“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-
0 Comments
“The First Omen” stars Nell Tiger Free, Tawfeek Barhom, Sônia Braga, Ralph Ineson, and Bill Nighy. Released on April 5, 2024, the film has a woman uncovering a frightening conspiracy at a Roman Church. The film was directed by Arkasha Stevenson, a former journalist who directed episodes of “Legion” and Briarpatch” and helmed the third season of “Channel Zero”. It is a prequel to the 1976 horror classic “The Omen”. Many people born in the 1970s usually remember the decade when they first experienced the true terror of the horror genre. One of the movies that revitalized the genre during the 70s involved an exorcist that struck fear into the audience and even the people who worked on it. The other has a seemingly nice young boy hiding a sadistic secret that’ll make believers in faith wet their pants. The one I’m referring to is “The Omen”, a tension-filled supernatural classic by Richard Donner that warns viewers of the dangers of the Antichrist. Its cultural impact and religious themes resulted in “The Omen” becoming an iconic franchise consisting of three underwhelming sequels, a 2006 remake, and a 2016 television series titled “Damien” that was canceled after one season. The latter would’ve been the last time we see the Antichrist haunting our religious goodwill. That is until we heard that the greater evil has returned with a prequel that depicts its impending birth. Was it able to recapture the holy terror of the original, or should the Antichrist remain in Hell where it belongs? Let’s find out. The story follows Margaret Daino (Free), a young American woman sent to Rome to begin her life of service to the church. She works at the Vizzardeli Orphanage, run by its Abbess, Sister Silvia (Braga). As the days pass, Margaret eventually finds that her religious path isn’t as easygoing as she thought, as strange, questionable events occur around the Catholic Church when she meets an estranged young girl named Carlita (Nicole Sorace). She soon discovers that the church is plagued with a conspiracy to bring about the birth of the Antichrist. As a result, Margaret must find a way to expose the church’s unholy secret before the ritual is complete. Like my experiences with other horror classics like “The Exorcist”, my knowledge of “The Omen” is as minuscule as a fly. I rarely watched the 1976 classic and never watched any of the sequels. But I watched the 2006 remake once, so that should be enough to know what I’m getting myself into for the prequel. I didn’t have much faith in “The First Omen” for several reasons. One was that it looked like another basic supernatural horror film from the trailers, and the movie just seemingly appeared out of nowhere, at least from my perspective. Regardless, I was willing to judge this one fairly because I’m better than the demons who always judge things by their appearances. However, like my experiences with the other horror movies of the past year, I kept my expectations low for “The First Omen” despite the film receiving some surprisingly positive reviews. After viewing it myself, I actually found myself on the same page as those glowing reviews. “The First Omen” has the usual makings of a supernatural horror film, especially one involving religion. You have the unexplainable series of incidents plaguing the characters, the information exploring this phenomenon, and the mystery surrounding it that leads to the shocking truth. It’s what you would expect out of a film depicting unsettling terror in the religious realm or any other movie with a supernatural presence. While that may be the case at first glance, the film also offers a surprising amount of effort in its quality to avoid being condemned by the cinematic horror gods. This is another modern horror movie that took advantage of its tried-and-true narrative to deliver on its concept: a terrifying and often unsettling depiction of anti-religion. Admittedly, it doesn’t reinvent the genre wheel with its storytelling, but the prequel does breathe new life into a horror franchise possessed by low-quality sequels. One of the reasons for its success was its direction. Instead of following the basics of a Blumhouse horror movie, “The First Omen” goes for a more slow-burning and somewhat stylish approach to its mystery and frights while maintaining some of the genre’s traditional tricks. It’s like a mixture of A24 horror vibes with modern scares, meaning fewer jump scares and more of its unnerving imagery. Since it’s based on a popular IP like “The Omen”, I see this as a risky gamble that may not go over well with those hoping for another straightforward scary movie filled with annoying jump scares and gory kills. There’s also the matter of its runtime, which clocks in at exactly two hours long, explaining its slow pacing. “Halloween Ends” attempted to provide this mixture, but unfortunately, it didn’t bode very well for the hardcore fans. Fortunately, “The First Omen” avoided this similar fate by delivering jump-scare-less frights that were actually frightening. Despite resorting to the franchise’s playbook periodically and its unnecessary length, “The First Omen” works as another haunting gateway to slow-burn, stylized horror that’s also visually surreal and discomforting. The film marked the feature directorial debut of television director Arkasha Stevenson, which is usually one of the signs of a horror movie’s impending disaster. That’s not to say she’s a bad choice to direct the film as she seemingly has a healthy track record in her filmography, including her two short films “Vessels” and “Pineapple”. So, it made me curious about her approach to directing a movie and the “Omen” brand itself compared to her work on television. To my surprise, I thought Stevenson did very well with what she delivered. Regarding the atmospheric tension and nightmarish sceneries, Arkasha Stevenson provides a sense of dread and darkness that overshadows the genre’s usual setbacks, especially the scares. The movie also benefitted profoundly from Aaron Morton’s cinematography, visual effects, and Mark Korven’s creepily delightful score, emphasizing a religion’s dark side. Many people believe that horror movies must be full of jump scares and excessive gore to be truly terrifying. However, this is not always the case. Some of the most spine-chilling horror films rely on the fear of the unknown, such as the supernatural or the unexplained. Even seemingly holy entities, which are typically thought of as safe and protective, can become excellent sources of terror in the proper context. By playing on these primal fears, filmmakers like Stevenson can create a truly immersive and terrifying experience for their audiences, and "The First Omen" is another solid example of this theory. Nell Tiger Free, recently known for her television works like “Servant” and “Game of Thrones”, leads a suitable cast whose talents are as holy as a Roman Church. Free’s performance as Margaret delivered an engaging mixture of innocence and fear that would make audiences feel they were in the same situation as her. This was my first exposure to the young actress, mainly because I don’t watch much television, and based on what I’ve seen from her, it surely won’t be my last. Ralph Ineson and Bill Nighy also made their presences work regarding their performances as Father Brennan and Cardinal Lawrence, respectively. Overall, “The First Omen” damns its naysayers by delivering a worthy and nightmarish prequel that’s more on style and discomfort than third-rate horror annoyance. Its genre formula is anything but holy, and its two-hour runtime can be bothersome for most horror fans regarding its pacing and risky approach. Regardless, it’s another occurrence where a seemingly basic horror movie, let alone a prequel, puts more effort into its concept and quality than most scary films involving the supernatural, resulting in a surprisingly decent addition to the genre. Don’t you love it when a film surpasses our low expectations? I sure do. More importantly, the film is a much-needed improvement for the middling franchise due to its cast, Stevenson’s direction, stylish presentation, and unnerving frights. If you’re looking for another scare-your-pants-off experience and are a fan of the “Omen” movies, this film may depend on how you feel about its slow pacing and lack of jump scares. But I can see it impressing those wanting a genuinely good religion-themed horror movie. B“Monkey Man” stars Dev Patel, Sharlto Copley, Pitobash, Sobhita Dhulipala, Sikandar Kher, Vipin Sharma, Ashwini Kalsekar, Adithi Kalkunte, and Makarand Deshpande. Released on April 5, 2024, the film has a young man seeking revenge against the corrupt leaders responsible for his mother’s death. The film features the directorial debut of Dev Patel. Many stories depict a nobody's journey that sparks a rebellion against corruption, violence, and discrimination. They encourage us to stand up to those in power and treat each other equally. This trend continues with a new action-packed thrill ride whose backstory is just as exciting as its straightforward concept. The film, which has Dev Patel in the director’s chair for the first time, was initially set to be released on Netflix. However, that was quickly changed when comedian/horror maestro Jordan Peele saw the movie himself and declared, “This has to be in theaters. Screw streaming!” and the rest is history. That guy sure knows how to exceed our expectations of him, especially during the current state of streaming we’re seeing now. Now that it has punched its way into cinemas, let’s see if Peele made the right choice regarding its execution. The story centers on Kid (Patel), an anonymous young man in Mumbai. He experienced a traumatic childhood involving his village being destroyed by the country’s corruption and his mother Neela’s (Kalkunte) death at the hands of police chief Rana Singh (Kher). Since then, Kid has spent years traversing through the city to face his murderers. As his journey for vengeance progresses, Kid discovers that his venture sparks a revolution for his people, tormented by the country's corrupt leaders, including guru Baba Shakti (Deshpande). Despite the odds stacked against him, Kid must fight tooth and nail to exact his revenge and save his people. When I saw Patel and Peele’s names on the film’s marketing, I knew it would be on my list of this year’s highly-anticipated movies. Patel has been on my radar since his debut in 2008’s “Slumdog Millionaire”, with his role in “The Green Knight” being my favorite. As for Jordan Peele, if you’ve been following my reviews of his works, you’ll know exactly how I feel about him. His approach toward the horror genre has a healthy track record that’s impossible to ignore, and even his filmography as only a producer outside the genre has been pretty decent so far. With these two involved, along with its kick-ass marketing, this seemingly grim and ultra-violent movie had the opportunity to become another crowd-pleasing theatrical experience despite being another John Wick ripoff. The question is: was it a good crowd-pleasing experience? Well, it’ll depend on your expectations. When it comes to the story, “Monkey Man” has plenty of elements that we’ve seen before, mainly the protagonist seeking revenge on the murderers. In this case, Kid travels through a neo-noir city ruled by those claiming themselves as gods. Amid the journey, the film showcased brief flashbacks of his past that led him down this path of revenge, including his mother’s brutal murder by Rana and the legend of Hanuman. While it serves as a revenge thriller set in Mumbai, “Monkey Man” is also a grim and often discomforting portrayal of class exploitation through violence, corruption, and pessimism. The movie showcased its location as an absolute hellhole where the people’s obsession with power outweighs those below them. In short, it is one country you probably won’t spend your vacation in. Through Patel’s visual storytelling and direction, “Monkey Man” offered a gritty and immensely haunting depiction of the country that also isn’t without its brutalities. Patel also had an impressive passion for representing the Hindu culture and mythologies amid its sociopolitical commentary, evidently seen by its presentation. The movie is an old-fashioned yet entertaining revenge tale that has plenty to say about Indian society and the deception surrounding it. On the storytelling front, “Monkey Man” occasionally struggles to maintain this balance regarding its hit-and-miss execution. In the film's first act, Kid is portrayed in a more humanizing way rather than just being shown as a violent person. The screenplay handles the character well, so I didn't mind the slower pace with less action. This means that the movie is more equally focused on drama and action, which is different from what the marketing suggested. But once the first action scene hit, it immediately became a hard-hitting, brutal roller coaster that grabbed me tight until the end. While some of the narrative beats didn’t hit as hard as its punches on an emotional and thematic level, there’s plenty to enjoy from this violently fun and often bold take on the action thriller genre. Dev Patel has proven to be a solid filmmaker in terms of his vision and direction toward the action sequences. However, he has yet to match or outdo himself as an actor. Patel continues to be an electrifying force of nature in front of the camera, thanks to his stupefying portrayal of Kid. The emotional range Kid possessed, whether rage or trauma, was effectively empowered by Patel’s performance, which is enough to keep him in the Hollywood spotlight for a while. The rest of the cast, mainly consisting of Indian actors, also did decently well with their performances, including Pitobash and Dhulipala as Alphonso and Sita, respectively. Along with its representation, I would also credit Patel and the crew for sticking with an Indian supporting cast to increase its authenticity instead of getting someone else famous to fill those roles. There’s also Sharlto Copley, who plays the role of Tiger, and it definitely looked like he was having fun with his performance, which is expected considering his filmography. But what about the action sequences, you ask? Well, it’s easy to admit that those who like “John Wick” will likely have a blast with “Monkey Man” regarding its brutal violence. From my perspective, “Monkey Man” fulfills its expectations of an often stylish and immersive display of authentic action choreography that’ll make genre fans go bananas. While most of its action scenes were shown in the trailers, that didn’t stop me from admiring the effort in making the R-rated violence fun and savage. Unfortunately, the only thing that brought this aspect down for me was its use of the shaky cam. On some occasions, this filmmaking trick makes the audience feel engrossed in the world through Kid’s perspective. But most of the time, it makes some sequences difficult to see what’s happening regarding its panning effects and close-up shots. Thankfully, it’s not as overused as most generic action movies, even if it somewhat hindered my experience. Overall, “Monkey Man” is an effortful display of authentic action and representation that’s as bananas as the protagonist’s killing spree. Regarding its storytelling, the movie is admirable in providing a soul in its tried-and-true formula and realistically grim themes amid its violence. However, it didn’t reach the heights it was going for emotionally to make it stand out from other movies with similar plots, including “John Wick”. Regardless, it’s another entertaining thrill ride that pounds its chest with pride due to Patel’s irresistible performance, decent direction, and brutal action sequences. So, was Peele right in putting this film in theaters instead of streaming? Well, the obvious answer is yes because who doesn’t love seeing an action movie on the big screen? As for Patel, I could see him tackling his directorial duties again if the opportunity comes knocking at his door. Based on what I saw from him, I think he has enough good merits to make it big as a filmmaker. If you’re looking for another adult-rated slugfest that isn’t “John Wick”, this movie may be for you. B-“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” stars Rebecca Hall, Brian Tyree Henry, Dan Stevens, Kaylee Hottle, Alex Ferns, and Fala Chen. Released on March 29, 2024, the film has Godzilla teaming up with Kong to battle a monstrous threat. The film was directed by Adam Wingard, who also directed films such as “Home Sick”, “You’re Next”, “The Guest”, and “Godzilla vs. Kong”. It is the fifth film in the MonsterVerse. It’s still hard for us to believe that a franchise involving building-sized monsters battling each other would last this long, let alone a decade. There have been other movies with similar concepts, including one featuring kaiju monsters and giant human-controlled robots. However, none of them could compete against the surprising amount of success from the MonsterVerse, primarily due to the resurgence of two of America’s iconic movie monsters: Godzilla and King Kong. With the booming success of their solo movies, the two Titans faced each other for supremacy in “Godzilla vs. Kong”, which proved to be a smashing hit critically and financially despite debuting in theaters and on HBO Max during the pandemic. The fact that it was a must-see on the big screen even helped the monster-sized universe remain relevant. So now we have the latest installment that sees the two popular Titans joining forces to protect their home, whether they like it or not. Does it serve as another hit as massive as a Titan, or is it time for the franchise to go extinct? Let’s find out. Set after the events of “Godzilla vs. Kong”, the story focuses on Kong and his human companions: Dr. Ilene Andrews (Hall), podcaster Bernie Hayes (Henry), Titan veterinarian Trapper (Stevens), and Jia (Hottle). Together, they delve deep into Hollow Earth, a massive world underneath Earth consisting of other hidden Titans. Kong eventually discovers more of his species hiding in the far reaches of Hollow Earth. However, the giant apes are ruled by a tyrannical leader called the Skar King, who seeks dominance over the surface world, and a mighty frost Titan known as Shimo. Knowing that Kong couldn’t stop the two threats alone, Dr. Andrews and the others decide to seek Godzilla for help, which is easier said than done. Despite not seeing eye-to-eye, Kong and Godzilla must put aside their differences and make their stand against the two villainous Titans. The first movie I watched Godzilla and Kong share the screen was 2021’s “Godzilla vs. Kong”. However, I wound up watching it on HBO Max when it was first released during the pandemic because I wanted to keep myself safe from the virus. It’s far from a masterpiece in terms of its thin human characters and story, but I admired it for living up to its concept of two iconic Titans battling the stuffing out of each other. It was a consistently fun monster mash that benefited from its visual effects and scope-heavy action sequences. More importantly, it showed that Adam Wingard, the man behind some solid low-budget thrillers, can surprisingly carry a blockbuster with a Titan-sized budget. So, it’s no surprise that I was looking forward to its follow-up, which promised more monster mayhem and humans we don’t give an ape’s butt about. Of course, we shouldn’t expect anything more from this movie since…well, it has a giant monkey fighting alongside a massive, pink-scaled lizard. However, it did need to meet or exceed the expectations of being an entertaining action blockbuster to make it worth our time. The thing to know about “The New Empire” is that it takes several elements from “Godzilla vs. Kong”, applies them to this film, and enhances them. One of them is the focus on the titular Titans. While the movie is called “Godzilla x Kong”, it’s more focused on Kong’s arc than Godzilla’s, who spends a few minutes of screen time wrecking stuff up in the surface world, a structure similar to its predecessor. The movie showcases more of Kong’s journey in Hollow Earth, which led him to confront his own species and challenge the Skar King for supremacy while forming a bond with a young juvenile ape named Suko. So, you can say there were plenty of big things for a bigger ape to handle in the film, not just Godzilla. As for the humans, they’re pretty much along for the monster-sized ride as usual while providing color commentary on what’s happening with the Titans. However, the movie did have moments where it attempted to make the humans as interesting as Kong, mainly the relationship between Andrews and her adoptive daughter Jia, the last survivor of the Iwi tribe. This bond served as the movie’s heart amid the destruction from the Titans' rampage, with Jia searching for a sense of belonging. Some of these moments struggled to reach the emotional heights they were going for due to its formulaic screenplay and execution. But the others were sweet and even tolerable enough to keep me distracted until the next monster mash. When it comes to the MonsterVerse as a whole, it has a rough track record in providing captivating human stories amid the visual eye candy and mindless monster battles. The only projects that happened to deliver the best of both worlds were 2014’s “Godzilla” and the Apple TV+ series “Monarch: Legacy of Monsters”, mainly due to its grandeur scale, character arcs, and grim tone. With this film and “Godzilla vs. Kong”, both of which were directed by Adam Wingard, the franchise seems to be going for a more light-hearted and retro presentation to attract a wider audience, including kids. But, of course, this change does result in the franchise spending less time developing the human characters and scope and more on the Titans wrecking cities and each other willy-nilly. This is far from an issue as long as they provide enough good merits to warrant this change and excuse their flawed narratives. “Godzilla vs. Kong” managed to accomplish that while being a fun and visually astonishing monster-sized ride. After watching “The New Empire”, I can say it accomplished that, too. Like “Godzilla vs. Kong”, “Godzilla x Kong” offers a satisfying round of crowd-pleasing action and mindless Titan mayhem to rule over most of its shortcomings. Its screenplay and direction may have taken more shortcuts than it should in terms of its characters, and the pacing near the end felt as fast as traveling through a portal to Hollow Earth. But Adam Wingard’s vision continued to delight with its rocking soundtrack and enjoyable monster-sized battles suitable for the biggest screen. Despite the humans being pawns of information dumping, the cast was acceptable for delivering humor and heart into the characters, even if some of their moments may not work well for others. The only actors I think were the best were Brian Tyree Henry and Dan Stevens as Bernie and Trapper, respectively. These two actors act as the movie’s comic relief amid the dramas with the monsters and human characters. While their straightforward personalities were middling at best, Henry and Stevens proved to have enough charm and humor to keep the human aspect close to being as engaging as Kong’s journey. Along with Hall and Henry, deaf actress Kaylee Hottle reprised her role from “Godzilla vs. Kong”. Her role as Jia in “The New Empire” remains a likable presence in the franchise in terms of its representation and her performance. Another element that I credit the film for is its visual effects. Admittedly, the visuals in “Godzilla x Kong" don’t rival what we got from “Godzilla Minus One”, but without comparing the two, the effects in this movie succeed on multiple occasions. In addition to the scope of the Titan fights, the visuals represented the beauty and dangers surrounding Hollow Earth and its retro-like lighting. They also provided some solid Titan designs, including the Skar King and a radiation-powered Godzilla with pink scales. I wouldn’t make fun of Godzilla’s scales if I were you. They may not match the earlier installments in the MonsterVerse regarding the cinematic scopes, but that doesn’t mean there’s not much to admire from the visual effects that powered the movie’s CGI-filled sequences. Overall, “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is another Titan-sized blockbuster that favors delightfully dumb popcorn entertainment in its monster spectacle over soulful storytelling. Regarding its by-the-numbers narrative, pacing, and human characters, the film is a small step backward from “Godzilla vs. Kong,” which may spell trouble for the MonsterVerse. However, it still contains enough fun and thrilling aspects to deliver another decently passable expansion of the monster-sized franchise, including its cast, visual effects, and entertaining fight sequences. More importantly, it also serves as a reminder that the two different Godzilla franchises, one from Toho and one from Legendary, can coexist to please their various audiences. I don’t mind a Godzilla movie full of spectacle and destruction as long as it’s enjoyable, but I also admire one that’s layered with interesting human characters and themes, mainly “Minus One”. These two parts of the Godzilla brand are different beasts regarding the directions they took, and I think they should be acknowledged for impressing both sides of the fanbase. It shows how welcoming a fanbase can become when they’re free to like different aspects of the same franchise without bullying each other on social media. Hopefully, this will inspire many other fanbases to stop being so toxic all the time. As for “The New Empire”, I will recommend this film to those who enjoyed “Godzilla vs. Kong” or want to have fun at the movies. However, if you’re more into monster movies with award-worthy storytelling and thematic depth like “Minus One”, this one won’t win you over. B-“Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2” stars Scott Chambers, Tallulah Evans, Ryan Oliva, Eddy MacKenzie, Lewis Santer, Marcus Massey, and Simon Callow. Released on March 26, 2024, the film has Pooh and his gang exacting revenge on Christopher Robin. The film was directed by Rhys Frake-Waterfield, who is known for creating low-budget movies like “The Area 51 Incident” and “Firenado”. It is a sequel to Frake-Waterfield’s 2023 independent slasher film “Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey”. Winnie-the-Pooh has been an icon in our childhoods since his creation by A. A. Milne and E. H. Shepard, with his charming innocence and curiosity toward the world capturing the hearts of children and adults. However, it wasn’t until Disney iterated the character that Pooh soared even further into popularity, making him one of the most significant parts of everyone’s childhood, including mine. That is until last year when the poor old bear became a victim of the "public domain", resulting in several people making their own versions of the character with horrific results. The worst offender that caught everyone’s attention was British independent filmmaker Rhys Frake-Waterfield, who thought it was a fantastic idea to turn an innocent symbol of pleasant childhood memories into a bloodthirsty psychopath. That idea was formed into “Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey”, a small-budget slasher film involving Pooh and his best friend Piglet slaughtering innocent teens and making Christopher Robin’s adult life a living hell…and have some honey too. Despite being universally panned for its deranged concept and poor execution, the movie was successful enough to spawn a sequel, earning over $5 million worldwide on a budget of a small house, much to our disbelief. This shouldn’t be surprising since most small-budget horror movies have followed this trend for years, but the fact that one involving a cuddly Pooh bear reverting to his feral instincts is a different story altogether. With more of the Hundred-Acre-Wood members joining in on the massacre, was the movie able to correct its predecessor's mistakes, or does it further prove that a murderous Pooh shouldn’t have existed? Let’s find out. The story once again centers on Christopher Robin (Chambers), a young man who barely escaped from the ravenous Winnie-the-Pooh (Oliva), who turned savage when Christopher abandoned him for college. Christopher Robin now resides in his childhood town of Ashdown, where he reveals the existence of his former animal friends and the 100 Acre Wood. However, he is also branded an outcast when he’s framed for the murders. With their home and lives endangered, Pooh and Piglet (MacKenzie) recruit their remaining allies, Tigger (Santer) and Owl (Massey), to embark on a bloodthirsty rampage to get their revenge on Christopher. With his hometown in danger, Christopher must find a way to end Pooh’s reign of terror for good. Believe it or not, I was one of the many unlucky souls who watched “Blood and Honey” out of curiosity. However, I didn’t see it in the theater due to my schedule. Instead, I rented it at home at a cheap price, which was still too much for a childhood-killing idea like that. All I could say about it was that it was one of the experiences of all time. Regarding its low-budget quality, execution, and corny elements, “Blood and Honey” definitely deserved to be covered in honey for all the wrong reasons. However, I did have a decent time making fun of it, so that’s one nice thing I can say about that blood-covered abomination. When I first heard they’re making a sequel to it along with a cinematic universe, I understandably became concerned that they’ll wind up being another series of cheap horror cash grabs favoring gory kills over substance. However, I instead became genuinely surprised when I saw that “Blood and Honey 2” had been received more fondly than its predecessor, meaning that they must have learned from their mistakes from the first go-round. But does that also mean it’s more tolerable or fun than the first film? Surprisingly, yes. Now, that’s not to say that “Blood and Honey 2” is equivalent to “Empire Strikes Back” or “Dune Part Two” regarding the sequel lineup. It offers the usual low-budget splatterfest elements that populated the schlocky horror trend of the past few decades, mainly the ones you see at a drive-in theater. However, when it comes to the enjoyability of its bloody concept and lore, it was a mild improvement over its troubling predecessor, but not by much. Clearly, Frake-Waterfield and his crew attempted to correct most of their predecessor’s mistakes from minute one, mainly because of its budget. With the budget being bigger than the first film, “Blood and Honey 2” had the opportunity to up the ante in its presentation, gore, and even the costumes for the savage Hundred Acre Wood gang. The result is far from perfect, but it definitely felt like the attempt was made to make its questionable concept fun, cheesy, and mildly frightening, more so than its predecessor. No, this is not an April Fool’s joke, though I wish it were. But what about its story? Did it serve as another reason for its “bearable” existence? Well, yes and no. Unlike its predecessor, which focused on a group of one-dimensional teens, “Blood and Honey 2” focuses on Christopher Robin confronting his traumatic past while being ridiculed by his hometown’s residents. Upon doing so, he discovers more terrifying secrets that make him rethink his childhood and relationship with the “silly old bear”. This direction provided more interest in the narrative due to its focus on Chris and darkly grim twist on the lore that made me see the first film differently. Unfortunately, that doesn’t excuse its average screenplay by Matt Leslie, which favors basic horror cliches over thematic storytelling, and the editing. While the quality did seem a bit better than its predecessor, it still has plenty of issues that made it sit between “mockbuster” and “made for streaming”. There were a few occasions where the lighting and quick cuts made it difficult for me to see what was happening, especially in scenes that took place at night. Additionally, the editing made the pacing seem a bit inconsistent as if the film left a few sequences on the cutting room floor between its transitions. So, it’s easy to admit that the filmmakers still had a few more tweaks to fix to increase the franchise’s momentum. But, of course, we’re not expecting anything masterful out of a small independent slasher film about a bear with little brain slaughtering people with a bear trap. We watched it to see the bloody mayhem and poke fun at its cheesiness, which the film delivered in various parts. It periodically compensates for its scares by delivering the amusement of its frights and gleefully cheap acts of brutality. But that’s not the only reason for my enjoyment. The other reason was its cast, with most actors being passable despite their forced dialogue delivery. Scott Chambers takes over the role of Christopher Robin from Nikolai Leon in the first film, and I thought he did pretty well. His performance as a distraught Chris won’t get him any awards, but at least his effort was more noticeable than Leon’s. Another reason was the film’s practical effects, which added to its exploitation-like presentation. They represented the essence of an old-school, cheap exploitation horror film that mainstream CGI tried to recreate and occasionally failed. The gory scenes were pretty twisted despite being second-rate, but I should give the most credit to the costume designs for the Hundred Acre Wood gang. The filmmakers upgraded the prosthetics for the creatures to make them look more realistic and unsettling, whereas the first film’s prosthetics made it look like they got the costumes from Amazon for a cheaper price. It’s impressive how much freedom they got from raising the budget. Overall, “Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2” offers more schlocky and gleefully violent vibes that are as sweet as honey, but it’s still covered in some similar flaws that plagued its predecessor. It’s rare to see a horror sequel that improves on the first film, let alone an independent slasher movie that’s considered the bane of our existence. But, for some strange reason, this film happened to beat those odds, or in this case, slash them in half with a flaming chainsaw, and I can’t help but be impressed with how much the people behind it went through to do it. While its script and editing struggled to change the naysayers’ minds on Pooh Bear being a sadistic monster, the enjoyment of seeing him slaughter innocents was powered by its passable cast and practical effects. It’s enough for me to be convinced that Rhys Frake-Waterfield could deliver something worth talking about regarding his “Twisted Childhood Universe”, assuming that his future installments were as amusingly dark and corny as this. If that’s not your thing, then you’re better off watching the Disney version of Winnie-the-Pooh instead. C |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |