtor in such a short time.

I'm sorry, but this is the third film I have seen Ariana DeBose in, where she is not good. Maybe the problem is the material, because in "West Side Stoy" she was fine, but in "Argylle", "Kraven" and this, she is terrible. It's as if they cast someone who looks like they might be interesting, but did not follow through to see if it was true. In this film, it is not. Her line deliver is flat, she has no chemistry with Ke Huy Quan, and the part wants us to believe she is the smartest person on the screen, but nothing she does seems clever.

The movie is loaded with hit men who are menacing looking, but mostly inept. The two targets they are after, get away from them over and over again. Two innocent people get killed in the movie, and those deaths are completely superfluous to the story. This movie wants to be "Smoking Aces" or "Bullet Train", but it is bland and unengaging. I did not hate it, but I can't imagine anyone will be saying "you've gotta see this!" The most appealing character in the film is Sean Astin, who has a good guy persona that charms the audience, and we know from the get go, he will be only a side character for a short time.

See it if you have nothing else to do, but see it quickly, because it will not be in theaters for long. Maybe for even less time than the film stays in my memory. 

My Bloody Valentine (1981) Revisit

How some films become cult classics is beyond me. It's obvious that a film like "Rocky Horror Picture Show" was picked up by fans because of the obvious opportunities to participate in the fun. I never understood why "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" wasn't a hit in the first place, but it makes perfect sense that it is revered now because it's concept and execution are finally recognized. There however is little reason to believe that "My Bloody Valentine" from 1981 will ever be seen as a hidden gem. The remake from a dozen years ago was far superior in every way. How does that happen?

This Canadian film as little going for it, except the title. The production values on the movie are not great, the script is at times preposterous, and frankly the acting is atrocious. I know they were working on a small budget, and the actors are relatively inexperienced, but it never seems like they got a second take to fix things in their original line deliveries. Sometimes the presentation is so wooden you think the movie is a parody of horror slashers. It's not a parody, it's simply not a very good. Maybe the final song and the demented fade out account for whatever credence the film has.

This criticism should be seen as a reason not to see the film. I still enjoyed being in the theaters the other night, sort of experiencing a nostalgic rush of '80s Horror. As long as you don't mind a horror movie that is not particularly frightening, and is not very titillating, then you can enjoy this film. The main thing that it has going for it is that preposterous concept. A crazed miner, rescued from a cave in after surviving by cannibalizing other coworkers while awaiting rescue, became a spree killer. Now 20 years later, it seems that the spree killer has returned, provoked by the Valentine's Day celebrations which ignored the lead up to the disaster two decades earlier. The pickaxe that is used to kill some of the victims is a good concept but it's not visualized in a very interesting way. Which is why the movie fails to satisfy fans of gore. The kills are relatively tame, and most of them lack of jump scare to pull them off. 

I can see what this movie wants to be, and I can also see where it misses the mark on a regular basis. The 2009 3D version at least had the good sense to include an eyeball impaled on the end of the pickaxe, in a 3-d effect. That's a movie that knows what it's supposed to be doing. So for nostalgia and for setting up the concept, "My Bloody Valentine" is adequate, the problem is it never gets to be insane until the last moment when the crazed killer is finally revealed and runs off screaming curses and a vow to kill again. That's sort of the  delivery which could have made this a lot more entertaining.

Companion (2025)

 

[The above trailer is the teaser that does not reveal too much. Avoid the second trailer entirely]

I've been looking forward to this film for a couple of months now, based on an early trailer which suggested it was a horror film involving a toxic relationship. I didn't want to know too much about it, and that first trailer made me anticipate the film without giving anything away. Sadly, the night before we were supposed to see this movie we went to another film and there was a new trailer for "Companion", and it gave away a major plot point. I am a little pissed. Overall I enjoyed this film very much but I know I would have enjoyed it much more if that twist had not been revealed to me less than 24 hours before I first saw the movie.

"Companion", is in fact a type of horror film but it is also a social commentary, a science fiction story, and a dark comedy. Writing about this without giving away the plot twists is going to be complicated. I want people to go into this movie knowing less than I did so they'll enjoy it more than I did. Let me just say, that there is indeed a toxic relationship in this film, but it is quite a bit different than any that you've seen in other movies. I'm not even going to mention some of the films I would compare it to because that would spoil some of the surprise. The plot takes us in several different directions, and those shifts in direction are result of actions that happen in the film that feel completely earned.

