“Boy Kills World” stars Bill Skarsgård, Jessica Rothe, Michelle Dockery, Famke Janssen, Sharlto Copley, Brett Gelman, Isaiah Mustafa, Andrew Koji, Yayan Ruhian, and H. Jon Benjamin. Releasing on April 26, 2024, the film has a deaf man enacting vengeance on the people who murdered his family. The film features the feature directorial debut of Moritz Mohr, who directed the short films “Akumi”, “Vidiots”, and “Hurensohn”. Mohr also directed the 2011 television series “Viva Berlin!”. It is based on a short film by Mohr and Armend Remmers. There’s no denying that if you take away those someone holds dear to their hearts, you better be prepared to face the consequences. If that someone happens to be a silent man with his inner voice sounding like Bob Belcher, you should also be ready to lose a lot of blood. Many revenge-driven movies have taught us this for years, and thanks to this latest action thriller from producer Sam Raimi, it surely won’t be the last. This film sees Raimi bringing the ultra-violent short film from Mohr and Remmers to the big screen, which promises plenty of jaw-dropping action, pulpy stylish flairs, and remarkably entertaining stunt work, more so than Dev Patel’s “Monkey Man”. Was it fun and bloody enough to exact its vengeance? Let’s find out. The story follows Boy (Skarsgård), a young man whose family was brutally murdered by Hilda van der Koy (Janssen), the monarch of a corrupted royal family ruling over a post-apocalyptic world. The attack resulted in Boy being deaf and mute, with his thoughts now being expressed by his inner voice (Benjamin) derived from his childhood video game. After learning martial arts from a mysterious shaman (Ruhian), Boy sets out on a blood-soaked journey to seek revenge against the entire Koy family. With the help of a resistance team consisting of Benny (Mustafa) and Basho (Koji), Boy must survive every dangerous obstacle, including a televised execution called “The Culling”, to complete his mission and free himself from the pains of his past. While my intrigue was set on Zendaya playing tennis, “Boy Kills World” was actually something I was looking forward to the most this weekend. Obviously, it’s because I couldn’t get enough of action movies, especially ones that are original, and the cast is quite stacked with some familiar names, including Bill Skarsgård. But more importantly, the concept behind it looked pretty darn bonkers. Yes, it’s another revenge movie we’ve seen many times before, but the way it’s reflected regarding its kinetic presentation and post-apocalyptic setting is enough to get me ecstatic about it. Fortunately, I didn’t have to wait until this weekend to see if it lives up to its potential. I attended a mystery movie event at my favorite cinema, which happens to be “Boy Kills World”, much to my delight. It would be even better if it were “Furiosa”. Hopefully, they're saving that as next month's mystery movie. Until I know for sure, I want to talk about the boy who murdered the corrupted world. “Boy Kills World” is more along the lines of “Kill Bill” on drugs than an R-rated sequel to “Boy Meets World”. The movie depicts the unnamed man infiltrating an empire and beating the crud out of people responsible for murdering his family, all while bickering with the spirit of his younger sister, Mina (Quinn Copeland). Did I mention that he was also deaf and mute? Yeah, that’s how crazy this film seemed. It delivers exactly what the premise promised, so if you expect it to surprise you with its themes and world-building, you might be disappointed by the outcome. However, if you only need a simple escape from reality, you'll easily have a great time with this high-octane, action-packed ride. Loaded with stylized energy and pulpy action, "Boy Kills World" is a refreshing and kinetic take on the revenge action formula that hits the mark with its tone. With Moritz Mohr’s experience being from the short film of the same name, he was tasked with expanding his concept into a 110-minute-long roller coaster consisting of brutalities, energetic flairs, and Bob Belcher providing color commentary. While Arend Remmers co-wrote the screenplay with Tyler Burton Smith, Mohr takes control as a solo director. Filmmakers who return to expand their short films can often succeed in honoring the source material they created. However, it also comes with the challenge of capturing the interest of those unfamiliar with their works. Based on what I’ve seen, I thought Mohr handled this challenge very well, especially regarding his vision. Its presentation exuded an intense and surreal vibe that transcended beyond its visuals. It imbued its sceneries and action sequences with a sense of frenetic energy that captivated me thoroughly. The editing and cinematography further enhanced this hallucinatory feel, resulting in an experience that was nothing short of mesmerizing. It’s as if Mohr puts John Wick, graphic novels, and video game influences into a blender and mixes them to create a blood-soaked smoothie with a lime on top of it. It should’ve tasted foul based on the description alone, but instead, it wound up being a sublime treat full of flavor and radiant pizazz. What makes it even better is how the movie balances the thriller aspect with its corny comedy vibes, mainly from Boy’s chemistry with the supporting characters like Mina. The film succeeds in providing slickness and guts to its insane yet well-choreographed action scenes, but its main success was not taking itself too seriously. Sure, the story doesn’t delve deep into its themes amid its formula, although the third act’s twist did save it from being too derivative. Nevertheless, it more than compensates with its delightful gags that seem parodic and charismatic characters powered by its impeccable cast. Despite Boy’s lack of speech, Bill Skarsgård is another actor who proves you don’t need words to put on an astounding show through your performance. His range of emotions was effectively portrayed by Skarsgård, even when his inner voice does the talking. By the way, H. Jon Benjamin, known for voicing Bob Belcher in “Bob’s Burgers”, was a perfect fit for Boy’s inner voice, and you can’t make me change my mind. Jessica Rothe and Brett Gelman were also decent as June 27 and Gideon van der Koy, respectively, which makes me glad they’re continuing to find work outside their well-known properties. Sharlto Copley also appeared as Glen van der Koy and was just as entertaining as usual. It’s pretty funny that Copley has started and ended the month of April with an action movie. The stars have perfectly aligned for the actor. Overall, “Boy Kills World” is a gloriously entertaining and delightfully bonkers roller coaster that favors murderous style over substance in the best way possible. It may not impress everyone looking for deep real-world themes amid its chaotic bloodshed and familiar narrative beats. However, the film shows that a satisfying execution of a bizarre idea and the will to just have fun with it are the things needed to make astounding popcorn entertainment. Bill Skarsgård leads an entertaining cast with his non-verbal performance, and Moritz Mohr’s direction effectively enraptures its balance of gory action and pulpy, stylized comedy. It’s the most fun I had from an action movie this year, and it’s definitely worth your time if you enjoy bizarre films like this. B+
0 Comments
“Abigail” stars Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Alisha Weir, Kathryn Newton, Will Catlett, Kevin Durand, Angus Cloud, and Giancarlo Esposito. Released on April 19, 2024, the film has a group of kidnappers discovering a young girl’s deadly secret. The film was directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (Radio Silence), who also directed films such as “Devil’s Due”, “Ready or Not”, and “Scream VI”. It is loosely inspired by the 1936 film “Dracula’s Daughter”. They say that children can be quite monsters because of their unruly behavior. But for this unique child, “monster” isn’t enough to describe her abnormality. It’s too bad the poor souls who dare to kidnap this ballet-loving girl didn’t think of that before it’s too late. Don’t you love it when kidnappers get a lovely dose of karma? This weekend brings us yet another R-rated horror film seeking to satisfy audiences with its blood-soaked carnage and monstrous chaos. This time, we have a loosely unique take on the classic tale of Dracula, in which a young girl takes on the role of a vampire feasting upon its prey. Man, Universal’s Classic Monsters Universe is really starting to go in different directions. It’s also the latest feature from the surprisingly talented Radio Silence, who’s looking to extend their winning streak in horror after they departed from the “Scream” franchise. Does the film have enough bite in its concept to deliver another frighteningly fun experience? Let’s find out. The story centers on a group of criminals formed by their informant Lambert (Esposito). The group consists of recovering drug addict Joey (Barrera), former detective Frank (Stevens), hacker Sammy (Newton), sociopathic driver Dean (Cloud), Marine sniper Rickles (Catlett), and mob enforcer Peter (Durand). Lambert tasked the team to kidnap a young ballet dancer named Abigail (Weir), who’s also the daughter of a powerful underworld figure, and bring her to a secluded mansion. There, they’re assigned to ensure Abigail’s safety for 24 hours to receive a $7 million check for each member. Unfortunately, they eventually discover that their “simple” assignment is easier said than done when they find that their seemingly innocent target is actually a vampire. This discovery forces Joey and the others to survive Abigail’s deadly wrath before they become her all-you-can-eat buffet. Movies involving vampires or any other classic monster can be hit and miss depending on the execution, especially Universal’s recent attempt to revive its iconic monsters like Dracula and the Mummy. However, “Abigail” looked like it could be something unique based on its marketing. Along with a concept that takes an intriguing spin on the classic monster movie formula, the film also features the latest collaboration between Radio Silence and Melissa Barrera following their recent “Scream” sequels. While it’s still a shame they won’t be back for the seventh installment due to circumstances, I was happy that they’re able to find more projects to work on together, especially “Abigail”. So far, the Radio Silence directors have been dominating the industry regarding their takes on the horror genre, which is still an impressive accomplishment considering their first solo feature was “Devil’s Due”. Much to my satisfaction, “Abigail” manages to keep their booming trend going with another bonkers roller coaster that’s bloody, humorous, and fun. Does it reinvent the horror formula in any shape or form? Not exactly. It’s a straightforward and mildly predictable story about a group of people getting more than they bargained for, leaving them to fight or flee from a vampiric ballerina. It offers what you expect from a movie like this, plus a few exploding bodies and brutal moments that’ll make you squirm, laugh, or even both. Yes, I did say “laugh”. While it is described as a horror thriller, “Abigail” has plenty of humor sprinkling around its dialogue and violence to ensure it doesn’t take itself too seriously, which I think is for the better. What I enjoyed the most from Matt and Tyler’s direction is that they find specific ways to balance the comedy with the horror elements without making the former forced or awkward. Not every horror movie needs to be all dark and gloomy. They let this mixture prance around gracefully like a ballerina, resulting in genuine amusement amid its scares.…or lack thereof. This direction helped the recent “Scream” sequels honor the meta-slasher franchise Wes Craven created, which still bums me out that they’re not returning to direct “Scream 7”. But I am happy that it also helped “Abigail” dance around its familiarity to provide a blood-soaking good time at the movies. Matt and Tyler also did a stellar job delivering atmospheric terror through the film's lighting and cinematography. However, the film may disappoint those seeking intense scares as it is light on them. Nevertheless, the technical aspects and visuals of the movie are enough to capture the fear of being trapped in a mysterious mansion with a vampire girl. This showcases Matt and Tyler’s expertise in the horror genre, not only in their vision but also in their ability to make scary movies enjoyable again. The screenplay by Stephen Shields and Guy Busick may not be groundbreaking regarding its formulaic traits and hit-and-miss twists, but it compensates with the surprising amount of effort it puts into its execution and characters. The gang of criminals is practically despicable, but that doesn’t make them unlikable from a narrative perspective. Each of them has a different kind of charisma and soul in their personalities, making them stand out from the other one-dimensional horror victims, even though the emotional depth is more sour than sweet. The primary example of this is Joey, whose drug addiction separated her from her son, which is all I can say about her without spoiling anything else. This is due to its invigorating cast, who all did very well in elevating the film’s terror and humor, especially Melissa Barrera, who remains a captivating presence in the film industry regarding her engaging performance as Joey. Dan Stevens was also a treat to witness as the snarky Frank, continuing his successful year following his appearance in “Godzilla x Kong”. Kathryn Newton was fine as Sammy despite her delivery being periodically bland, and Angus Cloud made a suitable final appearance as Dean before his tragic death last year. However, the two actors who stole most of the show were Alisha Weir and Kevin Durand. Weir, best known for portraying Matilda Wormwood in Netflix’s “Matilda the Musical”, was tasked to deliver a delightfully creepy vampire with a thirst for blood and ballet. The result is a remarkable turning point for the young actress that’s both charming and disturbing. I thought Weir did very well in “Matilda the Musical”, but her role in “Abigail” could be the one to put her on the Hollywood map. I also didn’t expect to enjoy Kevin Durand as Peter that much until I watched him myself. Peter's gullible yet sincere personality should’ve wrecked the movie’s tone, but instead, it adds more amusement to the characters’ chemistry. It’s enough to make me interested in Durand’s next film, in which he plays a tyrannical ape. I’ll let you guess what that movie is. Overall, “Abigail” has enough blood in its narrative veins to provide a delightfully gory and humorous ballet flourishing with style and talent. Regarding the formulaic elements in its screenplay and hit-and-miss twists, this is far from Radio Silence’s best work, with the crown still belonging to “Ready or Not”. However, I still enjoyed watching the vampiric girl play with her food. It’s simplistic to a fault, but the efforts in making the cruel characters likable and the concept entertaining and bloody are able to pirouette over its familiarity with ease. Thanks to its diverting cast, direction, tolerable characters, and atmospheric presentation, the film is another bonafide horror hit worth sinking your teeth into. If you’re a fan of Radio Silence’s other works, this film is worth checking out. B“The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” stars Henry Cavill, Eiza González, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, Babs Olusanmokun, Henrique Zaga, Til Schweiger, Henry Golding, and Cary Elwes. Releasing on April 19, 2024, the film depicts the Special Operations Executive and their war against the Nazis during World War II. The film is directed by Guy Ritchie, who also directed films such as “Snatch”, “Sherlock Holmes”, “The Gentlemen”, and “Wrath of Man”. It is based on the 2014 book Churchill’s Secret Warriors: The Explosive True Story of the Special Forces Desperadoes of WWII by Damien Lewis. The Black Ops have been known for their secrecy and performance under our radar. However, its unattributed association with any organization gives this covert operation the advantage of deceiving its enemies. But how did this secretive operation come to be, you may ask? Well, it all started back in the 1940s, when a British organization performed a seemingly impossible task to sabotage the dreadful Nazis. This crucial part of Britain’s war against Nazi Germany gave birth to modern-day black operations and irregular warfare, and now it’s been turned into an action comedy led by Guy Ritchie and Superman himself, Henry Cavill. This film seeks to attract more audiences seeking R-rated fun outside the horror genre, especially those familiar with Ritchie’s stylized and fast-paced presentation. Does it deliver another offbeat shoot-em-up worthy of the big-screen treatment? Let’s find out. The story is a heavily fictionalized depiction of Operation Postmaster, a British special operation during the Second World War. It was conducted by the Special Operations Executive, a covert organization formed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to perform espionage and sabotage in Nazi-occupied Europe. To combat the Nazis, the SOE conjured up a solution to gain the upper hand: hiring a group of highly-skilled soldiers outside its premises, including Gus March-Phillipps (Cavill). Known as the Small Scale Raiding Force, Gus and his team, including Marjorie Stewart (Gonzalez) and Anders Lassen (Ritchson), are tasked to invade enemy territory and sabotage the Nazis’ plot for world domination. Unsurprisingly, any movie directed by Ritchie will always spark my interest, with this film being one of them. Some of his recent movies didn’t impress me as much as everyone else regarding their executions. However, a few of his films have made me admire his unique presentation and British humor, including “The Gentlemen” and “The Covenant”, which I thought was one of his best in recent memory. “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” looks to be another Ritchie movie seeking to deliver the fun and high-octane energy from its action and comedy aspects as shown in the marketing. In short, it’d be more like “The Gentlemen” than “Wrath of Man” and “The Covenant”. After watching the film early, thanks to its advanced screening, I’m pleased to say I was right. It’s no crowned jewel of war movies or even spy films in general, but the film proves that Guy Ritchie hasn’t lost his touch regarding his approach to popcorn entertainment. If you’re going into “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” expecting it to be a groundbreaking and serious fact-based action drama, you’ll quickly be disappointed with the result. Besides, Ritchie already made a dramatic action movie last year, so I don’t think he needs to take that approach twice in a row. Instead, the film is a straightforward, action-packed shoot-em-up that also functions as a race-against-the-clock boat trip to Nazi territory. Of course, since this is a Guy Ritchie movie, it’s not without a few instances of charisma-driven British humor to liven up its tone amid its adult-rated violence. If you come to this film for that, I will gladly say that “Ungentlemanly Warfare” will satisfy your needs. While specific plot and character moments felt lost underneath its colorful carnage, it easily compensates for it by delivering a healthy dose of entertainment and energy in its storytelling, direction, and cast. I know I've been saying this a lot, but Guy Ritchie is a solid filmmaker with an innate understanding of making fun, stylish movies. His style, writing skills, and tone perfectly align with his vision, providing a unique and captivating flavor to the action and spy genres. Despite the occasional hit-or-miss narratives, Ritchie's films are irresistibly charming and vibrant, making for exciting and engaging cinematic experiences. “Ungentlemanly Warfare” is no exception, with Ritchie incorporating his usual fast-cutting technique and energetic presentation into its 1940s production design and action sequences. As a result, it delivered some brutal yet satisfying instances of violence and a suitably paced spy adventure where each character plays a role in carrying its weight. This includes the humor and the chemistry between the cast, both of which successfully shoot down its naysayers, like how Henry Cavill shoots down the Nazis, with the comedy providing some delightful laughs through its dialogue. Henry Cavill has been working nonstop to make himself known outside the DC universe, and I don’t blame him. Some of his non-Superman roles were decent at best, including Agent Argylle in the recently released “Argylle”, but sadly, he has yet to truly shine regarding his box office returns outside the DC Cinematic Universe. Based on what I saw from “Ungentlemanly Warfare”, I really hope his role will break that losing streak. Cavill’s take on Gus March-Phillipps was a joy to witness on screen, not just because of his distinctive performance. It’s also due to Cavill’s charm and radiant appeal that made Gus a stimulating protagonist who shoots first and obeys orders never. He may be serviceable as a dramatic Superman, but when it comes to his light-hearted and comical roles like Gus, Henry Cavill is a real-life superhero we didn’t know we needed. Alan Ritchson also continues to deliver the goods in the action department regarding his role as Anders Lassen. His scenes involving his bow and arrow were surprisingly impressive. It’s as if Robin Hood was a sniper in World War II instead of leading his band of Merry Men in Sherwood Forest. Eiza González was also decent as Marjorie Stewart, an SOE agent sent undercover in a Nazi-occupied area. Even though Marjorie’s scenes without Gus’s gang were a bit concerning at first regarding the pacing, González managed to surprise me with her attempt to drive these scenes through her performance and her character’s significance to the mission. Overall, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” doesn’t provide many gentlemanly affairs, and it’s all the better because of it. It may not break any barriers in the action and spy genres regarding its simplistic narrative and straightforward characters. However, when it comes to Guy Ritchie himself, it hardly needs to. This is another stylish and entertaining action comedy that benefitted from Ritchie’s energetic vision and colorful cast of characters, which is enough to satisfy the director’s fans and the Nazi haters. With its charismatic cast, dynamic presentation, and action sequences exciting enough to carry a flawed yet serviceable story, the movie is a war-infested blast from start to finish. B-“Road House” stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Daniela Melchior, Billy Magnussen, Jessica Williams, Joaquim de Almeida, and Conor McGregor. Released on Prime Video on March 21, 2024, the film has a former UFC fighter working at a roadhouse. The film was directed by Doug Liman, who also directed films such as “Go”, “The Bourne Identity”, “Edge of Tomorrow”, “American Made”, and “Chaos Walking”. It is a remake of the 1989 film written by David Lee Henry and Hilary Henkin. If there’s one thing I learned from watching wrestlers and MMA fighters battle in the ring, their skills are also helpful for other jobs. Most of them hone their expertise on the big screen, while others use them for…something else that doesn’t involve standing in front of a camera for the sake of fan service. For this particular fighter, his skillfulness is used to protect people at a country road tavern. Rowdy Herrington’s action film “Road House”, which involved a bouncer punishing unruly guests at a bar, didn’t make much of an impact financially and critically when released in 1989. However, it eventually became known as a classic “so bad, it’s good” film that features Patrick Swayze being handsomely muscular for under two hours. Its popularity spawned a direct-to-video sequel in 2006 that everyone loves to forget about. With how iconic the movie is despite the mixed reception, Hollywood thought now was the best time to reintroduce it via a remake starring another muscular actor, Jake Gyllenhaal. Unfortunately, instead of being released in theaters as director Doug Liman had planned, it went straight to Prime Video, much to the filmmaker’s frustration. Besides that, did the film have enough muscles to justify its existence and throw out its unruly flaws? Let’s find out. The story centers on Elwood Dalton (Gyllenhaal), a troubled former UFC middleweight fighter. After retiring from the sport, Elwood makes a living scamming fighters on the underground circuit. He is then approached by Frankie (Williams), the owner of a roadhouse in Glass Key, who offers Elwood a job as the bar’s head bouncer. While hesitant at first, Elwood accepts the position. Following his arrival, Elwood is tasked with protecting the roadhouse from its unruly guests while befriending several people, including teenage bookstore owner Charlie (Hannah Lanier) and a doctor named Ellie (Melchior). When a crime boss named Ben Brandt (Magnussen) sends his men to ruin its business, including a mentally unstable enforcer Knox (McGregor), Elwood must rely on his skills to protect the roadhouse and its guests. My experience with “Road House” is equivalent to my experience with an actual roadhouse: nonexistent. Despite its action-packed concept, I hadn’t gotten the time to watch the 1989 cult classic that maintained Patrick Swayze’s career until recently. With the remake being out on Prime Video, I decided to watch the original on the same streaming service for the first time. It wasn’t a masterpiece, but I enjoyed several moments from 1989's “Road House”, including Swayze beating the crud out of rowdy customers. Since the remake offered more of the same as the original, I didn’t have much expectations from it other than for it to be watchable despite its unnecessary existence. If you’re wondering why it took me this long to review this film, it’s because I had plenty of stuff I was taking care of that shouldn’t be ignored. In short, I’m sort of a bouncer myself, except I’m removing my personal issues from my premises instead of the short-tempered idiots wrecking the place. So, now that I have finally found the time to watch it, how did I feel about the 2024 update? Well, I can tell you this: it’s far from a disastrous night at the most dangerous tavern in Florida, but I wouldn’t call it a groundbreaking party. The 2024 remake of “Road House” offers plenty of moments that benefit from its action and style, which may be enough to make it watchable as its own film. However, when it comes to everything else, it plays off what you expect from an action-packed showdown between a troubled protagonist and the forces of corruption, for better or worse. If you’ve watched the original “Road House”, you’ll immediately know what you’ll get from the remake regarding its plot. Both movies follow a similar narrative: a man haunted by his violent past is hired as a bouncer at a roadhouse and tangles with a corrupt businessman controlling the town. However, the remake provided a few differences to prevent it from being a derivative copy of the original, including making Dalton a former mixed martial arts fighter. These changes may depend on what the original’s fans prefer, but to me, some of these changes gave the classic troubling-drifter narrative a modern makeover. Unfortunately, other cases came off as something we’ve seen many times before and a hit-and-miss attempt at replicating the original’s cheesy tone. Regarding the screenplay by Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry, “Road House” is a straightforward yet familiar punch-em-up experience that’s heavy on mindless brawn instead of storytelling brains. Those who don’t mind a straightforward action flick would find something to enjoy from “Road House”, especially its presentation. However, if you’re hoping for something more out of its characters and themes, such as Dalton’s past, you might want to try a different bar because this one doesn’t serve that order. From my perspective, its middling narrative doesn’t hit as hard as the characters’ punches, but I can easily admit that “Road House” is one of the better-looking remakes I’ve seen. This is due to director Doug Liman, whose style delivered an immersive and brutally fun display of roadhouse violence and manly abs, and the impressive cinematography by Henry Braham. The wide-angle shots, panning effects, and handheld camera techniques are essential aspects that make the presentation as slick and attractive as Gyllenhaal’s muscular body. The only issue with these sequences is that some of the CGI effects don’t look as polished as the real deal. Otherwise, the action scenes were pretty much what I expected: brutal yet entertaining. However, despite Liman’s best efforts to deliver some fun and decently shot R-rated violence, his approach to the film’s tone was a bit of a mess. The "Road House" remake takes a grittier approach to the story while incorporating charm and levity into its characters and corny dialogue, similar to the 1989 original. Although some of those moments were mildly amusing, the rest struggled to maintain that momentum. Finding the right balance between seriousness and cheesiness can be challenging, as it risks creating a tone that misleads or alienates the audience. In the case of "Road House", the tone exhibits a relentless and unyielding demeanor, evocative of a tough-as-nails attitude. However, the incorporation of humor into the film results in a forced or lackluster delivery that fails to resonate with the audience. Jake Gyllenhaal made some effort to make Dalton’s cool-headed yet mentally troubling personality its brightest moment, but there were a few occasions when his delivery came up short of my expectations. The only person who was able to make its tone somewhat watchable was professional UFC fighter Conor McGregor, who made his feature film debut as Knox. I haven’t watched enough UFC matches to know who McGregor was, but I was impressed by his attempt to make Knox’s psychotic personality mildly endearing. The fact that this was McGregor’s first acting gig makes it all the more welcoming. As for the rest of the cast, they did pretty well in helping Gyllenhaal carry the film. Daniela Melchior was decent as Dalton’s love interest, Ellie, and Billy Magnussen was hit-and-miss as Ben Brandt regarding the direction of the villain’s personality. Overall, “Road House” delivered a satisfying punch in its presentation and action but struggled to take its substance outside its limitations, like how Gyllenhaal takes the fight outside the establishment. It’s a well-shot and enjoyably brutal remake with enough moments to maintain my attention, including its cast and Liman’s direction for the fight sequences. Unfortunately, they couldn’t prevent it from being knocked down repeatedly by its tone, middling storytelling, and iffy CGI effects. It’s far from a knockout, but as far as remakes go, it’s definitely one of the more tolerable ones we have, regardless of its flaws. If you’re familiar with the 1989 cult classic, it’s worth watching on Prime Video, but don’t expect anything more than what it offered. C“Civil War” stars Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, and Nick Offerman. Released on April 12, 2024, the film has a group of journalists caught in the middle of a second civil war. The film is written and directed by Alex Garland, who also directed “Ex Machina”, “Annihilation”, and “Men”. Many wars have decimated the world throughout history because we just don’t know how to get along. But despite all this senseless violence, we’re still able to see tomorrow. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the world is safe from more impending wars creeping around every corner, even in today’s society. This one, in particular, is anything but civil. No, I’m not talking about the one where Captain America and Iron Man beat the crap out of one another. This type of civil war is much more real and haunting than the one from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, both of them provoke the question: What the heck is wrong with using our words instead of our fists or guns? This latest dystopian film from Alex Garland seeks to warn us of our impending future and provide indie jewel A24 its first step into blockbuster territory regarding the studio’s expensive budget. Does it succeed on both fronts or does it make us prefer escapism over realistic agendas in filmmaking? Let’s find out. The story is set in the near future when the United States is engulfed by an escalating multiparty civil war. The country has become a dystopian dictatorship under its President (Offerman), currently in his third term. Among the population affected by the war is a team of journalists: war photojournalist Lee Smith (Dunst), young photographer Jessie (Spaeny), Lee’s colleague Joel (Moura), and veteran reporter Sammy (Henderson). Despite the dangers and violence coming from the war, Lee leads the team across the country to Washington, D.C. in an attempt to interview the President about the current situation. They encounter multiple perils in a race against the clock to arrive at their destination before the rebel factions get to the capital first. Not many films this year have garnered more attention and conversations than “Civil War”, and with good reason. The movie depicted the horrors of what could’ve been if society hadn’t changed its current behavior for the better. While it’s portrayed more as a fictional tale than a full-length documentary, it’s hard to ignore how it somehow resembles the recent acts of violence we got, including the January 6 incident. It’s one of the reasons I was looking forward to “Civil War”, with the other being Alex Garland’s involvement. While his movies after “Ex Machina” were more alienating than brilliant, I appreciated his bold attempts to provide complex conversations within the horror and thriller genres. However, I can also admit his execution of specific narrative elements was pretty iffy. “Civil War” looks to be another example of a conversation starter based on its marketing. However, the other challenge it needs to excel at is attracting audiences outside those preferring “thinking movies”. While “Civil War” may seem like an action-packed war movie from the marketing, there’s more to it than just another standard blockbuster. It’s more along the lines of a horror suspense drama that uses the war between different factions as a source of terror. It doesn’t explain what caused this war to occur or expand upon its political significance. Instead, it immediately puts the audience right into the chaos, with no idea how it happened other than divided factions killing each other. This lack of world-building may not work for those needing to know what the heck’s up with America, but based on what I saw, I found it effective in that it provides the fear of being in the dark about it. But does it make the movie a gripping experience? Yeah, it does. Packed with unsettling moments of violence and characters that are more humane than traditional, “Civil War” is a bold and visually stunning tale of modern warfare that benefited from Garland’s audacious vision. Regarding Garland’s direction and screenplay, the film faithfully depicts the horrors of war and the discomfort of imagining its possibility while avoiding its commercialized and political agendas. However, that’s not the only element that made “Civil War” a striking piece of war cinema. It’s also a realistic and haunting display of war journalism that doesn’t hold back on its dreadful merits. While it may be cool to see the action up close, it’s not something people should take as their first job because, as we said countless times, war is hell. Not only do they run the risk of getting caught in the crossfire if they are not careful, but they can also see things they might be unprepared to witness, such as the lifeless bodies left behind. The movie's decision to center its narrative solely around the journalists was an excellent choice, as it effectively captured the palpable tension that arose from their fears and defenselessness. Moreover, the characters Lee and Jessie added another layer of depth and complexity to the film's overall story. Lee is described as a famed yet hardened photojournalist who’s an expert at her job, but that doesn’t make her invincible regarding her past experiences. She’s focused on the task at hand, but there are also moments of her humanity that make Lee more than just a strict, cold-hearted person. Kirsten Dunst offered a highly compelling performance that balances Lee’s strictness with a subtle sense of worry and dread, making her one of the film’s highlights. Would I also say it’s one of Dunst’s best performances of her career outside of “Spider-Man”? Absolutely. She was riveting. Another highlight I think should get more attention was the young Cailee Spaeny, who also delivered one of the best performances I’ve seen. Of course, that’s only due to me not seeing “Priscilla”, but don’t worry. I’ll get to it eventually. Spaeny’s role as Jessie perfectly resembles the perception of those experiencing war firsthand, including an up-and-coming journalist. The complex emotions, including fear and dread, benefitted profoundly through Spaeny’s impressive acting, which is enough to get me intrigued about her future as an actress. Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson also delivered strong performances as Joel and Sammy, respectively. There’s also Jesse Plemons as one of the soldiers you see in the trailers, and all I can say is that fans of the actor might be pleased with what he offered despite his short screen time. Of course, it’s not just the horror and violence that sells “Civil War”. The technical aspects made the film a highly captivating experience worth seeing on the big screen with the best sound system. Rob Hardy’s cinematography miraculously envisions the frightfulness of the film’s thrilling violence and unsettling imagery, including the finale. However, it also isn’t afraid to showcase the gorgeousness and immersion of its sceneries, which is enough to pull audiences into the action. This is an excellent-looking film that displays the efforts of Garland’s collaboration with Rob Hardy. I would also credit the sound team for creating a sense of realism in the gunfire and explosions and even editor Jake Roberts for the transitions between the pictures taken and the action unfolding. My only issue with the film was its soundtrack, mainly in the first 45 minutes. There was this one song I think felt misplaced for a scene that was supposed to be disturbingly dark, but that’s just me. The other song after that was fine, although the film might’ve worked better if the soundtrack was only for the end credits. Overall, “Civil War” is a gripping, disturbing, and thought-provoking portrayal of the horrors of war journalism that also works as a cautionary warning for our uncertain future. Through his remarkable vision and enticing script, Alex Garland effectively combines the film’s distressing themes with audacious storytelling to craft a brilliantly immersive and haunting experience from start to finish. Despite my take on the film’s soundtrack, this is a vast improvement over Garland’s previous two films as a director due to its cast, mainly Dunst and Spaeny, intense action, and technical achievements. This is not only Garland’s best directorial film since “Ex Machina”, but it’s also one of the year's best movies, war-related or otherwise. Its focus on drama over nonstop action and unnerving concept may not bode well for everyone, but I will still recommend it to those who enjoy war movies with substance. A- |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |