​"John Wick: Chapter 4" stars Keanu Reeves, Donnie Yen, Bill Skarsgård, Laurence Fishburne, Hiroyuki Sanada, Shamier Anderson, Lance Reddick, Rina Sawayama, Scott Adkins, and Ian McShane. Released on March 24, 2023, the film has John Wick battling the High Table to earn his freedom.

The film is directed by Chad Stahelski, known for directing the previous three "John Wick" movies. It is the fourth installment in the "John Wick" franchise. You better have your thirst for adrenaline thrills at your disposal because the Baba Yaga is back once more to shed more blood from those who wronged him. Just a clear reminder that this all happened because someone had the nerve to kill his puppy in cold blood. That sick jerk. After that shocking conclusion of Wick's previous chapter, "Parabellum", many of us wondered how the legendary hitman would escape this troubling predicament, especially with the High Table now calling the shots. After a four-year wait in-between installments due to the pandemic and Keanu Reeves' commitment to the latest "Matrix" sequel, we finally got that answer with the newest action sequel that puts John Wick in the greatest fight of his life. So was this fourth chapter able to retain the action franchise's refreshing approach, or does it show that it's time for the hitman to retire? Let's find out.   

The story occurs after the events of "Chapter 3". John Wick (Reeves) is preparing to exact revenge against the High Table while hiding underground with the Bowery King (Fishburne). After John kills the Elder (George Georgiou) in Morocco, the High Table, led by the Marquis Vincent de Gramont (Skarsgård), its senior member, strikes back by stripping Winston (McShane) of his manager duties and destroying the New York Continental. Additionally, Vincent hires several assassins to hunt and kill John, including Caine (Yen), a retired assassin and John's old friend, and a bounty hunter named Mr. Nobody (Anderson). To earn his freedom, John must challenge Vincent to single combat while escaping from those who want him dead.

"John Wick" is an action franchise that finds a way to outdo its predecessors regarding its filmmaking and action aspects. The first film set a new standard of how the genre's represented with its storytelling, choreography, and technical qualities. As for its sequels, they became rare occurrences where each follow-up improves over its predecessor. Each sequel expands the unique noir underworld of assassins while raising the stakes for its violence and main character without making them too over-the-top or nonsensical. "Chapter 4" is tasked with continuing this impressive trend for the franchise's fans and action lovers, with its surprisingly lengthy runtime and sequel fatigue being its lethal opponents.

With "John Wick" serving as a stand-alone story for the main character, "John Wick: Chapter 2" started a larger narrative arc that continued with chapters three and four. That arc involves John coming out of retirement again to honor a marker, leading to him being "excommunicado". "Chapter 4" continues (and possibly concludes) this narrative arc with John making his stand against the High Table. It's a challenge that few sequels accomplished, let alone a fourth installment. Fortunately for me, this film managed to become one of them, with enough tension-filled action and engagement in its narrative to provide everything "John Wick" fans expected and maybe even more.

Amid the thrilling action scenes, the "John Wick" films usually deliver engaging stories that effectively take advantage of their revenge action cliches, especially the first film. These movies combine their narratives into a single, expansive novel depicting a former hitman's return to the life he walked away from after losing everything he held dear. Yes, that includes his puppy. "Chapter 4" continues this quest with John still facing the consequences of his actions while attempting to regain his freedom. What makes this story great is that, like the previous films, it never lost sight of the character's personal journey amid its violence and brutalities. We've been following John's arc since 2014, and the filmmakers understand that by delivering something worth cheering for regarding John's struggle, including the ending. I won't give away too much about what happened, but I will say it was a bold risk that paid off satisfactorily well.

Another element that remained intact is John himself, who remains one of the best modern action heroes in film history. One reason is that although he's a highly skilled hitman and assassin, John also has a physical and mental sense of vulnerability. He's a normal human being who seems like a badass, but he's actually a man shrouded in vengeance due to his peaceful life being shattered. Keanu Reeves's sublime performance showcases the actor's deep love for the character through his acting and stunts. I'm serious. He's just that good at manifesting this character.

Now, many of us are left concerned with its runtime, which is over two and a half hours long. Regarding the quality of the previous films, having Keanu Reeves beat up bad guys and travel the globe for close to three hours could wind up feeling more drawn out and dull. Well, I'm happy to say that that isn't the case. Yes, it's long, but it doesn't feel long. The movie benefited well from its consistent pacing, engaging character interactions, production designs, and even Chad Stahelski. With his majestic noir vision and approach to its action scenes, Chad Stahelski continues to prove himself to be one of the finest action directors to date. Additionally, his outstanding direction toward the Osaka Continental sequence shows that the film adaptation of "Ghost of Tsushima" is in good hands.

In addition to Reeves, the movie allowed the rest of the cast to have their chance at the spotlight, and they did not disappoint. Donnie Yen was one of the reasons I was excited for "Chapter 4", mainly due to his impressive filmography, including the "Ip Man" film series. Unsurprisingly, Yen delivered the goods yet again regarding his role as Caine. His performance was consistently enjoyable, and his fighting skills were just as stunning as I expected they would be. Bill Skarsgård also did very well with his performance as Vincent, whose role in the High Table posed a suitable threat to the main characters. However, my biggest surprise regarding the cast is Shamier Anderson as Mr. Nobody, a bounty hunter pursuing Wick, who had more great moments than I thought he would have. But, of course, I can't forget about the late Lance Reddick in one of his final roles, who's just as talented as always as Charon, the concierge of the New York Continental.

The "John Wick" films are always known for providing grounded yet enticing action sequences that don't stray too far into nonsensical schlock. The sequels had gone bigger with their set pieces and authentic violence without actually going big with their budget and R-rated violence. "John Wick: Chapter 4" is no different, with the action increasing the stakes for the characters and even its story. The result is another series of exhilarating thrill ballets filled with impressive choreography, stylistic noir visuals, and great tension. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen, who has worked on the franchise since "Chapter 2", continues to amaze me in capturing the stunning neon-noir-like frameworks of its action set pieces and backgrounds, especially the long single overshot take during the movie's third act.

Overall, "John Wick: Chapter 4" is another rare action follow-up that shoots past its sequel fatigue to deliver a satisfyingly gorgeous and immensely entertaining experience. Despite its lengthy runtime, the movie proves the franchise's worth with its exhilarating action and a respectable amount of emotion hidden within its brutal noir core. From its strong cast to the incredible stunt work onscreen, this is one of the best modern action movies I've seen and one of the best action sequels ever. Seeing how far this franchise has gone without losing a single hint of quality with each sequel is astounding. Instead of being pointless cash grabs, they are actual continuations that expand the assassin underworld while improving the elements that worked in the first film without going overboard with their blockbuster grandness. Hopefully, as time passes, more people will see the "John Wick" films as examples of what the action genre should resemble onscreen. Until then, let's continue celebrating Keanu Reeves's successful comeback with these crowning achievements.

​"Shazam! Fury of the Gods" stars Zachary Levi, Asher Angel, Jack Dylan Grazer, Adam Brody, Rachel Zegler, Ross Butler, Meagan Good, Lucy Liu, Djimon Hounsou, and Helen Mirren. Released on March 17, 2023, the film has Billy Batson battling the Daughters of Atlas.

The film is directed by David F. Sandberg, who also directed "Lights Out" and "Annabelle: Creation", and it is the sequel to the 2019 film "Shazam!", also directed by Sandberg. It is also the twelfth film in the DC Extended Universe. The hierarchy of the DC cinematic universe has definitely changed, but not for the better. Despite setting up the franchise's brighter future with Henry Cavill's return as Superman, "Black Adam", a spin-off featuring Shazam's rival, failed to reignite the box office flames. That alone is enough for the DCEU to make a massive overhaul, with James Gunn being hired to reboot the franchise, now known as the DC Universe. But before we see if his universe can exceed what Zack Snyder created, the folks at Warner Brothers are giving us a final farewell to the characters in the DCEU with not one, not two, but four installments in 2023. With Marvel giving out a lot of space between its projects, this could be an opportunity for DC to finally provide some tough competition for its rival, assuming they actually turn out to be good.  

The first of the DCEU's final moments before its destruction is a follow-up to a unique superhero movie involving a young boy transforming into an adult by saying his name. While it wasn't as commercially successful as the likes of "Man of Steel" and "Wonder Woman", David F. Sandberg's "Shazam!" managed to impress critics and audiences with its lighter and fun tone compared to the other installments' dark and epic presentations. It also marked a different approach in the filmmaker's style, as he's usually known for directing two horror movies before "Shazam!". Its success resulted in the birth of its long-awaited sequel, which has the superhero and his foster sibling team tackling a new threat from the gods themselves. Now that it's finally been released, was the movie entertaining enough to make us say his name more than once? Let's find out.

The story once again follows Billy Batson (Angel), a teen who transforms into the superhero Shazam (Levi) by saying his name. He and his foster siblings, including Freddy Freeman (Grazer), are recently protecting their city as a superhero team, although Billy is concerned about them eventually going their separate ways. However, Billy's concerns are later put on hold when he receives word from the wizard (Hounsou) that the Daughters of Atlas have arrived to seek an ancient weapon that could destroy the world. The Daughters consist of Kalypso (Liu), Anthea (Zegler), and Hespera (Mirren). They're also not fond of children being granted the power of the gods and have gained possession of the gods' staff, making them a much bigger threat to Billy and the siblings. As a result, Billy must find a solution to defeat the Daughters while learning the true meaning of being the world's champion.

David F. Sandberg's "Shazam!" has been one of the DCEU's brightest spots in my eyes, along with "Wonder Woman" and "Zack Snyder's Justice League". At first, I didn't expect a horror director like Sandberg to helm a light-hearted superhero film, given his approach to his previous movies. Fortunately, I found myself genuinely surprised at the result after watching it. It definitely had a few dark moments we'd expect from the other DCEU outings, but they're balanced exceptionally well with its heartfelt character moments and refreshingly fun storytelling. Of course, that might've explained how another horror director, Andy Muschietti, got the job directing the upcoming "Flash" film. We'll see how that one turns out once it arrives. Until then, our eyes are set on Sandberg's super-powered sequel, which has him offering another round of fun superhero action and heartwarming family affairs courtesy of the teenager with god-like powers.

If you've watched the first "Shazam!" film, you'll know that "Fury of the Gods" retains the silly charm of its predecessor while also focusing on its heartfelt themes and character development. In the case of Billy, he's questioning his doubt about his responsibilities as the wizard's champion while being close to aging out of the foster system. Additionally, we see him feeling concerned about his siblings/teammates doing their own things, which would've meant the end of the "Shazam Team", as I would like to call it. While the sequel's concept may not match the freshness that made the first film's superhero formula unique and endearing, its approach to its plot admittedly offered some promising opportunities to expand its themes of family and coming of age on an emotional and thrilling level. It can keep the silliness from its predecessor, but its balance with the storytelling is what it needs to keep the superhero train going.

As far as the execution goes, "Fury of the Gods" succeeds in providing the usual superhero entertainment we've come to expect. Unfortunately, its reliance on the genre's familiar tropes over strong fresh ideas makes this lightning bolt far from dazzling. The main reason is the screenplay by Henry Gayden and Chris Morgan. It offers a predictable storyline that favors bigger stakes and several plot points that struggle to go anywhere amid the film's CGI chaos. One minute, you have Billy working to keep the team together. The next, you have the foster siblings trying to be accepted as heroes by the citizens of Philadelphia. With the film unable to commit to one thing or the other, it loses the satisfaction of its admirable messages, leaving them watered down by its sea of fun superhero violence and visual splendor. Its heart was in the right place, don't get me wrong. It's that it's not as big as I thought it would be.

Fortunately, David F. Sandberg retained his status as a solid director regarding his approach to its tone. Sandberg offers a style that combines family-friendly affairs with the elements seen in several superhero movies, and they blend suitably well together. He also isn't afraid to occasionally provide a few frightening moments amid its goofy charm, especially in the film's opening act. Speaking of goofy, the humor in "Fury of the Gods" has plenty of silly yet amusing moments, especially when they involve Billy's superhero form and Djimon Hounsou's portrayal of the wizard. However, like its story, the comedy lacks the refreshing appeal that its predecessor had, with some of the jokes feeling forced or repetitive, including Billy's dense personality.

Another element that kept the film soaring was the cast. Many of the cast members return from the first film to reprise their roles, along with some new characters, and they're unsurprisingly delightful. Zachary Levi and Asher Angel continue to provide a sense of humor and heart into their roles as Billy/Shazam, especially Levi. Despite his character being a bit too hard-headed in the sequel, Levi is still a gem in manifesting an adult superhero with the brain of a teenager, making him another example of a great casting choice. Jack Dylan Grazer was also enjoyable regarding his performance as Freddy, and Faithe Herman continues to deliver a healthy amount of charm and sweetness as Darla Dudley. Additionally, I would credit Liu, Zegler, and Mirren for effectively portraying the Daughters of Atlas. The daughters were a solid upgrade from the first film's antagonist, Thaddeus Sivana, because of their understandable motives regarding their quest. It's too bad that its screenplay struggled to capitalize on its serviceable villains.

Overall, "Shazam! Fury of the Gods" delivers on the fun and goofy charm amid its mythology shenanigans, but its storytelling lacks the spark that made its predecessor a refreshing boost within the genre. When it's not trying to match the first film, the sequel mostly succeeds in providing another piece of superhero entertainment, especially for those needing pure escapism. It's enough to make it soar but not enough to fly as high as it wanted. Its charming cast, Sandberg's direction for its tone, and its decent visuals made the film a pleasing experience for me. Unfortunately, its average screenplay, unfocused plot points, and hit-and-miss humor resulted in it being a mildly underwhelming follow-up that only sizzles instead of pops. It's watchable if you liked the first film, but you might not get much else if you're hoping for this lightning to strike twice.

​"65" stars Adam Driver, Ariana Greenblatt, Chloe Coleman, and Nika King. Released on March 10, 2023, the film has a pilot and a young survivor stranded on a planet full of dangerous creatures.

The film was written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, who also directed "Nightlight" and "Haunt". They're also known for writing "A Quiet Place". Earth was once ruled by prehistoric creatures long before humans like us existed. But what if that's not the case? What if the dinosaurs weren't the only beings during this era? This latest sci-fi film has the answer, courtesy of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, the writers of "A Quiet Place". After suffering through several release date changes from Sony, we finally got to see Adam Driver take on a bunch of dinosaurs as the past and future collide to provide one of the most interesting concepts in the sci-fi thriller genre. But is this battle for survival thrilling enough to continue the directors' success in their post- "Quiet Place" era, or does it deserve to stay in the past? Let's find out.

The story centers on Mills (Driver), a pilot traveling through space to gain money to treat the illness of his daughter Nevine (Coleman). During the cruise, his ship gets hit by an asteroid and crashlands on an unknown planet, leaving him stranded alone with only a few supplies at his disposal. Fortunately, Mills isn't the only survivor stranded on the planet, as he encounters a young girl named Koa (Greenblatt), who also survived the crash. After exploring the terrain and making a few discoveries involving its monstrous inhabitants, they discover that the planet they're stranded on is actually Earth amid the Cretaceous period, and the creatures residing are prehistoric dinosaurs. With only one chance at rescue, Mills and Koa must work together to fight through the dinosaurs and escape before an asteroid strikes Earth.

Following the success of the "Jurassic World" trilogy, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood capitalized on the revival of the dinosaur thriller trend in movies. However, instead of copying "Jurassic Park" by setting it in modern times, we have a film that literally puts humans in a dinosaur-filled environment millions of years ago. Enter "65", a sci-fi thriller that immediately caught my attention since its trailer debuted. It's got an intriguing concept that combines futuristic sci-fi elements with old-fashioned survival thrills and Adam Driver, who's continuing his successful track record with films outside the recent "Star Wars" movies. More importantly, it has Scott Beck and Bryan Woods taking the helm at something that doesn't involve blind aliens. In all seriousness, though, "A Quiet Place" was my first exposure to the duo, as they wrote the movie's screenplay with its director John Krasinski. Long story short, I loved their writing in the frightening and emotionally thoughtful horror film. It's enough to make me curious to see Beck and Woods' take on dinosaur survival as both writers and directors. However, I have not seen any of their past directorial efforts, so consider this review my first experience with their direction.

The film is how I would describe it as a combination of "Jurassic Park" and any survival horror movie you can think of, like "A Quiet Place", with a dash of "The Last of Us" for good measure. Why "The Last of Us"? It's because of Driver's character, Mills, protecting Koa like she's his daughter after his real one died from a sickness. Plus, I recently watched "The Last of Us" before seeing "65", so I couldn't help but make that comparison. This combination should help the film provide a fun experience filled with human-vs-dinosaur action and frightening imagery. Unfortunately, despite delivering those elements we'd expect, the film lacks anything else in its oversimplified plot to match its tension-filled scenario.

There's nothing entirely wrong with having a simplistic narrative in a movie, whether it's a comedy, an action movie, or even a sci-fi thriller. It's a suitable way for audiences to unwind and enjoy a straightforward experience without any real-life problems distracting them. However, what really matters is how the execution is presented in a film's simplicity. It's got to have a functional approach in its concept and characters to inject a sense of fun, thrills, and an occasional display of heart into its limited storytelling. But, more importantly, it needs to deliver what audiences expect based on the marketing.  

In this case, "65" delivers on the concept of Adam Driver surviving on Earth during the Cretaceous period, which is far from consistently thrilling but passable at best. Amid the horrors of battling dinosaurs, the movie also showcases Mills as a pilot filled with regret for leaving her sick daughter to go on an expedition. He then forms an unlikely bond with Koa, who speaks a different language, and protects her from the creatures during their trek to an escape shuttle. Unfortunately, this element is where the movie struggled to retain its thriller and emotional aspects. Despite a couple of pleasant moments between the characters, the film's screenplay by Beck and Woods fell flat in providing a strong enough connection for the survivors. Even if it does have a tender-hearted moment between the two, it comes off as unconvincing and even rushed. It had the right idea on this dynamic, but its restricted character moments prevent it from being the primary source of the movie's tension.

It also doesn't help that the screenplay doesn't provide anything new in its narrative we haven't seen before regarding its tropes. It's pretty disappointing, considering that Beck and Woods's script for "A Quiet Place" superbly combined well-rounded characters with effective survival horror cliches. However, the duo managed to compensate for it with their approach to the film. Scott Beck and Bryan Woods delivered a vision reflecting on the bleak and hostile nature of prehistoric Earth filled with dangerous predators through its cinematography and set designs. While the amount of dinosaurs is surprisingly limited to just the meat-eating ones, the directing duo offers some admirable attempts at delivering the dreaded fear of being hunted by dinosaurs, even if some sequences fell short of expectations.

The cast is one of the only elements that make this dangerous trek watchable. Like the dinosaurs, the list of actors that appeared in the movie is minimal, with the main focus being on Adam Driver and Ariana Greenblatt. These two are tasked to carry the film themselves through their performances, while Chloe Coleman and Nika King (who plays Mills' wife Alya) only appear in a couple of scenes. Thankfully, they did a decent enough job accomplishing this mission. Driver retained his status as a talented actor regarding his performance as Mills, while Ariana Greenblatt did very well following suit as Koa. Greenblatt is another young actor who continues to impress me with their minor roles, and I hope she maintains that success with her upcoming projects slated for release soon. Despite their small screen time, Coleman and King were also suitable with their performances as Nevine and Alya, respectively.

Another thing I was okay with was the visual effects. Made with a $45 million budget, "65" delivers some tolerable CGI for the dinosaurs and action scenes. While the action felt underwhelming sometimes, the visuals worked well in portraying the dangers of being attacked by a dinosaur. It shows that the visuals can work in a mid-budget movie if enough care is put into them.

Overall, "65" is a surprisingly underwhelming and overly simplified sci-fi thriller that wastes its exciting concept. Its serviceable cast, environment, and solid visuals make it watchable for those wanting to see Adam Driver shoot down dinosaurs with his futuristic gun. Sadly, there's nothing else in this grimly stale trek that makes it stand out from other movies with better approaches to its themes and elements. With its mediocre storytelling, subpar character development, rushed pacing, and lack of memorable thrills, the film fails to keep itself from being dinosaur food. It's not the worse movie I've seen compared to the other stinkers of 2023, but considering the talent involved, this is a prehistoric letdown that should've gone extinct with the other dinosaurs.

​“Champions” stars Woody Harrelson, Kaitlin Olson, Cheech Marin, Matt Cook, Mike Smith, and Ernie Hudson. Released on March 10, 2023, the film has a basketball coach training a team of differently-abled players.

The film features the solo directorial debut of Bobby Farrelly, who worked with Peter Farrelly on films such as “Kingpin”, “Shallow Hal”, and “The Heartbreak Kid”. It is an English-language remake of the 2018 Spanish film by Javier Fesser and David Marques. It’s clear that Hollywood is dying to provide more sports goodness for its audiences this year. Last month’s “80 for Brady” gave us a heartwarming football comedy involving four women getting starstruck over Tom Brady. This weekend, we’re moving from the football field to the basketball court with a film that sees Woody Harrelson impressing audiences with his charm and coaching skills. The movie also sees Bobby Farrelly going solo this time after his brother Peter gained some success with his recent solo outings, including “Green Book”. I guess two minds think alike when it comes to these sibling directors. So does it score enough points to mark a successful new step in Bobby’s career? Let’s find out.

The story centers on Marcus Marokovich (Harrelson), a temperamental and disgraced minor-league basketball coach. He finds himself in hot water when he gets in legal trouble, which could jeopardize his dream of coaching in the NBA. To revive his career, he must spend 90 days completing a special community service requirement. Marcus is tasked with coaching the local community center’s basketball team, The Friends, consisting of players with intellectual disabilities. The problem is, however, they’re not exactly the best team he has in mind. As they compete for a spot in the Special Olympics, Marcus goes through several scenarios with the team that’ll change his perspective on life.

I originally thought this movie was another original idea from Hollywood amid its ever-lasting list of sequels and remakes. That is until I discovered it was an English remake of a film that came out in Spain five years ago. I suppose that’s one way to make us aware of its overlooked source material. On another note, the trailer for “Champions” immediately reminded me of another movie with a similar concept, “Rebound”, back in 2005 with Martin Lawrence. That film also has a disgraced coach training a group of inexperienced players to be the best. These movies are part of a classic uplifting sports narrative involving someone looking at life from a different perspective, thanks to their teammates. It’s a common storytelling trend that often succeeds in inspiring audiences through its heartfelt appeal and humor despite its formulaic shortcomings. So it should come as no surprise that “Champions” is another enjoyable example of this wholesome trend.

Regarding its storytelling, the film is not going to win any awards for its originality, technical aspects, or any other form of cinematic quality. What it needs to be is a relaxing, straightforward sports comedy-drama with a tolerable narrative that warms people’s hearts. I know it’s been said multiple times for movies like this, but it bears repeating that they’re all we need to make us feel better about our lives, whether the movies are good or bad. Not every film needs to be the next “Citizen Kane”. For the most part, I thought the film accomplished this task with a good enough screenplay and some heartwarming messages to dribble through its noticeable flaws. It’s got plenty of formulaic elements we’ve seen before, no doubt about it. However, what makes them tolerable for me is the appeal of the characters and the respect toward the community of disabled people.

The movie features many likable and genuinely charming characters regarding their personalities and humor, especially Marcus. Marcus is the usual stubborn coach whose only thing in life is basketball. But, of course, his behavior made him rethink his purpose while coaching and befriending the team players, especially Johnny (Kevin Iannucci). While he starts that way, the film makes sure that Marcus has understandable reasons for his actions during his development, making him more sympathetic than irritatingly bone-headed. While the rest of the characters don’t offer a lot of depth, they’re somewhat admirable in maintaining the film’s entertainment values despite its two-hour runtime.

The Farrelly Brothers are known for providing films consisting of slapstick, toilet humor, and supporting roles filled with profane working-class characters. They’re also no strangers to portraying the subject of disability in their projects, which explains Bobby’s involvement with “Champions”. However, they’re also not afraid to provide some heart and drama into their specific movies, including Peter Farrelly’s “Green Book”. “Champions” has Bobby Farrelly attempting to copy his brother’s success with his first solo directorial effort while retaining some elements the brothers are known for. It’s got a couple of gross humor we’d expect from the Farrelly Brothers, but as a whole, Bobby did pretty well in balancing them with real-life comedy, mainly from the cast’s chemistry and dialogue. While Bobby’s direction is far from a slam dunk, it showcases that this Farrelly brother may have what it takes to compete with his sibling.

But, of course, I can’t forget about the film’s representation of people with disabilities, including autism. As someone who’s diagnosed with autism, I thought Bobby and screenwriter Mark Rizzo did a good job honoring the community it’s reflecting without being too emotionally manipulative or even demeaning. Instead, it depicts them as real people while also authentically acknowledging their disabilities. There were also times when the film represented how specific people treat others with disabilities poorly, including Benny’s ignorant boss, which I thought was handled well. It’s nice to see something like “Champions” represent people with disabilities as actual human beings instead of objects for crude humor. It shows that every community worldwide should feel welcomed, especially on screen.

The cast also did very well with their charismatic performances. Woody Harrelson has done plenty of great work throughout his career, and his role as Marcus is no different. Harrelson injected plenty of subtlety and charm into Marcus’ personality and humor, which is enough to distract me from his predictable arc. Kaitlin Olsen and Matt Cook also delivered enjoyable performances as Alex (Johnny’s sister) and Sonny, respectively. I would also acknowledge Ernie Hudson because of his role as Phil Perretti, Marcus’ friend, and because it’s terrific to see the actor in more projects outside the “Ghostbusters” franchise. As for the people portraying The Friends, I thought they did an outstanding job making their characters lovable, with Madison Tevlin’s Consentino and Kevin Iannucci’s Johnny being the highlights. It’s enough to make me appreciate the filmmakers for getting actual people with developmental disabilities to play the characters created for them.

Overall, “Champions” scores enough points in its wholesomeness and story to deliver another heartwarming piece of feel-good sports entertainment. Its formulaic narrative is understandably flawed sometimes, and the concept overstayed its welcome by at least ten minutes. However, all that matters from my perspective is that the execution is decent, and the mixture of comedy and heartfelt drama suits its target audience, including me. Fortunately, the film managed to pull those feats off, resulting in it being an endearing distraction for sports fans and casual moviegoers. From its talented cast to Bobby Farrelly’s handling of its representation and comedy, the movie delivers what it needs to make champions out of its viewers.

​"Scream VI" stars Melissa Barrera, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Jack Champion, Mason Gooding, Jenna Ortega, Hayden Panettiere, and Courteney Cox. Released on March 10, 2023, the film has Sam Carpenter and her allies encountering a new Ghostface killer in New York City.

The film is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, who also directed films such as "Devil's Due", "Ready or Not", and 2022's "Scream". It is the sixth installment in the "Scream" film series. It's been a year since the murderous Ghostface reemerged to terrorize the people of Woodsboro. Under the direction of Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett, the "requel", titled "Scream", became a critical and commercial success, earning plenty of praise for honoring Wes Craven's slasher comedy franchise and the genre itself. So it is no surprise that Hollywood would fast-track another sequel while the killer's knife is hot. Although, this film looks to be a bit different than its predecessors, with the franchise moving the action from the suburbs to the Big Apple. In other words, Ghostface is going down the "Jason Takes Manhattan" route. Maybe they should've called it "Scream VI: Ghostface Takes Manhattan" instead? Aside from its location change, does this latest sequel have enough wit, thrills, and brutalities to continue Craven's legacy, or does it wind up being the "Jason Takes Manhattan" of the "Scream" franchise regarding its quality? Let's find out.

Set after the events of 2022's "Scream", the story follows the remaining survivors of the latest Ghostface killings: sisters Samantha (Barrera) and Tara Carpenter (Ortega) and twins Chad (Gooding) and Mindy Meeks-Martin (Brown). Following the incident that changed their lives, Sam and the others leave Woodsboro behind to begin their new chapters in New York City. Unfortunately, they later discover that the past isn't done with them when they learn that a new Ghostface killer (Roger L. Jackson) is terrorizing the Big Apple. However, this Ghostface appears to be more aggressive and ruthless than the previous ones. With the help of Gale Weathers (Cox) and another survivor, Kirby Reed (Panettiere), who's now a special agent, Sam and the others attempt to end Ghostface's murderous rampage once more, leading them to uncover a shocking secret behind the masked killer and Sam's past.

2022's "Scream", or as I would like to call it, "Scream 5", is one of the few examples where a legacy sequel, or "requel" as people call it nowadays, can work. It follows the usual rules of this latest Hollywood trend, including having characters from the previous films unite with new, younger characters and a story that progresses the legacy while having similarities to the original. However, it also maintains the elements that made its predecessors fun and refreshing, such as the violence, the twists, and, more importantly, the relevant satirization of the horror genre. Sure, it's not a thought-provoking masterpiece like "The Babadook", but I found it to be a bloody good time and another strong showcase for the filmmaking duo's direction. That alone was one of the reasons I was looking forward to the franchise's sixth installment.

Aside from the location change, which is nothing entirely new for the franchise, "Scream VI" marks the first film in the series that Neve Campbell (who plays Sidney Prescott) won't be featured. This is due to the actress not being impressed with the offer given to her, so hopefully, that'll change if they're planning to make more movies. It's quite a shame, too, since Campbell is one of the best parts of the "Scream" franchise. At least they got Courteney Cox back for another round of slasher mayhem. If you're wondering why David Arquette isn't returning, watch "Scream 5". So the movie is facing a test similar to "Creed III": whether the franchise can survive without its main star. That means having a tolerable narrative that makes excellent use of the franchise's elements, the change in scenery, and its newly fresh victims. Unsurprisingly, "Scream VI" managed to make a killing out of them, even though some of its edges were a bit rough.

Like its predecessors, "Scream VI" delivers a plot that combines the slasher genre with a whodunit mystery and a few instances of black comedy. It serves as a continuation of Sam's story arc that began in 2022's "Scream", with her dealing with a conspiracy involving the recent Woodsboro killings that resulted in her being shunned by society. It also doesn't help that she's (spoilers for those who haven't watched its predecessor) the daughter of the first film's killer, Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich). Additionally, Sam struggles with watching over Tara, who wants to leave the past behind without being saved by her overprotective older sister every time. Sam has been an interesting addition to the franchise's list of characters because she strives to live her own life but is constantly haunted by Billy's actions in the first film. Even though she's the main character, Sam is treated by everyone as the villain based on the legacy Billy left behind, making her one of the most compelling characters in the franchise. "Scream VI" continues this element with a familiar yet entertaining story that delivers compelling stakes and growth for Sam and Tara, even if it is a bit too long.

Another thing to mention is the screenplay, with James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick returning to pen the sixth movie. Similar to what they did with 2022's "Scream", the writers for "Scream VI" paid respect to the franchise through its tropes, comedy, and nostalgia without making it look like a cheap and shoe-horned cash grab. For the nostalgic easter eggs, they serve as both narrative and comedy devices instead of obvious attempts at audience manipulation. The film's comedy satirizes the trends of film franchises, mainly horror, and the subversion of audience expectations. While some of its jokes weren't as witty as 2022's "Scream", the humor provides the wickedly fun and often hilarious nod to the trend it follows despite being aggressively darker in its tone. It also compensates for its usual tropes it poked fun of by delivering another effective whodunit that tests the characters' trust and offers another series of decent twists and bloody kills.  

It does show some signs of franchise fatigue, with specific elements lacking the same impact as they were in its predecessors. Fortunately, the Radio Silence duo retained its horrifically comical appeal through their refreshing direction. One particular example is the setting. With the characters in New York, the directors had the opportunity to provide some clever scares reflecting people's fears of living in the big city, especially in large crowds, compared to the suburban setting. Unsurprisingly, the duo succeeds in injecting the right amount of tension into its genuine frights, with the subway sequence being one of the best parts of the franchise. From its claustrophobic setting to its great use of suspense, the subway scene is enough to make me want to walk to my destination instead.

The main cast who reprised their roles from 2022's "Scream" was once again very entertaining in their roles and infectious chemistry. Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega were superb in their performances as Sam and Tara, respectively. Regarding Ortega's role as Tara, the young actress continued to prove her worth as this generation's "Scream Princess" and a bonafide badass in the horror genre. As for Barrera, I'm glad she's still getting some attention after many people missed her role in Jon M. Chu's "In the Heights". Jasmin Savoy Brown continues to shine with her performance as Mindy, with her explaining the rules of the genre and film franchises being my favorite highlight. The movie also sees the return of another legacy actor, Hayden Panettiere, who reprised her role as Kirby Reed from "Scream 4". Long story short, her comeback was worth the 12-year wait. Courteney Cox was also enjoyable as Gale Weathers despite her limited role compared to its predecessor.

However, despite the things I liked and disliked about "Scream VI", there's only one issue that felt like an unnecessary addition to the franchise, in my opinion. That issue, ladies and gentlemen, is the 3D. Believe it or not, "Scream VI" became the first installment in the franchise to receive the 3D treatment, which seems unusual given its genre. Then again, the other slasher films like "Texas Chainsaw" did the same thing years ago, so it's nothing entirely new. I saw it in 3D, and yes, it was undoubtedly unnecessary. Instead of using it to immerse the experience, it felt like Hollywood is using it as a cheap gimmick to earn more money. We're already reliving the "Avatar" scenario from the 2010s regarding the 3D format. Thankfully, it didn't impact my experience with the movie's quality. Plus, the film missed a huge opportunity to satirize a franchise's reliance on 3D to lure its fans back to their seats. That would be enough to make up for its unneeded decision. So if you're looking forward to seeing Ghostface stab you in the third dimension, prepare to be disappointed.

Overall, "Scream VI" slashed past some of its franchise fatigue to deliver another darkly humorous and wickedly entertaining killing spree for both "Scream" fans and slasher followers. Unfortunately, regarding its storytelling and comedy, the specific parts of the film's blade were a bit rusty. However, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett still proved themselves to be the horror directors worth paying attention to, as they provided another fun and well-directed installment in the iconic slasher franchise. Thanks to its appealing cast, direction, a decent script, and effective comedy, the film took a bite out of the Big Apple, and the result is bloody delicious. So if you liked the previous "Scream" installments, including the 2022 "requel", you don't want to miss out on Ghostface's latest rampage.