Self Generated Poster
because the official poster
 gives away too much as well

The young actress who appears in this film, Sophie Thatcher, was also in the movie "Heretic" which I saw near the end of last year. She has a quality to her voice and mannerisms that come across as sincere and innocent, while at the same time being able to convey a steely resolve. I thought she was excellent in both films. Her co-star in this film is Jack Quaid, who I know mostly from the Prime video series "The Boys". He also has an innocent quality, and a geeky charm, that is used quite deceptively in this story. Some of the turns that take place are surprising enough, but they are more surprising in the way that our characters have been set up.  

This is something like a cabin in the woods scenario, where a group of friends is spending the weekend in an isolated location and bad things start to happen. Unlike a horror film though, the bad things happen because of deliberate choices made by our characters. Technology also plays a role in the story, and I was on edge from the very beginning when our main couple is riding in a car is completely autonomous. I see those types of vehicles here in Downtown Austin whenever I'm going to the Paramount Theater, and I actually saw one picking up a couple at Lawry's when I was in LA at Christmas time. It's going to be a long time before I am ever comfortable enough to step into a vehicle that is being driven by a computer rather than a human being. My reticence about embracing technology that can do these kinds of things is part of the reason that I'm willing to call this a horror film.

This will probably be the final film I see in January, and interestingly enough everyone I've posted on this year I have seen in a single week. It's still early, but I'm happy to say "Companion" has been my favorite film of January. Go see it, but close your eyes and plug your ears if the trailer comes on at another film before you do. 

Den of Thieves Pantera (2025)

It was 2018 when the original film opened early in the year and gave us a testosterone fueled, action-packed, two hours20  minute Excursion into a brutal crime group and the equally brutal cops that were after them. Gerard Butler has made a career in the last 20 years playing flinty, grizzly, misanthropes in various careers. In this film his Lieutenant in a Major Crimes unit of the LA Sheriff's Department he is out of his jurisdiction when he goes to Europe in pursuit of a lead for the criminal that got away at the end of the last film.

Maybe it would have helped if I had gone back and watched the original film again, so I can make a little more sense out of the opening scenes in this movie. Butler's character, known as Big Nick, is following a lead in the robbery of the Federal Reserve, which the Federal Reserve denies even happened. I was confused about what this was all about, but I didn't worry too much about it since this film is really not something to take seriously but rather to be digested as a puzzle exercise. O'Shea Jackson plays the bartender who it turned out, was the mastermind in the previous crime. He returns as the planner for a diamond heist in Amsterdam. that has drawn the attention of Big Nick. So, there is a connection between the two films, and Nick's primary goal seems to be to make sure that the last time when he was one upped, that he gets even.

Unlike the previous film, Pantera is not filled with action sequences and shootouts. Those scenes occur primarily at the end of the film. Most of the time we are watching the machinations of three different groups who are going to come into conflict with each other over a new robbery. The collection of criminals who are planning the new diamond heist, the law enforcement personnel, who may or may not be aware of what is going on, and a third party of mafiosi's who have been accidentally robbed by the first group, and now want their goods back. It is the confluence of the individuals in the in these groups that makes up the vast majority of the picture. There is intrigue, and the threat of violence, not a whole lot of action.

While the previous film was also a heist movie, most of it centered around the pissing contest between Big Nick and his adversary. I don't remember the heist as being particularly clever. In this film on the other hand, The heist is shown in meticulous detail, we get some idea of the planning that is involved, but as usual some things are left out so that we can discover them while watching the actual crime take place. When it comes to the robbery, for a change I appreciate the fact that the security personnel were not doofuses that the crime gang was taking advantage of. They were professionals that the criminals had to work around. Big Nick has inserted himself into the crime group giving the impression that he is fed up with being on the right side of the law and is looking to make some money. During the course of the film we get several red herrings that lead us to believe either he is still working with the cops, or he is deceiving them in order to work with the criminals. Like I said this movie is full of betrayals and complex relationships.

The high point of the film is in fact the heist, which is as it should be. It has a good deal of suspense, and a couple of humorous moments, as we see that robbers have made good plans but also have improvised so that they can deal with the competence of the security people. As usual as part of the events that take place during the robbery, there are complications that make the plans have to be changed. In a movie of course the getaway car, the communications, and the equipment, all get a chance to play a part. There is a high-speed chase that occurs after the crime, but it is basically another set of criminals, who are trying to hijack the original heist. How it all gets resolved is one of those things that only happens in the movies, but we appreciate the plot development because it is paying off on something that was set up earlier.

You don't need to have seen the previous film to appreciate what's going on here, but I suspect that the movie will not appeal to anybody who hasn't already seen that first movie. If you like Gerard Butler in gruff mode then you should be satisfied with this film. O'Shea Jackson does have a nice screen presence, but it seems odd that he and at least two of the other co-conspirators seem to be a little on the hefty side. When the plot is being executed, it's hard to believe that a couple of these guys can do some of the physical things that are required of them.

If you like this movie, then you can look forward to the next installment which is set up by a plot twist that occurs in the last 5 minutes of the film. There are some character points that help make it make sense, but in the real world of course it would never happen. This however is a movie, and we want to enjoy the creativity of the screenwriter who is finding interesting ways to manipulate these characters. The film is a slow burn with almost an hour and a half before the major crime takes place. If you're looking for an action film with energetic sequences every 5 minutes that display incredible stunt work or EFX then you are probably in the wrong movie. This plays like one of those 1970s crime films where you get a lot of atmosphere, by-play between the characters, and complications set up during the lead into the crime. You want the payoff to all of those things to be satisfying, and as far as I was concerned in "Den of Thieves Pantera" they were.

Wolf Man (2025)

 

Updating a classic monster to contemporary times sometimes requires a little creativity. The Wolfman from 1940, was a Universal horror movie that featured a Sad Sack leading character slowly being turned into a murderous animal. He had a fairly warm relationship with his father, he met a girl he was interested in, and he was way laid by a werewolf and thus began his own transformation. The formula for the movie today varies this a little bit. The main protagonist is still a bit of a sad sack, but he has a great relationship with his daughter, a strange relationship with his father, and is married to a woman that he loves but is growing distant from. His transformation doesn't wait for a full moon, and it is a slow build. We don't have to wait for a silver bullet, we just know that there are monsters out there and that our main characters are going to be threatened.

It's a little bit odd that I saw this movie the night after I saw Flight Risk. Both movies are essentially three character stories, mainly set in one location. A lot of horror movies benefit from the simplicity of such a setting because it forces the directors to become creative how Danger can be just about anywhere. Director Leigh Whannel, is an Old Pro at making horror films, and does a pretty good job at tightening the screws up. Wolfman is a Slow Burn is but it is generally effective.

My reservations about the film are mostly due to the casting and performances. The lead actress, Julia Garner, who was so wonderful in the TV series Ozark, is miscast in this role. She seems to be too young for the kind of character she is supposed to be portraying. She is also not as emotionally engaged in the first part of the film if she needs to be to make the second part of the film work. She does fine with the fear elements of the script, but her characters connection with her husband feels detached and Lacks energy. I did think however she had a good moment when the family picks up a neighbor as they are trying to locate instead. That may have been her best scene in the film.

The husband , played by Christopher Abbott, is also so low-key that it takes us a while to recognize anything is really a danger to him. His physical transformation is put off for quite a while, and well there are animalistic characteristics, it is mostly his physical activity rather than his appearance that makes him wolf like. There are two or three really good bits of business that illustrate this transformation without his face growing hair. I don't want to give too much away let's just say when he investigates a noise upstairs in the house his discovery of its source is one of the best surprises in the film. The other element of the movie that works well in showing how he is losing his Humanity and ability to relate to his family, is the 180° camera move that changes perspectives from the husband to the wife and Back Again. The filters used, and the visual effects as well as the sound editing are very clever it explaining exactly what's going on.

There are a few jump scares, and there is quite a bit of screaming and panic as dangerous characters Chase the family around The Farmhouse and barn that are the primary locations of the film. By the way the film is set in Oregon, produced in New Zealand, and largely shot in Ireland. I'm sure this hybrid of locations is a result of financing rather than artistic choices. I did mention that there are primarily three characters in the story, but they aren't the only ones that do play A Part. Early on, we get a sequence that sets up our main character as a young boy, and tells us of the life he led with a paranoid prepper father. I suppose it is supposed to set up the characters actions later in the film, but I found the sequence to be the most suspenseful and interesting in the movie. Too bad it's over in the first 10 minutes.

This is not a bad film, it's just not as good as it ought to be. The characters are sympathetic but I never felt particularly engaged by them, with the exception of the relationship between the little girl and the story and her father. It's just too bad that most of the suspense elements of the film focus on the mother's actions, and it simply feels like any other horror chase film where the character is being pursued they can to improvise and get away from the monster that's chasing them. The movie sets up the idea that there is a subtext, but never delivers on that. It stays at a very surface level, which is okay for a horror film, but keeps it from being particularly distinctive.

Flight Risk (2025)

 

 

 Sometimes it seems that January is a month made for Action films that wouldn't be released any other time of year. It feels like we need something to get our blood flowing but it doesn't require that the blood flow to our brains. Flight Risk is a movie made for just this time of year. Most of the things that happen in the film, are not going to be happening in the real world, just the Cinematic world that we carry in our heads. There will be evil villains, nasty betrayals, and like most horror films a little Stinger at the end.

What surprises me about this movie is that the promotion for the film never mentions the name of the director. It does cite two of his previous films in the trailer, but definitely leaves the name off. It appears that someone in marketing has decided that Mel Gibson is still a toxic name in the movie industry. Whether that is true is beside the point, he is still capable of making a very effective picture. Flight Risk is what it's supposed to be, an action thriller done on a small scale with a limited cast and a high degree of tension. That's what we get.

This would be the perfect movie for a young filmmaker with no budget to put together on the Fly. It features almost only three actors, and one static location, that is really just a set and some green screens in the background. The premise of the movie is simple, a US Marshal transporting a mob accountant to testify against his Capo, find yourself on a plane piloted by a psychotic hired to assassinate the witness. That's it, three people on a plane, identities hidden and then revealed, and then a struggle for control. Also helps, that when the Marshall does get the upper hand, neither she or her Witness knows anything about flying a plane.

Mark Wahlberg is usually the hero in these kinds of movies, he's made a dozen in the last few years. Even when he's playing a criminal, he is usually the honorable type, who resists killing everybody in the crime simply because his partners think it would be efficient. In this film however, Wahlberg's character puts on an act at the start of the film, to try and convince everybody that he's just a good old boy piloting the plane for the Marshall's office. He's got the aw shucks lingo down, and the cultural indicators of someone used to living an isolated life in Alaska. Once he is revealed however, the script takes every opportunity to show us that he is truly a bad man. It's not enough that he beats the female martial into near unconsciousness, and gloats at the possibility of molesting her when they get to the destination that he has planned for them. He also has to intimidate the witness, I by strongly suggesting that he's going to torture and sexually molest him as well. Wahlberg has a gleeful expression, and a bald cap fringed with hair, to make him look like in every man with an evil streak. If we just ignore the fantastic elements of the plot, it's a very creepy concept.

The Marshall is played by actress Michelle Dockery, who it appears I have seen in some other films, but I did not recognize her at first. She is a tough feminine figure, with some doubts and the backstory to make us question her ability to successfully carry out this mission. Half the acting she does in this film, consists of talking into a satellite phone with a character or two that we never see. Having to act against invisible cast members seems like a challenge, and she meets it head on. Topher Grace plays the part of the witness, unethically challenged man who operated as an accountant for a mob boss, and has made a deal to try and save his butt from years in prison. Grace has some characteristics that have made him a very useful film performer over the years. He has a quirky Charming personality, then can quickly become grating if given full release. He has impeccable comic timing with both his voice and facial expressions. He is also completely believable, as a dweeb who is outmatched physically by most of the people around him. Although it could be said that he is cowardly, mostly it seems that he is practical. 

The screenplay gives all three characters something to do in the film in a bit of a story arc. Wahlberg's character has to become more loathsome as the film goes along, Dougherty's character has to become more competent and stronger as she faces the challenges that she is presented, and Topher Grace has to become more sympathetic as the movie moves on. There are two or three physical confrontations while in the air but most of the drama takes place with the verbal by play between the three characters. The director Mel Gibson is able to keep us interested is a testament to his professionalism and competence. Any obvious tricks to the story, there are not a lot of fancy camera movements, and although the story is clearly old hat, cribbing from older films like the Arnold Schwarzenegger Eraser, it's still pretty effective.

I don't want to praise the movie too highly, it's not a classic piece of Cinema nor particularly essential. It's an effective Thriller that gives us the kind of suspense that we want, some occasional bits of humor, and a resolution that satisfies our need for justice when the bad guy is as loathsome as Wahlberg's character. The conclusion of the movie is not quite over the top, and that restraint does it some credit. So if you were looking for something to watch while you were chewing popcorn on a cold winter night or day, you could do a lot worse than Flight Risk.