​"Speak No Evil" stars James McAvoy, Mackenzie Davis, Aisling Franciosi, Alix West Lefler, Dan Hough, and Scoot McNairy.  Released on September 13, 2024, the film has a family encountering an unhinged couple and their son during their dream holiday.

The film was written and directed by James Watkins, who also directed "Eden Lake", "The Woman in Black", and "Bastille Day".  It is a remake of the 2022 Danish film by Christian Tafdrup and Mads Tafdrup.  After experiencing Zoe Kravitz's directorial debut, "Blink Twice", I assumed that it would be the end of the "vacation-gone-wrong" scenario as we returned to school.  Boy, was I wrong?  It turns out that there's another dream vacation that gradually transforms into a fight for survival, and it's not due to the deranged tech billionaire on a private island.  Instead, we have James McAvoy causing trouble for a family wanting to spend an ordinary vacation overseas.  This latest horror-thriller from Blumhouse seeks to keep the fall frights coming, especially on Halloween.  It's also the latest attempt at bringing an international cinematic classic to American territory via a remake, although they could just…you know, bring the original version to our attention.  But, you know Hollywood.  They love to make money out of "unnecessary" remakes, especially ones of iconic cinematic treasures made in different countries that don't follow its traditional guidelines.  Does this vacation of horrors prove this unfortunate theory further, or is it actually another go-to destination during the frightful season?  Let's find out.

The story centers on the Dalton family, consisting of wife Louise (Davis), husband Ben (McNairy), and preteen daughter Agnes (Lefler), spending their dream holiday overseas.  One day, they ran into another couple, Paddy (McAvoy) and Ciara (Franciosi), who invited them to their country house in Devon over the weekend.  Everything was going peacefully for the two families, but that all changed gradually when the family started uncovering shocking secrets from the couple.  One of them involves their son, Ant (Hough), who was born without a tongue, and the couple's mistreatment of him.  The other is their passive-aggressive behaviors, which test the limits of their guests and push their boundaries.  As the situation escalates, the Dalton family attempts to survive their nightmarish weekend with their secretive, unhinged hosts.

I was unaware of the Danish film of the same name until the announcement of the American remake caught my attention.  It was seen as a fantastic and intense social satire displaying the horrors of a misanthropic society.  At least, that's what I heard from the reviews it got since its release two years ago.  With the release of the remake, I was able to find the time to watch the original at a low price of four dollars and let me tell you.  I can definitely see why people were hesitant about the remake.  The Danish version was well-crafted regarding the direction and cinematography, but it was also consistently unnerving and intense, with one of the most shocking and depressing endings I've seen in a psychological horror film.  So, with Blumhouse taking charge of the American remake, it can be concerning that they'll do something drastic to please those who weren't fond of the original's conclusion.

So, that's why I decided not to bother with "Speak No Evil".  However, when I discovered that the film was already available to rent on digital, I reversed my decision and checked it out anyway.  Since I'm always eager to watch scary movies in October, I couldn't help but add this remake to my list despite my concerns.  While it is still playing in theaters, I figured watching it at home was the best choice, especially since I'm still recovering from my cold.  After finally watching it, it's safe to say that my concerns have been realized, especially its ending.  However, I found myself surprised that they weren't enough to deter my enjoyment of "Speak No Evil".  As a remake, the film is understandably unnecessary, but as its own, it's a solidly crafted thriller that favors engrossing tension and discomfort over cheap jump scares.

Unsurprisingly, "Speak No Evil" plays off the same narrative beats as the 2022 movie, including some of Paddy and Ciara's unruly behaviors.  This is the type of remake that replicates the original's greatest hits to remind audiences how impactful its counterpart was, especially ones from international countries.  Even though they're intended as a tribute to the original, some of its sequences can usually be perceived as overly solicitous or lacking originality.  "Speak No Evil" is one of those cases, but its direction made it tolerable for me.  James Watkins was offered the daunting task of respecting the source material, not just in its storytelling but also the elements within its plot, most notably the suspense and themes.  "Speak No Evil" was known for its cautionary tale of politeness and honesty not always being the best solution.  While it's always polite to be well-mannered towards people despite their differences, that can only take it so far when those individuals aren't who they seem to be.

For the most part, James Watkins has done surprisingly well in respecting the 2022 film regarding its cautionary narrative.  Even the suspenseful build-up the original is known for was diverting enough to bypass its familiarity.  I would also like to point out that this was a sublimely shot film that portrays its action and wide-angle shots beautifully due to Tim Maurice-Jones's cinematography.  I hadn't watched much of Watkins' other works before watching this film, but this one may have convinced me to think otherwise.  Sure, it plays off the same way as the 2022 version regarding his screenplay.  Still, James Watkins had a suitable way of respecting it through his approach to unnerving tension, frights, and narrative changes to avoid being a straight-up copy and paste of the original film.  That is until it got to the third act.  

In the original version, a family's politeness toward an unhinged couple led them to their doom, resulting in a depressing and terrifying conclusion that emphasizes its social commentary.  However, in the remake, Watkins drastically changed its ending into a more traditional one, which was one of my biggest concerns going into the film.  It betrayed the distressing tone of the original in favor of catering to American audiences who couldn't handle bold and creative ideas.  Heck, even the original film's director and writer, Christian Tafdrup, hated its new ending.  Understandably, the remake's ending doesn't exactly do the film justice, but to my surprise, I didn't hate it as much as Tafdrup.  Was it tame and conventional compared to the original?  Yes, but it provided the usual tension and discomfort from the second act to deliver a pretty entertaining finale.  This was one of the moments in a remake that could've derailed its chances of co-existing with its original counterpart.  However, its decent execution of the thrills and suspense helped keep it from spiraling into madness.

The film's cast also elevated its plot's familiarity through their gripping performances.  James McAvoy has provided a solid filmography in his career, not just for playing charismatic heroes but also for displaying his wicked and unhinged side.  His performance in M. Night Shyamalan's "Split" was a brilliant example of the latter, portraying a man with multiple personalities with unsettling yet captivating results.  "Speak No Evil" had McAvoy delivering his deranged side once more as Paddy, a "father" who isn't as friendly as he seems to be, and the result was unsurprisingly successful.  McAvoy is clearly the main reason for the film's diverting thrills, as he offered a balanced blend of charisma and craziness in his performance, evoking an unnerving sense of terror and unease.  While not reaching awards-worthy status, it's another testament to McAvoy's undeniable talent in playing both heroes and villains.  Mackenzie Davis also did great as a worried mother who has to deal with the couple's behavior and her broken marriage with her husband, played suitably by Scoot McNairy.  I would also credit Dan Hough for his performance as the silent Ant, offering compelling motions that speak louder than words.

Overall, "Speak No Evil" doesn't leave me speechless with its narrative, but it surprisingly compensates with its entertaining thrills and technical aspects that'll leave most doubters breathless.  Considering the gap between the original version and the remake, it's understandably unnecessary, showcasing most of the familiar beats of the 2022 psychological horror classic.  However, under the guidance of James Watkins, the remake avoided some of its usual trappings in favor of a devilishly engrossing treat that mostly honors the original's unnerving concept instead of relying heavily on the genre's cheapness, except the ending.  For those who haven't seen the original version, this film had enough merits in its cast, cinematography, and direction to deliver a suitable introduction to its dispiriting topic.  However, I would still recommend the 2022 version of "Speak No Evil" since it is obviously superior, but only if you can stomach its third act.  If not, then I don't mind you checking out the tame yet surprisingly compelling remake.

​“Monster Summer” stars Mason Thames, Lorraine Bracco, Nora Zehetner, Abby James Witherspoon, Julian Lerner, Noah Cottrell, and Mel Gibson.  Released on October 4, 2024, the film has a group of pre-teens encountering a monstrous force on their island.

The film was directed by David Henrie, who also directed “This Is the Year”.  Summer is the best time of the year to hang out with our friends and not worry about doing schoolwork for three whole months.  However, there’s usually something willing to spoil those good times, and I’m not talking about doing chores.  We’ve reached another month of frights and chills, which means more spooky content for us to endure.  Of course, there are also some award-potential options to consider, but that’s for another time.  In the meantime, we have another film that hearkens back to the family-friendly horror movies of the previous generation.  Does it deliver the delightfully creepy aesthetics to provide a scary good time, or are we better off spending the summer in our monster-free environment?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Noah (Thames), a young aspiring journalist who spends his summer with his friends in an island village in the late 1990s.  However, his carefree vacation comes to a complete halt when one of his friends, Ben (Cottrell), suddenly becomes a victim of a mysterious presence, leaving him zombified.  As a result, Noah joins forces with a retired police detective named Gene (Gibson) to solve the mystery.  Their encounter with a sinister force behind the occurrences and its intention leads Noah on an adventurous summer he’ll never forget.

When I first heard of “Monster Summer”, I started feeling conflicted about whether to watch and review it.  On the one hand, it looked like something you’d find on the Disney Channel or on a random streaming service based on the marketing.  On the other hand, it had a name that was familiar to me from my childhood as the director: David Henrie.  At first, I thought it was a different David Henrie, but after doing my research, I was shocked to see that it is indeed the same David Henrie who played Justin Russo in “Wizards of Waverly Place” directing the film.  He has also appeared in several projects, but “Wizards of Waverly Place” was the only series that I recognized him the most from.  It was nice that he was able to make a difference outside his Disney comfort zone regarding his directorial efforts and roles, which is enough to check out his second film as a filmmaker.  Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the movie reminded me of the family-friendly horror films I grew up watching, and knowing me, I’m always in the mood for a nostalgic trip.  However, the true test is whether the quality is suitable enough to warrant this vibe.

Regarding horror films made for children, there are plenty of elements to consider to make them scary and enjoyable.  You have to have charming young characters, a vibe that hearkens back to the 80s and 90s, and some enticing frights amid its horror pre-teen mystery.  In the case of “Monster Summer”, the narrative focuses on Noah attempting to solve the case behind a presence’s mysterious appearance while the adults are unaware of the situation.  Well, except Gene, who also understands the real threat at hand.  “Monster Summer” seems to have all those elements based on the trailers, but unfortunately, they lacked a more compelling execution to provide a monstrous experience worth seeing this month.  While it succeeds in delivering some of the nostalgic and kid mystery vibes we’ve seen from previous decades, the film offered little to nothing else in its familiar narrative to make this summer vacation more exciting.

This is David Henrie’s second feature film he directed, following “This Is the Year” four years ago, so I can tell he’s working on finding his creative spark.  On the one hand, Henrie did suitable work in resembling the throwback aesthetics of the traditional childhood horror mysteries we grew up watching.  Regarding its plot, it’s like watching an unaired episode of “Goosebumps”, in which the young characters experience strange phenomena surrounding them, including monsters, witches, and all sorts of creepy stuff.  So, in a way, Henrie seemed to understand the assignment regarding family-friendly horror.  However, in regards to everything else, his vision lacked a more frighteningly fun essence to conjure up the film’s magical appeal.  

When it comes to the characters, David Henrie ensures they have a sense of charm and humor in their basic personalities, especially Noah’s friendship with Gene, which is respectable enough to elevate its trope-filled screenplay.  This is mainly due to its cast, who made suitable efforts in their performances to keep the spooky times rolling.  Mason Thames, who made a big name in the industry thanks to his role in “The Black Phone”, was decent as the film’s protagonist, Noah.  While far from his best performance, as his role as Finney Blake from “The Black Phone” still takes the cake, I can see the potential of Thames being another young actor worth looking out for.  His next test will be his role as Hiccup in the live-action “How to Train Your Dragon” remake next year, so we’ll see if he has what it takes to attract a broader appeal with something as big as that.  Julian Lerner and Abby James Witherspoon were also satisfactory as Noah’s friends, Eugene and Sammy, despite not being in the film as much as Noah.  Finally, we have Mel Gibson, who has been sporadically making appearances in his small VOD releases recently, acting-wise.  While his performance as Gene may not be enough to put him back on the map, he surprisingly succeeded in providing a more charismatic and sensitive side to his character.

Unfortunately, whenever the film attempts to throw some horror elements into the mix, they surprisingly come up short in being either entertaining, scary, or both.  Look, I get it.  It’s supposed to be a horror movie made for families with older kids, so I can’t expect it to be in the same vein as a Blumhouse movie.  But, even if I’m not the right target audience for “Monster Summer”, I should at least get some spooks from its Goosebumps-esque frights.  Alas, that wasn’t the case.  The mystery element was mildly invigorating for the most part, but the frights that came with it lacked a monstrous punch despite the film being called, oh, I don’t know, “MONSTER Summer”.  The screenplay by Cornelius Uliano and Bryan Schulz also didn’t make much of a difference, offering plenty of familiar and predictable cliches that overshadow its message about courage amidst the darkness.

Overall, “Monster Summer” is a by-the-numbers throwback whose nostalgic and kid mystery appeal lacks a monstrous bite in its narrative and frights.  It’s definitely something you would find on a children’s network despite its PG-13 rating or even on a low-level streaming service like Tubi.  However, it also has a few merits that kept me from having a terrible summer, including its respectable cast and a tolerable mixture of comedy and mystery.  Regarding everything else in Henrie’s direction, scares, and screenplay, it’s equivalent to the victims of the film’s sinister being: lifeless.  I wouldn’t call this my next go-to classic for my Halloween tradition, but for the most part, it’s a tolerable watch for those looking to get into the spooky spirit.

“White Bird” stars Ariella Glaser, Orlando Schwerdt, Bryce Gheisar, Gillian Anderson, and Helen Mirren.  Released on October 4, 2024, the film has a boy learning about his grandmother's childhood.
​
The film was directed by Marc Forster, who also directed films such as "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", "World War Z", and "Christopher Robin".  It is based on the 2019 graphic novel by R. J. Palacio.  It also serves as both a prequel and sequel to the 2017 film adaptation of "Wonder".  It's fair to say that we all need a bit of kindness, especially in today's age when people turn against each other over the most simplistic things.  In times like this, there's always a film or television show that constantly reminds us that a tiny hint of kindness can make a huge difference, no matter how different we look at the world.  One movie that came to mind was the 2017 adaptation of R. J. Palacio's "Wonder".  The movie, which depicted a boy with Treacher Collins syndrome, was a faithful and profoundly uplifting adaptation that benefited from its stellar cast and thought-provoking messages suitable for all ages.  Two years after Palacio released his acclaimed novel, the author released a follow-up graphic novel that continues the story of "Wonder" from the perspective of one of Auggie's bullies.  However, it also centered on another act of kindness that changed people's lives forever.  Much like "Wonder", that graphic novel is also the latest to receive the cinematic treatment, although this one took way longer to release than expected.  I guess even movies need more time to spread their wings, not just birds.  Now that it's finally here, let's see if this follow-up is as kind and uplifting as its source material.

The story occurs after the events of "Wonder".  Julian Albans (Gheisar) has recently been expelled from Beecher Prep for bullying August Pullman.  He is assigned to a new school in a different state yet still finds the need to be socially passive to fit in.  This caught the attention of his grandmother, Sara Blum (Mirren), resulting in her visiting Julian to tell her about her childhood as a Jewish girl (Glaser) living in Nazi-occupied France during World War II.  As Sara evaded capture by the German troops, she received assistance from her classmate, Julien Beaumier (Schwerdt), whose leg was paralyzed by poliomyelitis.  As Sara spent more than one year hiding in Julien's barn, the two students formed a romantic bond that was stronger than hatred.

While my interest in "White Bird" was on and off, it only caught my attention with its connection to the 2017 film.  "Wonder" may seem sentimental regarding its themes, but it's the type of sentimentality that works for me.  The cast was superb in their roles, including the young Jacob Tremblay as Auggie, and its direction and screenplay were respectful in honoring Palacio's novel and its themes.  It's another film that's surprisingly great, but more importantly, it's a movie that we needed to remind people to be kind instead of being assholes to each other.  But apparently, people seem to have forgotten about that recently due to their lack of common sense.  So, it's only fair for Hollywood to keep reminding us until the end of time; this film is no exception.

Fortunately, fate made that decision for me, thanks to the mystery movie screening I attended.  From my research, I knew that "White Bird" would be this week's mystery movie because of its two-hour runtime and PG-13 rating.  When the Lionsgate logo appeared in its opening frame, I was pleased to see that my prediction was correct.  But the real question I should be answering was whether it was worth my time.  Well, it's obviously no "Wonder" regarding its emotional weight and storyline, but it certainly has enough baggage in its "feel-good Holocaust" package to showcase its timeless messages.  When it comes to feel-good movies, they can range from being sweet yet mawkishly corny to sweet and emotionally compelling.  Knowing me, I have a really soft spot for these types of films, but that doesn't excuse me from letting them off the hook just because they made me smile with their tenderness.  In the case of "White Bird", it fell dangerously close to the sweetly cliched side of things, especially when it overstayed its welcome by ten minutes.  However, it's harmless and touching enough to delight its intended audience.

Marc Forster is another filmmaker who can be hit-and-miss with his direction regarding heartfelt drama and emotion.  Some were hits like "Finding Neverland" and my personal favorite from him, "Christopher Robin", while others felt more hokey than tear-jerking.  For "White Bird", Forster is tasked with honoring Palacio's story of kindness and hope amid the violence and discrimination, not just in its storytelling but also in the emotional core.  Outside some of his action films, I thought Forster could do drama well if he played his cards right.  He's not a great director, but I can see his heart is in the right place regarding his vision.  His take on "White Bird" is no different, although I wouldn't say it's his best work.  While the timeless messages and charm are present in the film, Forster's approach to its sentimentality and melodramatic romance lacked a couple of gut punches to make them more genuine than emotionally manipulative.  Even Mark Bomback's screenplay was periodically hit-and-miss.  While it does its job in respecting certain aspects of its source material, including the Holocaust and the third act, the script faltered a bit with its on-the-nose and cliched dialogue.  Also, why did the CGI wolves manage to take me out of the film for a bit?

Besides the film's messages, the only elements that elevated the film's middling execution were the cast and the production designs.  While Bryce Gheisar's Julian seemed to be the movie's focus at first, the real stars of the story were Ariella Glaser and Orlando Schwerdt.  Both of these newcomers play classmates who hide in the barn from Nazis and eventually fall in love.  Their romantic chemistry wasn't at its strongest when it was trying to tug at my heartstrings.  However, Glaser and Schwerdt made a considerable effort to provide enough appeal in their performances to compensate for the movie's sluggish pacing.  However, my only issue with Schwerdt's performance is that I couldn't understand what he said sometimes.  It might be the sound system at my theater, or he wasn't articulating enough for me to hear his dialogue.  Helen Mirren was also satisfying to watch regarding her performance as the older version of Sara, who also serves as the film's narrator.  When Mirren is telling a story, it's best that you pay attention to her.  The film's production design also effectively portrayed the 1940s Nazi-occupied France, capturing the essence of the era with its meticulously crafted backgrounds and forest-like surroundings.

Overall, "White Bird" doesn't fly as high as it wants to, but its heartwarming wings are strong enough to keep it from crashing into the ground.  As a follow-up to 2017's "Wonder", it's undoubtedly inferior to one of my favorite movies of that year, mainly due to its middling approach to its sentimentality and pacing.  But that doesn't make it a tedious, melodramatic experience for me.  It certainly has enough tenderhearted moments to satisfy plenty of feel-good-movie enthusiasts, including me, looking for something positive in the world.  The cast, mainly Helen Mirren, delivered some respectable performances, and the timeless messages were suitably sound.  What kept it from being another wondrous cinematic gem was Marc Forster's hit-and-miss direction toward its emotional depth, its on-the-nose screenplay, and the pacing.  It's no "Wonder", but as its own film, it's harmless enough to evoke its smile-worthy presence.  If you're familiar with R. J. Palacio's novels, you'll likely be satisfied with this film adaptation.

​"Joker: Folie à Deux" stars Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, and Henry Lawtey.  Released on October 4, 2024, the film has Arthur Fleck forming a deadly romantic relationship with his asylum inmate.

The film is directed by Todd Phillips, who also directed films such as "Road Trip", "Old School", "The Hangover", and "War Dogs".  It is a sequel to Phillips's 2019 film, "Joker".  Regarding the villains in the DC universe, no one's as dangerous and mentally insane as the clown prince of crime himself, the Joker.  Known for his mind games and twisted psyche, Joker is an iconic enemy of Batman that we love to fear.  Of course, his toxic love for his partner-in-crime, Harley Quinn, also makes him twice as deadly before she goes solo and falls head-over-heels for Poison Ivy.  This aspect is revisited in Todd Phillips's continuation of his most divisive and darkest villain origin story ever told on screen.  Despite its mixed reception and controversy surrounding its topics, Todd Phillips's "Joker" performed like any other superhero film and became one of the most successful R-rated movies ever.  It even earned a surprising amount of Oscar nominations for this "achievement", including Best Picture.  This year, Phillips is looking to repeat history with a follow-up that continues the early days of the psychotic, makeup-wearing criminal, including his toxic relationship with his iconic clown princess.  Does it offer something worth laughing about, or is it an unnecessary sequel that should be locked up in the asylum?  Let's find out.

The story occurs two years after its predecessor.  Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) has transitioned from a former stand-up comedian to a mentally ill criminal following the crimes that placed him under arrest.  He is currently residing in the Arkham State Hospital as a patient during his trial, which will determine his future.  While attending a music therapy session, Arthur later encounters another inmate named Harleen "Lee" Quinzel (Gaga), who shares similar interests with him.  As the two get acquainted, they eventually form a romantic relationship while experiencing musical madness through their linked insanity.   
 
"Joker" was seen as a complete 180, not just for the Batman franchise but also for Todd Phillips, who's usually known for helming fun yet raunchy comedies.  Well, let me tell you, this movie is no laughing matter.  It brought many divisive reactions from moviegoers and fans of the iconic Batman villain.  Some adored it, some thought it was okay, and some just downright loathed it.  I'm one of the few people who's really impressed with the film's ambition.  Did it take cues from some of Martin Scorsese's works?  Yes, but they're effectively used to portray a mentally ill man's downward spiral to madness amid a city full of hatred and violence.  Additionally, it benefited from one of Joaquin Phoenix's best performances of his career, a chilling and discomforting atmosphere, and Hildur Guðnadóttir's award-winning score.  In short, I would call "Joker" the most daring and haunting cinematic project that DC has allowed to exist.  It is also an example of comics-influenced cinema being more than just superhero spectacle and chaotic CGI, which the young kids are into nowadays.

Even though I was okay with "Joker" being a standalone, I couldn't help but be curious about its sequel.  In addition to including the musical aspect, the film also has Lady Gaga filling in the clown shoes of Harley Quinn in a live-action adaptation following Margot Robbie's run as the Joker's love interest in the DC Extended Universe.  Regarding the live-action portrayals, Robbie takes the cake in playing Harley Quinn, which was enough to carry the "Suicide Squad" movies and "Birds of Prey".  Animation-wise, I would say it's a tie between Tara Strong and Kaley Cuoco from the adult animated series, "Harley Quinn".  So, I was intrigued to see where Lady Gaga would land on my list, especially since her previous roles have proven that she can carry a tune in her acting.  Of course, even with its two main leads and the returning crew from its predecessors, what matters is whether the sequel is worth joking about, hopefully in the best way.

Like its predecessor, "Folie à Deux" benefits from the Joker name in the Batman lore.  However, just because it involves the Joker doesn't mean it's suitable for young fans of the character, especially children.  This is more of an adult and hauntingly depressing take on the villain without Batman around to spoil his last laugh.  If parents fail to notice that like they did with the first film, then Arthur Fleck isn't the only person who's mentally unstable.  It's not for the faint of heart, but it's the type of unsettlement that's also very well-crafted through its technical aspects.  However, its ambition may have bitten off more than it can chew when it comes to storytelling.  It undoubtedly delivered a similar feel-bad vibe that made its predecessor daring and melancholy, but it sadly lacked the discomforting impact of its tension and themes to elevate its divisive and surprisingly tame narrative.

Instead of taking the psychological thriller route like the first film, "Folie à Deux" takes the approach of being more of a courtroom drama with musical elements.  It not only further explores Arthur's downfall through his mental illness and fame but also examines the dangers of toxic love between Arthur and Lee.  Since it is the "Joker" movie, the love between the psychotic lovebirds doesn't seem to last forever, especially when specific revelations threaten to separate them for good.  Similar to my thoughts on "Joker", I admired the sequel for providing something different to its daring take on the iconic DC villain, mainly when it showcases plenty of layers into his twisted personality.  However, its screenplay by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver kept it from reaching its full potential.  Its feeble approach to its somberly bleak themes involving mental illness and the toxicity of love and fandoms struggled to match its ambition as well as the discomfort that came with it.  This is commonly the case of a follow-up to an impactful cinematic tale that failed to make lightning strike in the same spot twice, especially ones based on a popular comic book brand.

What makes the screenplay even more divisive to bear than its predecessor is its ending.  I can only say that it's another better-or-worse scenario in which no side is the clear victor.  On the one hand, it emphasizes the film's creative freedom of its somber and grounded storytelling instead of following the typical guidelines of a superhero blockbuster.  On the other hand, it'll make plenty of Joker fans go mad for the wrong reasons.  Personally, I thought the ending was fine for what Todd Phillips was attempting to accomplish with his take on Joker's depressing journey.  It's that the story and Phillips's direction missed a much bigger oomph from its predecessor to warrant that kind of conclusion.  It's not great, but it's not the worst ending I've seen.  It was just okay.  The film was also more than ten minutes longer than its predecessor, and despite some engaging moments elevating the courtroom sequences, it felt like there wasn't enough room in its length to explore its topics more.

But, for what it's worth, "Folie à Deux" is still a well-designed sequel that showcases its strong technical prowess and remarkable cast.  Joaquin Phoenix reprised his role as Arthur Fleck, which earned him an Oscar win in the first movie.  To this day, I still think Phoenix deserved that Oscar for his performance in "Joker", as he brilliantly captured the unstable yet deeply layered failed comedian whose bad day led him down a darker path.  Unsurprisingly, Phoenix managed to recapture that unnerving essence with solid results.  While it might not be enough for him to earn another Oscar nomination, Phoenix's performance was a captivating showcase that's impossible to ignore, especially during one of his courtroom scenes.  Lady Gaga continues to prove her worth as an actress outside her music career with her appealing performance as Lee Quinzel.  Despite not being on the same level as Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn, Gaga did a great job making this character her own, and yes, her singing is still as impressive as her acting.  Brendan Gleeson and Catherine Keener were also great additions to the cast as abusive guard Jackie Sullivan and Maryanne Stewart, Arthur's lawyer, respectively.

Similar to "Joker", "Folie à Deux" got the last laugh in delivering a bleakly gorgeous drama through its technical achievements, mainly from those who returned for the sequel.  Lawrence Sher's cinematography was still immaculate for displaying its dreary aesthetics, decent production designs, and stage-like musical numbers.  Additionally, we had Hildur Guðnadóttir returning to provide the musical score for "Folie à Deux".  While not as memorable as its predecessor, the score was respectable in surrounding its gritty tone with ominous music.  Speaking of which, I mentioned earlier that the film has musical elements, with most of the numbers being covers of pre-existing songs.  Despite not having the ones that stood out the most, the musical numbers were entertaining and nicely directed enough to elevate most of the film's narrative shortcomings.

Overall, "Joker: Folie à Deux" offers another bold yet depressing trip into the title character's twisted imagination, but its tame narrative is no laughing matter.  While it contains the usual technical aspects that made its predecessor bleakly compelling, the film finds itself guilty of lacking the narrative impact it's going for, mainly due to its screenplay missing several marks in its themes.  Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga are a magnetic force as the deeply unsettling lovers, and the musical numbers are quite diverting.  As for Todd Phillips, he did all right in keeping the movie's narrative engaging through its cinematography and musical score.  Unfortunately, his middling execution of the film's unsettling tension faltered his potential to create another substantial addition to the comic book cinema catalog.  If you're more into films that stray far from the typical superhero blockbuster aspects, you'll likely enjoy "Folie à Deux", but it won't leave you with a smile on your face.

​“Megalopolis” stars Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel, Aubrey Plaza, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Voight, Laurence Fishburne, Kathryn Hunter, and Dustin Hoffman.  Released on September 27, 2024, the film has an architect attempting to rebuild a decaying metropolis.

The film was written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who also directed films such as “The Rain People”, “The Godfather”, “Apocalypse Now”, “The Outsiders”, and “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.  Many films tend to be ambitious through their artistic visions and symbolic storytelling, but it’s easy to tell that they’re not made for everyone.  Some have grown to become groundbreaking achievements in the cinematic industry.  In contrast, others have become polarizing and puzzling messes that even major film fanatics couldn’t comprehend what the hell they just watched.  But, at the very least, their visual styles are pretty to look at, even if they don’t elevate their narrative ambitions.  This latest passion project from well-known filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola seems to be no exception, as it has provided plenty of divisive buzz since its premiere at Cannes.  Even worse, it’s another movie distributed by Lionsgate, as if that studio hasn’t suffered enough from its back-to-back financial losses with its previous films.  However, I seem to be one of the very few people who have enough interest in this visually estranged cinematic outing.  With that said, let’s see if this epic sci-fi drama is as polarizing as people make it out to be.  

The story occurs in an alternate metropolis called New Rome.  Following a devastating disaster putting the city on the brink of decay, the federal government hires idealist architect Cesar Catilina (Driver) to rebuild New Rome as a sustainable utopia.  His reliable tool is Megalon, a bio-adaptive material that allows Cesar to control space and time.  However, Cesar competes with the city’s corrupted mayor, Franklyn Cicero (Esposito), who has a different opinion on rebuilding New Rome.  As Franklyn’s socialite daughter Julia (Emmanuel) searches for her purpose, the two rivals clash heads on how to save New Rome from further collapse.

I’ve been saying this a lot, but this is worth repeating in the case of “Megalopolis”.  As I grew older, my interest in movies increased along with it.  Since then, I have challenged myself to watch more ambitious films that come my way amid the more traditional ones.  Regardless of how I feel about these movies, I gain more appreciation for the filmmakers and their artistic visions, whether they’re the ones I’m familiar with or not.  “Megalopolis” is no different, mainly due to its baffling yet somehow intriguing concept.  Even though I hadn’t watched much of Coppola’s other films before “Megalopolis”, his hit-and-miss reputation caught my attention long enough to see his self-financed surreal creation in action.  After reading some of the mixed reactions about “Megalopolis”, I was pretty much prepared for what I was about to experience.  But, as it turns out, I wasn’t prepared well enough.

While the film is set in an alternate modern United States, the story is more of a reimagining of the Catilinarian conspiracy that occurred in 63 BC.  It even drew parallels to the characters involved in this attempted coup d’etat by Lucius Sergius Catilina to overthrow the Roman consuls.  In short, the film is two pieces of history rolled into one unearthly package, one from the past and the other from the future, adding to the bewilderment of its concept and world-building.  But, of course, every bizarre experience comes down to the execution of its narrative impact and its balance with the visual grandeur.  After experiencing the film for myself, I can say it is definitely worth being perplexed about.  I wouldn’t say the movie is a masterpiece, nor is it a cinematic dumpster fire.  But, I will say that “Megalopolis” was an interesting experiment on a visual level, even if its narrative lacked the emotional and coherent impact it was going for regarding its themes.

“Megalopolis” relies on setting historical aesthetics in the modern age to depict its reflection on humanity amid divisive politics.  Cesar hopes to use his time-controlling gift to create a brighter future for the residents of New Rome.  However, his artistic dream was constantly derailed by people’s different beliefs, including Cicero, and many other obstacles like greed, conflict, fascism, scandals, and hatred.  So, in a way, the film resembles how Coppola sees modern-day America.  Regarding its themes and storytelling, Coppola had plenty of considerable ambition in its depiction, offering a balance that combines its fever-dream-like visuals with a modern historical backdrop.  Unfortunately, his screenplay was often downplayed by its perplexing and absurdly illusionistic ideas.  While intriguing in its approach, the script offered plenty of questionable dialogue that sounded more unintentionally silly than inspiring.  There were also a few plot points that lacked an emotional impact or were overstuffed via its runtime.  Despite its respectable pacing, the film’s runtime can often overstay its welcome, especially since it provided much information amid the political showdown between Driver and Esposito.

Regarding the direction, though, Francis Ford Coppola certainly has a vision that’s mesmerizing and preposterously surreal.  His approach to the presentation and production designs was genuinely astonishing, representing a modern America that clashes with historical Roman elements and a sense of futuristic serenity.  Additionally, the visuals and cinematography benefitted this experience by delivering something you’d typically see in a dream, especially its illusionistic coloring.  But, when it comes to everything else, Coppola was a bit misguided in what he wanted from his tone.  At one point, he treated it like a political drama with science fiction elements.  However, in some sequences, it can resemble something out of a school play, not just regarding the dialogue but also the cast’s humorously over-the-top performances.  The tonal shifts can be pretty messy at times, but for some reason, I found myself laughing at its silliness.  Were they unintentionally corny and awkward?  Yes, but it’s in a way that made my experience worthwhile, even if the movie didn’t blow me away with its cinematic and experimental prowess.

Going back to the cast, “Megalopolis” has an impressive lineup of new and familiar faces, which was one of the reasons for my intrigue.  As mentioned earlier, their performances can be a bit over-the-top sometimes, but outside of those moments, they were suitable for what Coppola’s script had given them.  Adam Driver’s portrayal of Cesar didn’t exactly have my vote for this year’s Oscar race, but despite some of his puzzling approaches to his role, he provided enough decent moments to make his character work.  Giancarlo Esposito was also enjoyable regarding his performance as Franklyn Cicero, and Shia LaBeouf channeled his inner cartoonish insanity as Clodio Pulcher, Cesar’s cousin, with respectable results.  I would also credit Nathalie Emmanuel for continuing to make herself known outside the “Fast & Furious” franchise with her portrayal of Julia.  While far from awards-worthy, Emmanuel made the best of her capabilities to survive the film’s sea of perplexingly dazzling allure.

Overall, “Megalopolis” is a surreal and bewildering cinematic opus whose narrative impact lacks the coherent and metaphorical voice to build a brighter future for itself.  While uniquely ambitious in its themes and visual artistry, the film’s innovative aspects in its narrative and direction struggled to match its stunning yet bizarre presentation.  Despite being over-the-top sometimes, the cast was suitable in their roles, and the visual effects were astounding regarding the production designs and lighting.  However, Coppola’s hit-and-miss screenplay and direction were misguided in its length and unintentional tonal shifts.  It was undoubtedly one of those experiences that left me more puzzled than amazed, but that’s pretty much the joy of watching movies.  Regardless of what I think about the film, seeing something that’s bold and out of the ordinary is always a fun treat outside of Hollywood’s massive selection of mainstream content, especially in the theater.  I didn’t love it as much as I hoped, but the experience of watching a piece of cinematic artistry is something I’ll always appreciate.  If you’re familiar with Coppola’s other works and looking for something original, this one may impress you with its presentation, but not as much as his earlier classics.