“Imaginary” stars DeWanda Wise, Tom Payne, Betty Buckley, Taegen Burns, Pyper Braun, Matthew Sato, and Verónica Falcón. Released on March 8, 2024, the film has a woman discovering a frightening secret behind her stepdaughter’s teddy bear. The film was directed by Jeff Wadlow, who also directed films such as “Cry Wolf”, “Never Back Down”, “Truth or Dare”, and “Fantasy Island”. While everyone is excited about this year’s series of superheroes, action stars, and animated wackiness, some of us are ecstatic about the next “big” thing in 2024: imaginary friends. You know, the invisible creatures we made up in our minds during our childhoods until we grow old and realize how childish we once were. Sadly, there are only two movies that use this imaginative concept, each targeting a different demographic. However, that doesn’t stop us from revisiting that part of our childhoods before our minds were glued to our electronics. The first of the two I’m looking at today takes a simplistic, harmless concept of imaginary friends and twists it into something that’s…well, unfriendly. Some imaginary friends can be scary based on one’s imagination, but based on this film’s concept, it's probably best to stick with the cute and cuddly ones. Was the movie terrifying enough to prove this theory, or are we better off hanging out with our real friends? Let’s find out. The story follows Jessica (Wise), a successful children’s author who recently married musician Max (Payne), who has two children, Taylor (Burns) and Alice (Braun). They also recently moved back into Jessica’s childhood home, which she left years ago. While getting acquainted with their new house, Alice discovers an old teddy bear named Chauncey in the basement and immediately bonds with it. However, as time passes, Alice’s behavior around Chauncey becomes concerning, and their games become more dangerous. This leads Jessica to find that Chauncey is actually a supernatural creature from another world that’s targeting Alice. When Alice has been taken by Chauncey, Jessica must face the unfriendly creature head-on to rescue her, forcing her to revisit her past she left behind. The film’s concept of evil imaginary friends sparked my interest in watching it. However, if there’s one major concern that’s holding that interest back, it’s Jeff Wadlow. I have nothing against the filmmaker personally because I’m not like that. However, that doesn’t stop me from questioning the execution of his previous works. So far, I enjoyed “Kick-Ass 2” the most despite being inferior to its predecessor. After that, it all went downhill from there. Wadlow’s attempts with the horror genre hadn’t been great so far, with his dark adaptation of “Fantasy Island” being the worst of the two, in my opinion. “Truth or Dare” came very close regarding its execution and the laughable smiling faces. So, I didn’t have high expectations for “Imaginary”, but at the same time, I couldn’t resist watching terrible horror movies as much as the great ones. Please, don’t ask me why, as I still don’t have the answer. It was probably good that I didn’t have them because I didn’t suffer from this film as much as I did from Wadlow’s previous horror movies. While that doesn’t mean it’s a great movie, I can at least credit “Imaginary” for making some effort in its story, entertainment values, and themes. Both “Truth or Dare” and “Fantasy Island” suffered greatly from their schlocky storytelling and mediocre characters despite their intriguing concepts. Plus, the scares for those movies were as terrifying as a box full of adorable kittens. “Imaginary” has plenty of instances that make it fall within those familiar standards as those examples, including its storytelling. Fortunately, it has enough tolerability in its narrative to make itself “bearable”. Amid its “imaginary friend” scenario, the film attempted to depict childhood trauma and how the characters, mainly Alice, used their imaginary friends to escape reality. In addition, the story depicts Jessica's attempt to assume a motherly role towards Taylor and Alice, serving as one of the plot's significant aspects. With the concept of evil imaginary friends, this would’ve been a suitable representation of the difference between imagination and reality. But, of course, this is a Blumhouse movie we’re talking about, and on most occasions, it tends to favor cheap scares over solid storytelling. Unsurprisingly, “Imaginary” is one of those cases, but it’s also an occasion where its tolerability factor occasionally compensates for its lackluster screenplay. It’s easy to pinpoint that the script consists of multiple cliches that have been done in other movies, minus the emotional depth, resulting in a predictable and bare-bones world of pure imagination. But, I can also admit that it at least tried to make its middling characters less tedious, especially Jessica, played by Wise, with her forgotten childhood, even if they are formulaic. DeWanda Wise’s career soared due to her appearance in the Netflix adaptation of “She’s Gotta Have It”. However, it was her supporting role in “Jurassic World Dominion” that made me recognize Wise, who I thought was a fine addition to an average blockbuster sequel about dinosaurs. Now, she’s front and center in a movie about imaginary friends and not the good kinds. Someone should definitely call her agent about her job choices. All I can say about Wise is that she’s one of the best parts of the film, as she delivers a solid portrayal of a stepmom forced to confront her dark past. Was it her best performance? No, but I admire her effort in carrying the film regardless. The rest of the cast also provided suitable performances, including Pyper Braun as Alice and Betty Buckley as Gloria, Jessica’s former babysitter. Jeff Wadlow isn’t exactly my pick to direct something like “Imaginary”, but again, I have nothing against the guy. He was just doing his job as a filmmaker. But that doesn’t mean the efforts in his vision are nonexistent. For starters, the film did seem to tone down the number of jump scares to focus on its story, but the true test is whether they scared me. Well, I can say this: the mixture of fun and scary was there in some sequences, especially its creepy third act, but like its screenplay, the impact lacked any imagination to make itself everlasting. I would also credit the filmmaking team for relying on practical effects instead of overwhelming it with CGI, especially for Chauncey. At least there’s some imagination from going old school. Overall, “Imaginary” lacks the strong imagination from its concept to escape from its mundane reality despite its tolerable moments. The most generous thing I can say about the film is that it’s a minor improvement over Jeff Wadlow’s previous supernatural horror movies since it’s actually watchable. DeWanda Wise was decent enough to carry the film through her performance, the practical effects were respectfully handled, and the scares were passable despite their forgettable impact. Sadly, they’re not enough to maintain its imaginatively frightening vibe throughout its runtime, mainly due to its subpar screenplay, formulaic elements, and hit-and-miss characters. People who like watching horror films would likely find something tolerable out of this film, but like what they did to their own imaginary friends, they’ll likely forget about it in a day or two. C-
0 Comments
“Damsel” stars Millie Bobby Brown, Angela Bassett, Robin Wright, Ray Winstone, Nick Robinson, Brooke Carter, and Shohreh Aghdashloo. Released on Netflix on March 8, 2024, the film has a princess surviving against a fire-breathing dragon. The film was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who also directed “Intacto”, “28 Weeks Later”, and “Intruders”. Many fairy tales from our childhoods have depicted fearless princes rescuing damsels in distress from fearsome dragons, cruel stepmothers, or wicked witches that transform into dragons. However, there are some cases where the damsels become the heroes of their own stories, showcasing they can be more than just pretty girls playing with their hair and dreaming of their saviors. In this case, we have a heroic damsel who rescues herself instead of a prince, who actually puts her in that predicament in the first place. So much for an easy-going “happily ever after” relationship. Does this scenario make for another enticing fairy tale for Netflix subscribers? Let’s find out. The story centers on Elodie (Brown), the princess and daughter of the unnamed kingdom's rulers, Lord Bayford (Winstone) and Lady Bayford (Bassett), Elodie’s stepmother. Elodie receives a proposal from Queen Isabelle (Wright) of Aurea to wed her son, Prince Henry (Robinson). Hoping the marriage will help her poverty-stricken kingdom, Elodie accepts the proposal. However, she soon discovers that the proposal is part of the royal family’s ritual, in which they sacrifice their victims to the merciless dragon (Aghdashloo) to repay their debts. When Elodie becomes the dragon’s next meal, she strives to escape its lair alive and expose Aurea’s horrifying secret. After seeing a few movies like “Snow White and the Huntsman” and Hulu’s “The Princess”, it’s becoming evident that I’m into watching darker and refreshing takes on classic fairy tales. I grew up watching the ones from Disney, exposing myself to harmless and cheerful fluff and whatnot. But now I’m at a specific age where I’m ready to experience some of the more mature versions of the fairy tales. This brings me to “Damsel”, another intriguing yet grim take on the classic fairy tale lore involving the princess being her own savior. Not only did its concept catch my intrigue, but it also comes equipped with an impressive lineup, including Millie Bobby Brown, who continues to be a significant draw outside of “Stranger Things”. Considering my positive feelings toward Brown in her previous efforts, I was excited to see her battle a ferocious dragon in a dress. But what matters is whether the film’s execution is worthy of accompanying her presence. “Damsel” offers a tale as simplistic as a love story between a prince and a princess, with the difference being the lack of love. It’s a dark fantasy/survival thriller mixture involving Elodie’s determination to avoid being a sacrifice while discovering the royal family’s deadly truth. Regarding its concept, this would’ve been an intriguingly layered metaphor of class discrimination, in which the kingdom of Aurea (the high and mighty) takes advantage of other poor kingdoms, with one of them being Elodie’s. Sadly, that isn’t the case. If you go into “Damsel” expecting it to have these hard-hitting themes, your expectations will immediately go up in smoke. It’s more of a straightforward, bare-bones survival movie involving a princess battling a monstrous dragon. If that’s what you’re looking for, then there’s plenty to enjoy about “Damsel”, even if it doesn’t fulfill all its narrative trappings. Regarding Dan Mazeau’s screenplay, the film delivers its concept through its medieval-themed dialogue. On the other hand, it doesn’t do much else beyond it to make it stand out from other dark fantasy outings, especially its characters. They often appear one-noted or underdeveloped regarding their personalities, which is a shame considering the decent actors involved. Millie Bobby Brown continues to expand her “happily ever after” with another convincing performance, with her embodying Elodie’s strong-willed and resourceful persona. With her role in “Damsel”, Brown further embodies herself as a promising on-screen action hero, whether in the real world or the fantasy realm. Ray Winstone and Angela Bassett also made suitable efforts as Elodie’s parents, especially the latter for her portrayal of Elodie’s kind-hearted stepmother. I also enjoyed Brooke Carter as Floria, Elodie’s younger sister, and the delightful chemistry between the two sisters. Nick Robinson also meant well regarding his performance as Prince Henry, but the writing for this character was pretty disappointing. Despite its narrative issues, “Damsel” makes for an easy watch, thanks to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s vision and the movie’s visual effects. With Fresnadillo behind the camera, “Damsel” occasionally pulls me in with its tension-filled sequences and atmosphere, primarily from scenes involving Elodie in the caves. His direction struggles to maintain this consistency throughout the entire runtime, especially its slow first act, but the moments afterward work pretty well. The visual effects were also suitable for displaying its environments, even if some of them weren’t as impressive as others. I would say the highlight of its CGI work has to be the design of the unnamed dragon, who’s effectively voiced by Shohreh Aghdashloo. The mixture of black and gold for the dragon’s slim yet huge body is a decent attempt at differentiating it from the regular movie dragons. Overall, “Damsel” doesn’t spark much of a flame despite being occasionally rescued by Millie Bobby Brown’s presence. With the right mindset, the film is a mildly enjoyable piece of straight-to-streaming content that mostly delivers what you expect from a fantasy-esque survival thriller. This is mainly due to Brown’s effortful portrayal of the dragon-fighting princess, a few tension-filled moments, and some passable effects. Unfortunately, when it comes to its average script, one-noted characters, and lack of intriguing ideas, it’s also an average fairy tale that lacks a happy ending worthy enough to escape the flames of mediocrity. If you enjoy Brown in her other works and like watching darker twists on the fairy tale lore, you might enjoy this one. C“Kung Fu Panda 4” stars Jack Black, Awkwafina, Viola Davis, Dustin Hoffman, Bryan Cranston, James Hong, Ian McShane, Ke Huy Quan, Lori Tan Chinn, and Ronny Chieng. Released on March 8, 2024, the film has Po training a new Dragon Warrior and facing another dangerous threat. The film is directed by Mike Mitchell, who also directed films such as “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo”, “Sky High”, “Shrek Forever After”, and “Trolls”. Mitchell also served as a story artist for “Antz”, “Shrek 2”, “Shrek the Third”, and “Monsters vs. Aliens”. It is the fourth installment in the Kung Fu Panda franchise. Everyone’s favorite martial-arts-loving panda has faced numerous challenges during his journey to becoming the Dragon Warrior. He’s taken down multiple villains while also learning more about his origins in the process. Now that his quest of awesomeness has been completed in “Kung Fu Panda 3”, all that’s left to ask is: What now? Well, thanks to DreamWorks Animation, we now know the answer. The “Kung Fu Panda” franchise has left a pretty impressive legacy for the studio, following the footsteps of “Shrek” and “How to Train Your Dragon”. It provided great storytelling filled with memorable characters, world-building, and thoughtful themes and broadened the appeal of Chinese culture to American audiences. Plus, who doesn’t love animals performing martial arts? With the release of “Kung Fu Panda 3”, we all thought Po’s coming-of-age journey had concluded. It turns out that isn’t the case, thanks to the two recent streaming shows and its recent theatrical sequel. The question now is whether the latest installment is worthy enough to continue the Dragon Warrior’s legacy. Let’s head back to China and find out. The story once again centers on Po (Black), who’s set on becoming the Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace after the events of “Kung Fu Panda 3”. To move on to the crucial part of the journey, Po must find and train his successor to become the next Dragon Warrior, which isn’t as simple as it sounds. However, his quest is interrupted by the emergence of The Chameleon (Davis), a nefarious, shapeshifting sorceress who can transform into anyone, including Tai Lung (McShane). Po also encounters Zhen (Awkwafina), a corsac fox bandit residing in Juniper City. When The Chameleon seeks to become the most powerful being in the universe by absorbing people’s kung-fu abilities, Po and Zhen join forces to defeat the sorceress and save China once more. “Kung Fu Panda” has been one of my favorite animated franchises since it first arrived in 2008. The first “Kung Fu Panda” movie is a fantastic and hilarious tribute to the classic martial arts films that came before it. Its sequel, “Kung Fu Panda 2”, upped the ante in its characters and world-building through its dark story and memorable villain, Lord Shen, making it the best installment in the franchise in my eyes. As for “Kung Fu Panda 3”, it’s a step down from the first sequel, but I still find it a fun time regardless. I also watched the shows in between the films, including “Legends of Awesomeness” and “The Dragon Knight” on Netflix. They weren’t too bad entertainment-wise, but they’re admittedly a far cry from the movies regarding the quality. So, you can say that I’ve been heavily invested in Po’s coming-of-age journey for sixteen years. This brings us to “Kung Fu Panda 4”, which I’ve been excited and concerned about since its announcement. While seeing Po kick butt once more is a welcoming treat for the franchise’s fans, the changes made for its fourth installment left me with a tiny hint of hesitation, mainly the absence of the Furious Five. This alone challenges “Kung Fu Panda 4” to deliver a narrative worthy enough to warrant these alterations. One of the franchise’s crucial strengths has always been Po’s coming-of-age journey from an ordinary panda working at a noodle shop to the greatest kung fu warrior in China. Throughout the trilogy, Po learns various lessons about becoming the Dragon Warrior while discovering more about himself, leading to his growth. For “Kung Fu Panda 4”, Po is transitioning from Dragon Warrior to Kung Fu Master and Spiritual Leader. As a result, Po learns about the new responsibilities he’s given and uses the lessons he learned in the past, mainly from the villains he faced, to assist Zhen. This makes the “Kung Fu Panda” sequels more than just a series of cash-grabbing follow-ups like “Ice Age” and “Despicable Me”. In short, the “spiritual leader” part of the journey provided some exciting challenges for the cuddly and fearless protagonist. But is this movie able to reach those heights? Surprisingly, no. However, it still packs enough punch in its style and heart to maintain the franchise’s spiritual essence. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is described as a love letter to the first film, mainly for Po assuming the role of "kung fu master" as he searches for the new Dragon Warrior. If that isn’t enough to convince you, there’s also the return of the first film’s antagonist, Tai Lung. Now, that’s what you call a true trip down memory lane. While it may seem similar to Po’s first step of his journey, it offers enough fun and heartfelt moments to avoid the cut-and-paste issues of other movie sequels. One of them comes from its messages. The "Kung Fu Panda" movies are known for their ability to teach young audiences valuable life lessons while providing a sense of growing up alongside the main character. In "Kung Fu Panda 4", Po struggles to adapt to change. Despite being chosen as the spiritual leader, Po is determined to remain in his position as the Dragon Warrior. However, as he embarks on a new journey with Zhen, he gradually realizes that change is essential to life and learns what it means to be a kung fu master. Additionally, Zhen learns about the importance of doing the right thing. Like its predecessors, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a suitable display of its themes that’ll delight many young children and inspire adults. But when it comes to its storytelling, it doesn’t provide any new moves to keep the series refreshing. It’s a shame, considering it brought Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger back to write its script. However, one of the writers is Darren Lemke, who wrote Mitchell’s “Shrek Forever After”, so that all checks out. The franchise’s heart remains in the sequel, especially in its protagonists, but it has more occasions where the narrative held itself back in favor of its simplicity. Mike Mitchell is no stranger to directing sequels, especially animated ones, but when it comes to his vision of progressing their universes, he usually falters in reaching the similar narrative heights of their predecessors. The same can be said for his direction in “Kung Fu Panda 4”. While there are a few moments that Mitchell and the screenwriters did well, including the action scenes and fun humor, they struggled to take advantage of everything else to accompany its frantic butt-kicking chaos, including Tai Lung’s return. It’s far from bad since it’s entertaining enough to be watchable, but it’s also easy to admit that the movie’s spirituality from its predecessors has dimmed a bit. One of the highlights that elevate “Kung Fu Panda 4” was the voice cast consisting of new and recurring actors, all of whom made a solid effort in voicing their characters. Jack Black once again proves he’s the perfect actor to play Po. His kinetic energy, mixed with his generosity and charisma, solidifies Po as one of DreamWorks Animation’s memorable characters, and Jack Black fits that description flawlessly. Plus, his cover of one of Britney Spears’ songs with Tenacious D was surprisingly good. Awkwafina also did very well as Zhen, who’s pretty much a replacement for the Furious Five for Po to handle. While not as memorable as the legendary kung fu masters, Zhen offered enough in her character arc to see what direction they'll take for her in potential follow-ups. As for Viola Davis, she made a worthy effort voicing the antagonistic Chameleon, but her character was surprisingly lackluster compared to the trilogy’s antagonists. She’s someone you would find in one of the “Kung Fu Panda” television shows. She’s formidable with her shapeshifting skills, but the writing for her needed more alterations. James Hong and Bryan Cranston as Mr. Ping and Li Shan were some of the funniest parts of the movie, which often focuses on Po’s two dads amid his latest journey. There’s just something about two fathers working together to find their son that made the film more entertaining than it had any right to be. I also welcomed Ian McShane back as Tai Lung despite his surprisingly small role. The “Kung Fu Panda” films don’t just strive in their themes and stories, but also their animation styles. The animation in the franchise beautifully captures the landscapes and cities of China as well as their thrilling martial arts sequences and characters regarding the coloring, lighting, and presentation. It makes you feel that you’re part of that world yourself. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is unsurprisingly no exception, although with some minor changes. In addition to maintaining the gorgeousness of its sceneries and details, the film takes major influences from anime to reflect the art style and fight scenes, similar to “Creed III”. What a way to raise awareness of Japan’s form of animation. While far from creative, it’s still another solid example of animation influencing cultures through its presentation and designs, mainly The Chameleon and her shapeshifting abilities. Overall, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is another fun and vibrant return of the Dragon Warrior, even though its narrative occasionally lacks the spirituality of its predecessors. It doesn’t break any new ground in family-friendly storytelling like DreamWorks’s other sequels like “How to Train Your Dragon 2”, “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”, and even “Kung Fu Panda 2”. However, the film retains plenty of elements from the trilogy to deliver an unnecessary yet pleasant continuation of Po’s journey. Jack Black continues to dazzle as the main character, and the rest of the voice cast managed to follow suit, which is enough to accompany its entertaining but flawed story, amusing humor, and solid animation. I’d say the second film is still my favorite, followed by the first and third installments, with this one at the bottom. But in the end, they’re all entertaining in their own right, even if their stories vary in quality. If you love the previous installments, you’ll easily have a good time watching this, although not as much as you had with the trilogy. B-“Ordinary Angels” stars Hilary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis, and Tamala Jones. Released on February 23, 2024, the film has a hairdresser helping a widowed father save his ill daughter. The film was directed by Jon Gunn, who also directed films such as “Mercy Streets”, “Like Dandelion Dust”, “Do You Believe?”, and “The Case for Christ”. Sometimes, the greatest miracles in life are the ones we stumble upon unexpectedly. They remind us of the goodness that exists in the world and the power of kindness. One of those cases happened 30 years ago when the folks of Louisville united against Mother Nature to assist a young girl in need. If you want another reason today’s society needs to change itself, look no further than the latest inspirational drama reminding us how a single act of kindness can change everyone’s lives. You know, before the world went to pieces regarding politics, violence, and “woke agendas”. With nothing else to do this week, I finally decided to look at this movie before we get to the potentially good ones like “Kung Fu Panda 4” and “Ghostbusters”. Was the movie able to make a believer out of me? Let’s find out. The story, set in 1994, centers on Sharon Stevens (Swank), a fierce but struggling hairdresser in Louisville with a troubling history. As she seeks a new sense of purpose in her life, Sharon eventually encounters Ed Schmitt (Ritchson), a hard-working widower providing for his two daughters after his wife's death. One of the daughters, Michelle Schmitt (Emily Mitchell), is affected by an incurable disease, and Ed is eagerly waiting for a liver transplant that could save her life. As a result, Sharon decides to help by bringing the community’s attention to Ed and his daughters. When a major snowstorm hits Louisville due to a cold wave, Sharon and the community must come together to assist Ed in saving Michelle’s life. I don’t usually watch faith-based content during my spare time, but “Ordinary Angels” has something that immediately caught my attention besides the cast. What really intrigued me was the story it represented. The events in “Ordinary Angels” were set in 1994, when the North American cold wave occurred. It’s also the year I was born. Fortunately, my parents survived long enough to bring me into this world and lived to tell the tale. So, you can say that two miracles happened in that same year, with me only finding out about the father’s story from the marketing. Although that tale is more attention-grabbing than my birth, I was actually more impressed than jealous regarding the effort people took to help one another in a time of need. With the world still being trash, this movie couldn’t have come at a better time to remind us of the goodness we can bring to people and receive it in return. But the real question is whether its quality is as good as its thought-provoking themes. Based on what I’ve seen, most films involving faith or religion focus on pushing an agenda rather than telling great stories surrounding their concepts. That is one of the reasons I haven’t reviewed as many of those movies as often as others. “Ordinary Angels” may seem to be one of those examples based on the trailers, which got me a bit hesitant at first. So, I dragged my mother along to help me since she enjoys watching feel-good movies, especially ones based on actual events. As we were watching the film, I suddenly felt a warm feeling inside my body that made me think, “Oh my god. It’s actually trying to tell a good story about faith.” That feeling stayed with me until the credits rolled, and what I got in return was satisfaction, hope, and plenty of happy tears. "Ordinary Angels" effectively emphasizes the significance of demonstrating compassion and generosity when providing or receiving assistance. It also sets an example of how a faith-based movie can be made exceptional with the appropriate level of effort and dedication. “Ordinary Angels” is a straightforward, by-the-book, fact-based film that doesn’t strive to provide anything unique or groundbreaking to its formula. However, that doesn’t make its basic plot less enjoyable than the award-worthy biopics we got in recent years. This is due to the film’s screenplay, which is co-written by Kelly Fremon Craig, who brought us “The Edge of Seventeen”. It's no wonder my heart felt so warm and fuzzy while watching this film. The script features dialogues that strike a healthy balance between humor and heart while presenting characters that are portrayed with humane and charismatic qualities as embodied by the actors. The movie focuses on two different characters: Sharon, an alcoholic struggling to get the help she needs, and Ed, a grieving father attempting to raise his two daughters but refusing to accept outside help. The film's central characters serve as influential symbols of redemption, hope, faith, and resilience, each representing a different facet of these themes. Sharon, in particular, stands out for her unwavering determination to aid Ed and Michelle, serving as a beacon of strength and compassion in their time of need. Through their struggles and triumphs, the protagonists inspire audiences to persevere in the face of adversity and to never lose sight of the transformative power of faith and hope. While it’s far from spectacular, the screenplay had plenty of material needed to provide a sense of wholesomeness that’s as graceful as frolicking through a field of flowers. The film also has a surprising amount of emotional beats that would make even a cold-hearted person shed a tear, mainly due to Jon Gunn’s direction. Gunn achieved a delicate blend of comedy and drama while maintaining a grounded and compelling style that tugs at the heartstrings without being overly forceful. He allowed ample time for the characters to develop and showcased their personalities and dilemmas with wholesome charisma. This was actually the first movie I’ve watched from Jon Gunn, who’s been having a hit-and-miss track record regarding his filmography, especially the two Christian dramas he helmed. Based on what I saw, I believe this is his best work so far. My only gripe is that the movie does get a bit slow during a few scenes before picking itself up afterward. Besides that, Jon Gunn has a suitable knack for providing heartfelt drama amid its faith-based themes. But, of course, it’s not just the direction and storytelling that lifted the film’s spirits. It’s also the cast that puts in as much effort as the community helping a sick child. The main highlights are Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson as Sharon and Ed, respectively. If you’ve seen Swank in her previous movies, you’ll know how good she is at providing engaging and heartwarming characters. Unsurprisingly, her performance as Sharon is no exception. Swank skillfully captured the essence of a tenacious hairdresser who refused to take "no" for an answer. However, despite her unwavering determination, Sharon's past had left her emotionally vulnerable, causing her to believe that declining opportunities wasn't always the best option. Swank's portrayal was a testament to the complexity of the human psyche and how our past experiences shape our present actions. Alan Ritchson, who received popularity from the “Reacher” series, takes his acting skills to dramatic heights after starring in plenty of hard-hitting, action-packed content. The result is a surprisingly stellar change of pace for the actor. Regarding his enthralling portrayal of Ed, Ritchson shows that he can flex his dramatic muscles as much as his action ones. If that isn’t enough for me to check out “Reacher”, I don’t know what will. Nancy Travis and Tamala Jones were also great as Barbara and Rose, respectively, packing in enough moments to coincide with the main leads’ chemistry. Overall, “Ordinary Angels” spreads its wings far and wide to deliver a heartfelt and uplifting tale of redemption and unification. Despite some slow scenes and similar fact-based narrative beats, the film showcases the potential of good storytelling and authentic passion to elevate its faith-based elements. Thanks to its main leads, Jon Gunn’s solid direction, and a screenplay that takes advantage of its emotional beats and formula, it’s another filmmaking miracle that satisfies on both fronts. It succeeds as a watchable faith-based film and a traditional feel-good drama for people of all ages. More importantly, it's another reminder that a simple act of kindness, whether directed towards a loved one or a stranger, can create a tremendous impact on everyone involved. It can bring joy to the recipient and fill the heart of the person performing the good deed with a sense of fulfillment and purpose. It is worth checking out if you enjoy these movies, but bring plenty of tissues beforehand. B“Dune: Part Two” stars Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Josh Brolin, Stellan Skarsgård, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, Javier Bardem, Florence Pugh, Austin Butler, Léa Seydoux, and Christopher Walken. Released on March 1, 2024, the film has Paul Atreides and the Fremen people waging war against House Harkonnen. The film is directed by Denis Villeneuve, who also directed films such as “Prisoners”, “Enemy”, “Arrival”, and “Blade Runner 2049”. It is the continuation of Villeneuve’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel. After two whole months of experiencing nothing but mid-to-mediocre content, with a couple of exceptions, we finally reach the point of the year where we can get excited about movies again. While most upcoming films are sequels and remakes, that doesn’t mean we’re less enthusiastic about returning to the cinematic worlds we grew up with. Of course, I’m including the recently reintroduced ones, like Denis Villeneuve’s take on Frank Herbert’s iconic sci-fi tale of a prince seeking revenge against his conspirators. David Lynch’s effort to bring “Dune” to the big screen didn’t leave much of a satisfying taste in people’s mouths regarding its commercial and financial disappointment, detracting their interest in the source material altogether. It’s also one of the reasons I hesitate to watch it. It wasn’t until the release of Villeneuve’s adaptation during the pandemic that it reinvigorated interest in the source material’s profound world-building regarding its epic storytelling and scope. But, of course, one movie isn’t enough to cover the entire novel, hence the idea of splitting Paul Atreides’s journey into two parts. Fortunately, this strategy is more necessary for “Dune” than the likes of “Hunger Games” and “Twilight”, especially when regarding the book’s length. So, after three years of waiting for us to return to the world of "Dune", does it deliver a continuation of Paul’s journey as satisfying as its spice? Let’s find out. The story continues where “Dune” left off, with Paul Atreides (Chalamet) joining the Fremen tribe led by Stilgar (Bardem). Alongside his Bene Gesserit mother, Lady Jessica (Ferguson), and Fremen warrior, Chani (Zendaya), Paul continues his quest to avenge his family after House Atreides is caught in a war with House Harkonnen. Despite the suspicions aimed toward Paul and Jessica, the tribe relies on them to fulfill a prophecy of a mother and son bringing peace and wealth to Arrakis. As the war against House Harkonnen reaches its breaking point, Paul faces numerous challenges that would affect his life and even his newfound relationship with Chani. “Dune”, or “Dune: Part One,” as we’re calling it now, was released as part of Warner Brothers’ strategy of releasing their films in theaters and on HBO Max to combat the pandemic blues. The film and “Godzilla vs. Kong” became the reigning champions in an otherwise divisive experiment regarding their critical and financial successes. However, I decided to watch “Dune” in the theater instead because my regular-sized television couldn’t comprehend its epic scope. If you’ve read my review of Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune”, you’d already know how my decision turned out. Long story short, it’s another sci-fi blockbuster grandeur that emphasizes Villeneuve’s passion for cinematic scopes and never loses sight of its slow-burning yet enthralling storytelling. So, of course, I was excited to see the second part of “Dune”, especially since part one ended with Paul joining the Fremen clan. That part alone was enough to tell us that stuff was about to get real in “Part Two”. However, even though “Part Two” is a bit more intense than its predecessor, it still has to maintain or improve the qualities that made “Dune” a fantastic adaptation. That includes its vast world-building and dialogue-driven narrative, which is understandably slow upon rewatching “Dune”. Fortunately, with “Part Two” focusing more on the conflict, Villeneuve has the opportunity to do so. After all, he is responsible for revitalizing science-fiction cinema with “Arrival” and “Blade Runner 2049”. Based on my experience, I can say that “Dune: Part Two” further demonstrates the filmmaker’s remarkable vision for the genre. Many people have been praising it for days, claiming it to be one of the greatest movies of all time or something along those lines, and I can understand why. It’s another sequel that takes advantage of its world and characters from its predecessor and expands them to emotional and surprising heights. With a story that matches its incredible scope, complex characters, and astounding visuals, “Dune: Part Two” is another experience worth seeing on the biggest screen imaginable. But, of course, the visual splendor isn’t just for show, unlike most of the sci-fi blockbusters we’ve seen. It’s used to represent Paul’s quest to wage war against the opposing House Harkonnen following the fall of House Atreides, which would eventually lead him down a path to leadership due to the Fremen’s prophecy. You might think this is another traditional “chosen one”-type action movie with a happy ending. Well, that might not be the case. You’ll know what I mean if you read the book it’s based on. But for those who haven’t, let’s just say you might be in for a shocking surprise. “Dune: Part Two” showcases how different beliefs in a prophesy can divide people and lead them down an alternate path from their usual one. Speaking as someone who hasn’t read the book, the screenplay by Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts transcends its traditional story beats with its bold direction and themes while honoring its predecessor regarding its characters and world-building. I wish I had more to explain my thoughts on Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker that I didn’t say in my previous reviews of his movies, but I don’t. So, I’m just going to say once more that Villeneuve knows how to direct an epic sci-fi movie like a boss. His slow-burning yet eye-opening presentation is another strong case of filmmaking representing art in a museum. It’s visually impressive but also immensely hypnotic. The best part is that the visual-filled sceneries aren’t made as a tool to expand a film’s runtime. Instead, they drive its narrative and themes through their artistic surroundings and scope. Unsurprisingly, “Dune: Part Two” perfectly fits that description, with Villeneuve expanding his vision on the source material’s futuristic realm with realism, grit, and awe. Villeneuve is another director who likes to impress with their stylistic vision and never loses sight of providing an engaging story to coincide with its visual flair. That’s how great of a filmmaker Villeneuve is in my eyes. Most of the cast returned to reprise their roles while a new set of characters were introduced in “Part Two”. The result is another brilliant display of talent matching a movie’s epic scope. Timothée Chalamet once again delivered a satisfying performance as Paul Atreides, further cementing him as another young actor worth watching. His portrayal of a duke’s ascendence from an exiled son to who he becomes in the movie’s conclusion was undoubtedly remarkable, which is enough to forgive the film’s runtime. Zendaya’s Chani promotes herself as the lead role in the sequel after briefly appearing in “Part One”, and she was fantastic as always. There’s not much I can say about Zendaya other than I’m happy that her career is still soaring after her Disney Channel days. Rebecca Ferguson was also great as Lady Jessica and Javier Bardem did a much better job as Stilgar than in the first film. This is due to Bardem’s suitable attempt at humor amid its drama. I was also impressed by Austin Butler’s take on Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen, Baron Vladimir’s youngest nephew, whose psychotically mentality and skills make him a force to be reckoned with. Seeing Butler transition from playing Elvis Presley to a bald, cruel, and skilled warrior is something I’ll never get over. But what about the visual effects, you ask? Well, they’re easily one of the film’s highlights. Like “Dune”, the fantastic visuals in “Part Two” enhanced its imaginative world-building through its production designs, creatures, costumes, and make-up. More importantly, they amplified its storytelling rather than distracting it, mainly due to Villeneuve’s vision and Greig Fraser’s cinematography. The cinematography served as a nice, clean cherry on top as it used the color grading and scope to transport audiences back into the world of “Dune” without sacrificing its soul. The sequence involving Feyd-Rautha in the coliseum at House Harkonnen is an excellent example, with its black-and-white coloring matching Feyd's brutal personality. Finally, we have Hans Zimmer, whose musical score continued to flourish the saga with its hard-hitting, exotic musical beats. Overall, “Dune: Part Two” brilliantly expands upon the mythological world of Frank Herbert’s novel with a majestic visual flair and a narratively deep sense of grandeur. Despite its beefy runtime, the film is another enthralling example of a blockbuster balancing spectacle with impeccable storytelling. It’s also another case of a sequel being as great, if not better than its predecessor. With its stellar cast, Villeneuve’s superb vision, well-written screenplay, and fantastic visuals, the film cements itself as the first great movie of 2024 in my eyes. More importantly, it strengthens the chances of “Dune” becoming one of the best blockbuster trilogies ever since Villeneuve is already working on a third chapter. If you enjoyed 2021’s “Dune”, you’ll quickly feel the same with “Part Two”, but make sure you see it on the biggest screen possible with the best sound system to get the whole experience. A |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |