Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of moviemanMDG's "Movie Talk", where I talk about everything film-related. The 2020s started the new decade on the wrong foot with the COVID-19 pandemic and the despicable actions of the former president, who shall not be named. In fact, the current events made me hearken back to when the start of a new decade resulted in some fond memories, mainly in 2010. 2010 was the beginning of the decade that gave rise to new cinematic technologies, primarily 3D, due to the popularity of James Cameron's "Avatar", and gave us some of the year's most memorable movies. Not to mention the ones we love to forget about. However, the one thing that made 2010 special was the battle between two cartoon bald supervillains seeking world domination. Universal gave us Gru from "Despicable Me", which transformed Illumination into the money-making animation studio we know today, while DreamWorks Animation gave us the blue-skinned, big-brained "Megamind". While "Despicable Me" won the battle from the critical and financial standpoints, DreamWorks's superhero comedy won audiences's hearts despite being one of the studio's lowest-grossing films of that year. "Megamind" wasn't considered one of the studio's strongest movies, but it eventually gained a cult following as the years passed, mainly due to the power of internet memes. It was also popular enough to kickstart a franchise consisting of video games and the short film "The Button of Doom". Unfortunately, it had yet to provide an actual sequel to satisfy the blue-skinned supervillain-turned-hero's fans. That is until now. Fourteen years after the release of "Megamind", DreamWorks finally answered the fans' demands with a long-awaited continuation of Megamind's rise to heroism, but not in the way we expected. In 2022, the streaming service Peacock announced it ordered a CG animated sequel series to "Megamind" with the film's original writers, Alan Schoolcraft and Brent Simons, returning and a scheduled 2024 release. We didn't hear that much about the "Megamind" series since then until last month when its trailer revealed that we're not only getting the series on Peacock but also a sequel film titled "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate", which would tie directly to the show. Unfortunately, the trailer was met with a lot of disdain instead of joy for multiple reasons, including the absence of the original cast and the lackluster made-for-television quality. Considering that it's made by DreamWorks Animation Television, the expectations weren't exactly high to begin with, but then again, it's also responsible for creating a few good shows like "Trollhunters" and "She-Ra and the Princesses of Power". But, of course, that doesn't stop the fans from already claiming "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" as the worst film of the year, with or without seeing the film. I'm sorry, but have they seen "The Underdoggs"? That alone begs me to question whether this long-awaited follow-up to "Megamind" really is as bad as people said it was, or it's just another case of people being immature babies over a harmless product. Since I enjoyed the first film when it first came out, I decided to find out for myself...a few weeks after its debut. In this episode of Movie Talk, I'll be sharing my thoughts on Peacock's animated double feature that's as big as Megamind's blue cranium. I'll be reviewing not only the sequel film but also the series packaged with it titled "Megamind Rules!" meaning you'll be getting two reviews for the price of one. Plus, it'll be my first time sharing my thoughts on a television series since the "Inhumans" IMAX event. But before I get to it, I should talk about who or what "Megamind" is as a film to refresh our memories and introduce the newcomers. "Megamind" was released in theaters on November 5, 2010, and was directed by Tom McGrath, known for directing the "Madagascar" trilogy and the "Boss Baby" films. It tells the story of Megamind, voiced by Will Ferrell, a brilliant alien supervillain who, along with his best friend, Minion (David Cross), battles his long-time nemesis Metro Man (Brad Pitt) for control over Metro City. He eventually succeeds when his latest plan results in Metro Man's defeat. However, Megamind is also left without a purpose and no superhero to fight. Hence, he decides to create a new one from Hal Stewart (Jonah Hill), the cameraman to reporter Roxanne Ritchi (Tina Fey). But when Hal becomes an even worse villain than he was, Megamind must rise to become Metro City's newest hero. I remember when I first watched "Megamind" in the theater. My go-to cinema was in the middle of upgrading its interior design when it first came out, but it managed to stay open despite that. It further shows that cinemas always find a way to remain open despite the changes, except for COVID-19. That was one of those rare occasions when the cinemas actually shut down. Fortunately, the construction didn't get in the way of me experiencing Will Ferrell being a supervillain. It's been a while since I watched the film, but I remember liking it upon my first watch. Was it as fantastic as "How to Train Your Dragon"? No. But it's also one of the movies from DreamWorks Animation that compensates for their flawed and formulaic storytelling with a talented voice cast, solid animation, and fun humor. It made me wish I could watch it again for free on a streaming service before watching its sequels, but it looked like that wouldn't happen for a while. Now that we know who Megamind is, it's time for the moment we've all been waiting for. Let's find out if the follow-ups on Peacock deserve to be supervillains themselves for the wrong reasons. Let's start things off with the straight-to-streaming sequel that's as long as an Illumination film: "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate". The movie serves as a sequel to "Megamind" and the pilot for the series "Megamind Rules!" but doesn't include the original cast. Instead, the movie has the likes of Keith Ferguson, Laura Post, Josh Brener, Scott Adsit, Tony Hale, and Adam Lambert. It was directed by Eric Fogel, who was best known for creating "Celebrity Deathmatch". He's also known for directing the direct-to-DVD movies "My Scene Goes Hollywood" and "The Barbie Diaries" and several television shows such as "The Head", "Daria", and "Starveillance". The film occurs two days after the events of the first film, which sees Megamind (Ferguson) assuming the role of Metro City's newest hero. Unfortunately, Megamind would later find his new role challenged by the sudden return of the Doom Syndicate, his former supervillain team who believes Megamind is still evil. When the Doom Syndicate plans to use one of Megamind's earlier plans to launch Metro City to the moon, the blue hero must team up with Roxanne (Post), Ol' Chum (Brener), formerly Minion, and social media influencer/super fan Keiko (Maya Aoki Tuttle) to defeat the supervillain team and put his criminal past behind for good. The Doom Syndicate was originally formed as part of the first film's early draft, but it was scrapped and later reused for the tie-in game "Megamind: Ultimate Showdown". The sequel allowed the filmmakers the opportunity to use this concept once more, with Behemoth (Chris Sullivan) and Lady Doppler (Emily Tunon) being the only members returning from the scrapped version. So, I'm guessing that this team wasn't "doomed" after all. I haven't played "Ultimate Showdown", so the sequel is actually my first encounter with these characters. However, I did play "Megamind: Mega Team Unite" more than a decade ago, and you can find those videos on my YouTube channel…or don't. My older videos aged like expired milk. But with these new antagonists comes the challenge of crafting a story that earns their presence and expands its predecessor's world-building. More importantly, it has to have a reason for its justified existence other than a distraction for younger viewers, similar to most animated sequels. DreamWorks Animation has succeeded with "Shrek", "How to Train Your Dragon", "Kung Fu Panda", and even "Madagascar". Unfortunately, with DreamWorks Animation Television taking over the development of a "Megamind" sequel, it's easy to admit that their objective seemed to be a lot tougher regarding the limitations of the quality and narrative. After watching the film, it's becoming evident that the concerns for it are indeed real. Regarding its story, characters, and quality, "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" is nothing more than a throwaway piece of animation content designed to please the lowest demographic: kids. The first "Megamind" movie was an amusingly entertaining parody of the superhero tropes we've been familiar with for years. Despite taking several cues from other animated movies, its greatest strength was the execution of its twists on the genre template, giving it enough of a boost to be its own hero. On the other hand, "Doom Syndicate" seemed to be more interested in covering every superhero cliche in the book instead of using them to write a better story and memorable gags. As a result, it became an inert and less-entertaining carbon copy of the genre its predecessor made fun of fourteen years ago. The movie did have a heartwarming message about teamwork, with Megamind learning to accept help from others instead of looking out for himself. However, since its script offered one-dimensional characters, mundane humor, and predictable story beats, the message felt less rewarding than being promoted to hero or even sidekick. That's not to say a story like this can't work since it has some interesting ideas like Megamind facing his villainous past. It's the execution of its narrative beats that matter, and from the looks of it, the filmmakers did seem lost in what made the first movie good in the first place, especially its writers Alan Schoolcraft and Brent Simons. It's also tough to say that the animation didn't fare any better. Unlike the first film, "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" was animated by 88 Pictures, with production services by Doberman Pictures. You haven't heard of these animation companies? Neither have I, and it's understandable why. Despite maintaining the same designs and style as its predecessor, the movie's presentation is where it immediately soared into lackluster territory from minute one. Regarding its cheap quality and dull camera movements, the film is more equivalent to the DreamWorks television shows on Nickelodeon than the likes of "Trollhunters" and "She-Ra". It's fine if it's crafted as a 25-minute episode, but an 85-minute movie made for streaming? That's overreaching it. If there's one thing I can credit "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" for, it's that the voice cast was passable for the most part. They're nowhere near as charismatic and entertaining as Will Ferrell, David Cross, and Tina Fey, but when they're not attempting to match the original actors' appeal, they are not that bad. Keith Ferguson previously voiced Megamind in the video games, so his return to the role seemed like a no-brainer given how well he worked together on the games with DreamWorks. Despite not being as flattering as Ferrell, Ferguson did all right in portraying Megamind's intelligent yet buffoonery personality, even though he's more of the latter occasionally. Laura Post and Josh Brener were also acceptable as Roxanne and Ol' Chum, respectively. Overall, "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" is admittedly a doomed piece of streaming animation that lacks the charm, wit, and heart of its heroic predecessor. While its voice cast made a tiny effort in their performances, they're sadly not enough to save the day from the clutches of its cheap television quality, poor storytelling, and lackluster animation. It doesn't take a genius to realize its expendability made by DreamWorks. I might have been more forgiving if it was framed as episodes of a television show like "Megamind Rules!". However, since it's designed as a movie for streaming, I have to acknowledge the studio's lack of passion and effort to meet its fans' demands. If I were to grade the film, I would, unfortunately, give it an F. It's an effortless cash-in, more so than the other sequels from DreamWorks Animation like "Boss Baby", but it's not something I lose sleep over. Okay! Now that we got that piece of animation trash out of the way, it's time for me to look at its series counterpart: "Megamind Rules!" Yeah, he rules all right. He rules with a lackluster blue fist. If you're lucky enough to survive 85 minutes of charmless fluff, you'll be fortunate with a mid-credit scene that offers a few teases leading to the series. Of course, the big one is the reveal of the evilest brain in town, Machiavillain, voiced by none other than the recent lead vocalist for Queen, Adam Lambert. And I thought Tony Hale as the donut shop owner was a bizarre casting choice. This brings us to "Megamind Rules!", an eight-episode series depicting Megamind's attempt to be Metro City's new superhero and viral sensation. If you've been spending countless hours watching television shows, mainly ones from streaming, you'll know that "Megamind Rules!" follows the formula of stitching together formulaic episodes to form a massive seasonal plot. Some episodes include Megamind competing against the new hero, Dude Monkey, for internet stardom and Ol' Chum cloning himself while caring for an insomniac Megamind. Amid these episodes, the return of the Doom Syndicate played a role in forming a regeneration machine to revive the body of their leader, Machiavillain, who was Megamind's former mentor before Megamind accidentally killed him. His plan is fully realized in the final two episodes, where Machiavillain replaces Megamind as the city's hero by framing him for his actions. I wasn't expecting much from the series following my experience with the movie, which is typical for my experience watching shows based on DreamWorks's catalogue. Most of the time, the strategy makes my viewing pleasure more tolerable, but sometimes it doesn't. However, after watching "Megamind Rules", I realized that it winds up being the former. Does that make it a good show? Not really, but I wasn't bored out of my mind since it actually made an effort in its humor and plots, unlike its 85-minute pilot. With each episode being 23 minutes long, it makes the animation style and seasonal narrative more forgiving due to it being framed as…well, a streaming series. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to make up for the episodes's formulaic structures we've seen in other children's shows before despite their kid-friendly messages. One such example is its fourth episode, "MegaMayor", which involves a Freaky Friday-style plot with Megamind and Roxanne switching bodies with his disguise watch. Fortunately, I found a couple of episodes that I enjoyed a bit more than others. One of them is the second episode, "The Villainous Origin of Mr. Donut", where Megamind accidentally creates a new villain out of Mr. Donut, voiced by Hale. That episode offered an amusing jab at the "hero creating a villain" trope we've seen in countless superhero movies, hearkening back to the first film parodying the superhero genre. It may not have the strongest dialogue to provide the biggest laughs, but the second episode somehow understood the first film's parodic appeal a tad more than the remaining ones. I also liked the final two episodes, mainly because the previous episodes come full circle regarding their characters, including Keiko, who realizes that being a hero isn't as easy as it appears. Overall, "Megamind Rules!" was tolerable enough to sit alongside DreamWorks's other movie-based shows. That doesn't make it a great show, though, as it's still beyond its reach of matching the heights of the 2010 film. Despite a few enjoyable episodes, the series lacked anything else to justify its existence regarding its formulaic plots and hit-and-miss humor. But, on the bright side, I didn't find myself bored while watching it, which is enough for me to see what direction it'll go for its future episodes. We have no idea when it'll release the next set of episodes as of this writing, but I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to cancel it altogether. In conclusion, the "Megamind" follow-ups on Peacock are another example of a studio providing quantity over quality regarding its televised content. This shouldn't come as a surprise to me, considering that DreamWorks Animation Television is known for delivering such content in its lifetime. I should know because I have grown up watching some of them on television. "Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate" was admittedly a low-brow and soulless attempt at catering to those wanting a sequel to "Megamind". On the other hand, "Megamind Rules!" was a more tolerable experience to sit through since some of the episodes put a small effort at being enjoyable despite their formulaic plots and low-quality animation. It reminded me of how "Monsters vs. Aliens" went through. "Monsters vs. Aliens" was another somewhat enjoyable movie-genre parody from DreamWorks that spawned a less-than-stellar television show that only exists to cater to younger fans of the source material. I watched the show, unfortunately, and I forgot about it afterward, which explains its cancellation after just one season. The "Megamind" sequels would likely perform a similar task to some children, but I don't see them being fondly remembered after a few weeks. Despite the success of "Kung Fu Panda 4" and "Orion and the Dark" drying the studio's tears, this isn't a good start to the new year for the booming animation company. Hopefully, it can pick itself up with its next feature, "The Wild Robot", which already looks promising from the trailer and concept. Until then, this is moviemanMDG advising you to keep calm and watch "Orion and the Dark" instead.
0 Comments
“Late Night with the Devil” stars David Dastmalchian, Laura Gordon, Ian Bliss, Fayssal Bazzi, Ingrid Torelli, Rhys Auteri, Georgina Haig, and Josh Quong Tart. Released at the SXSW festival on March 10, 2023, followed by a worldwide release on March 22, 2024, the film has a talk show host experiencing a chaotic interview during a live broadcast. The film was written and directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes, who also directed “100 Bloody Acres” and “Scare Campaign”. When you’re doing a live broadcast, knowing that anything could go wrong during recording is important. The same goes for late-night talk shows. While it’s fun to watch interviews way past our curfew, there can be instances where specific mistakes or “incidents” can interrupt our good time. This talk show is no exception, although this particular incident is something that people will remember for a very long time…if they survive long enough to tell the tale. This weekend brought us two low-budget horror films hoping to put audiences in a frightening mood amid the modern blockbusters like Ghostbusters and “Godzilla x Kong”. One of those movies I’m talking about today is a low-budget, 1970s-style outlook of televised success gone awry that premiered in last year’s South by Southwest Film Festival to rave reviews. Even horror author Stephen King adored it, indicating we might be in for a nightmarish treat. With this chilling broadcast finally reaching theaters worldwide, does it live up to its shockingly frightening expectations? Let’s find out. The story centers on Jack Delroy (Dastmalchian), the host of a successful 1970s variety and late-night talk show, Night Owls with Jack Delroy. However, Jack’s show has recently experienced low ratings due to the passing of his beloved wife, Madeleine (Haig). Determined to turn his career around, Jack plans a Halloween special during the show’s sixth season by hosting an interview with Dr. June Ross-Mitchell (Gordon), a parapsychologist and author. Accompanying June are former magician turned skeptic Carmichael the Conjurer (Bliss), psychic Christou (Bazzi), and sole survivor Lilly (Torelli), the subject of June’s book. When he discovers that Lilly houses a supernatural being inside her, Jack decides to make contact with it live on camera to boost his show’s ratings. Unfortunately, his stunt instead unleashes chaotic consequences that put everything and everyone at risk of permanent cancellation. Shudder has an impressive track record of delivering plenty of compelling horror films that dare viewers to watch them late at night. In fact, some of them were more unsettling than the ones from Blumhouse. Unfortunately, I hadn’t gotten around to watching any of the films from Shudder, mainly because they’re only available on its streaming service. Fortunately, with my schedule cleared up, I finally found the time to expose myself to Shudder’s creepy collection, starting with the one that managed to play at my go-to cinema. I know there were other great movies from the streaming service for me to start with, but I thought it would be even better to watch “Late Night with the Devil” in the theater with an audience. Unsurprisingly, I made the right choice. Regarding its 70s-style concept and possession horror aspect, I knew I would be in for a horrifically insane treat, but I was genuinely shocked to see how much of an impact it left on me as a horror watcher. With its combination of transmission and behind-the-scenes footage, “Late Night with the Devil” offers a terrifyingly dark and authentic experience involving Jack’s quest to regain his show’s popularity. It resembles what we see on late-night television in the 1970s, mixed with its documentary-like editing by the Cairnes brothers, adding to the presentation’s authenticity. So, you can say that it’s another found-footage horror movie that relies on its buildup to create an unnerving sense of discomfort until it hits hard with its finale. Found footage has been getting a bad rep recently because it is seen as a cheap gimmick to earn an easy paycheck, but some movies use it to enhance the narrative and even the terror they provide to substantial effect. I’m happy to say that “Late Night with the Devil” is another superb example of this exercise, which is enough to keep the filmmaking gimmick and the demon possession element on the air. Colin and Cameron Cairnes have continued to prove themselves as another face of horror filmmaking, not just through their screenplay, which impressively utilizes its genre tropes and themes, but also their vision. With their vintage-like editing skills on display and the production designs matching the corny period energy, the Cairnes brothers flawlessly crafted the authenticity of showbiz cheesiness that they committed to 100%. More importantly, it’s balanced tremendously with its unnerving imagery brought to discomforting life by its amazing effects, both practical and digital, especially its finale. I also heard that the movie used AI to create three still images, which has caused plenty of controversy. From my perspective, it doesn’t bother me that much since it’s just those three images. If it were used for a scene or an entire movie, then I would be concerned. Besides that, the Cairnes brothers have crafted a near-perfect blend of corny humor and terror that succeeds on both fronts. Of course, the filmmakers weren’t the only people who fully committed to its tone, as the cast delivered one heck of a show with their performances. David Dastmalchian took center stage as the TV host eager to get back on top, and the result is an absolute showstopper. Dastmalchian strongly portrays a character who’s charming and entertaining when he’s on the air but also intimidating when he’s not, mainly due to his overwhelming desperation for success. With a personality as attention-grabbing as Jack’s, it’s no wonder Dastmalchian continues to surprise me in his filmography. Laura Gordon and Ian Bliss also did incredibly well in their roles of June Ross-Mitchell and Carmichael, respectively. I would also credit Ingrid Torelli for upping the creepiness meter regarding her spooky performance as Lilly, especially the scenes involving the devil inside her. Overall, “Late Night with the Devil” televised the horror revolution with its delightfully creepy vibes and sublime display of talent and vintage frights. It’s far from a perfect ratings hit regarding its genre elements, but the movie utilized them to the best of its ability to create a uniquely immersive experience that balances authenticity with terror. It also serves as another forewarning examination of how far someone would go to gain success in the industry that benefited from the Cairnes brothers’s superb direction and screenplay. Combine them with its strong cast, including Dastmalchian’s show-stopping performance, and riveting visual effects, and you get a shocking television event that truly earned its title. I would even say it’s the best horror film I’ve seen so far this year. It’s worth checking out if you’re a fan of demon-possession movies or found-footage films in the theater or on the Shudder streaming service. But be warned that the footage you plan to watch isn’t for the faint of heart. A-“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” stars Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, Mckenna Grace, Kumail Nanjiani, Patton Oswalt, Celeste O’Connor, Logan Kim, Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and William Atherton. Released on March 22, 2024, the film has the Ghostbusters team confronting a spirit capable of bringing a second Ice Age. The film is directed by Gil Kenan, who also directed films such as “Monster House”, “City of Ember”, and “A Boy Called Christmas”. He’s also responsible for co-writing the screenplay for “Ghostbusters: Afterlife”. It is the fifth film in the Ghostbusters franchise. We all discover spooky stuff that makes us feel like we’re frozen in fear, especially the spectral phantoms roaming around when we aren’t looking. However, one specific ghost takes the phrase “frozen in fear” a bit too literally. Luckily, this job is made specifically for the world’s favorite spirit-catching team, but they won’t be alone. Three years ago, the “Ghostbusters” franchise revitalized from the dead with “Ghostbusters: Afterlife”, a legacy sequel to “Ghostbusters II” that introduced us to Egon Spengler’s grandkids becoming the new Ghostbusters and reunited the original team…at the last minute, of course. Despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, “Afterlife” managed to cater to the original’s fans through its refreshing tone and nostalgia, resulting in it becoming a mild box office success. So now we have a new ghost-busting adventure that continues the legacy and goes back to the formula that made the 1984 original a comedy classic: catching ghosts in New York City. Does it further prove that busting ghosts makes us feel good, or is it time for the franchise to hang up its proton pack? Let’s find out. The story once again centers on the Spengler family consisting of mother Callie (Coon) and her two kids, Trevor (Wolfhard) and Phoebe (Grace). Along with the children's teacher, Gary Grooberson (Rudd), they left their lives in Summerville and moved to New York City. There, they volunteer to help the original Ghostbusters team, Peter Venkman (Murry), Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd), and Winston Zeddemore (Hudson), restart the business they left behind years ago. Their ghost-hunting shenanigans were then interrupted by the discovery of an ancient artifact that houses a deadly death-chilling spirit capable of freezing the entire world. When the ghost threatens to bring about a second Ice Age, the Ghostbusters, new and old, join forces to save the world and regain people’s faith in the team. While I’ve been an admirable fan of the franchise for a long time, my experience with its recent installments has been pretty complicated since the 2016 reboot. I considered “Afterlife” a breath of fresh air for the IP regarding its Amblim-inspired tone and young cast. However, its attempt at nostalgia baiting and underwhelming humor made it clear to me that they’re desperately catering to the toxic fans who despised Paul Feig’s all-female Ghostbusters team. Maybe I’m still sore at what these disgusting “fans” did to the actresses when the reboot came out. Regardless, I was okay with what it’s supposed to be and how it would carry over to its potential follow-ups, which brings us to “Frozen Empire”. “Frozen Empire” certainly has promise regarding its plot and marketing. The film seemed to be returning to the basics of the franchise’s formula by having the action occur in New York City. The movie also introduced us to a brand new ghostly villain that would’ve given Queen Elsa a run for its money instead of bringing back the antagonists from the first two installments, which plagued “Afterlife” for its lack of creativity. So, it’s clear that the filmmakers are trying to regain the franchise’s spiritual essence while keeping it relevant enough to impress the new generation of fans. But the actual test is whether these nostalgic factors equate to a fun ghost-hunting experience. After watching it myself, it’s hard to say that the franchise might need another new set of ghost-busting gear. One thing I can credit “Frozen Empire” for is that it felt more like a “Ghostbusters” movie compared to “Afterlife”, especially in its first few minutes. Considering that it drew inspiration from “The Real Ghostbusters”, this isn’t that surprising. One of the major elements that made “Ghostbusters” what it was is the charm and fun of catching ghosts in New York City and the cast cracking jokes while performing their job. With an entertaining beginning that’s suitably handled by director Gil Kenan, “Frozen Empire” had the opportunity to be a solid installment that rivals the first two movies. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie struggled to maintain its spirit with its proton pack long enough to reach that height. I also remembered it’s a follow-up to “Afterlife”, so it had to retain its predecessor’s serious tone amid its humor. While I still admire “Afterlife” for making itself unique in its quality, it came with the cost of its humor becoming dry and charmless, spoiling the fun of busting ghosts. Luckily, “Frozen Empire” proved to be a more enjoyable experience compared to “Afterlife” despite carrying over what was lacking in its predecessor. Of course, the reasons are that it follows a similar world-saving plot from the first two films, for better or worse, and a shorter runtime. However, it still felt like it ran a bit too long regarding the pacing. Another reason was the ideas it introduced for the Ghostbusters lore, mainly the new ghost-catching tech, the new ghostly antagonist, and Phoebe’s arc. The movie continues Phoebe’s journey by having her prove her worth as a Ghostbuster despite her young age, but she eventually winds up way over her head after befriending a ghost named Melody (Emily Alyn Lind). This direction proved promising regarding the messages it hoped to provide, such as the importance of family and learning from one’s mistakes. However, its screenplay lacked a few sparks in its system to make these ideas rewarding because it had familiar and predictable elements seen in other movies. It also doesn’t help that most of its jokes fail to make much of an impression on me, although I did laugh at one scene involving Bill Murray, so I’m counting that as a win. While the narrative might not function as well as a ghost trapper, “Frozen Empire” managed to find ways of making itself feel good enough to withstand its chill. One of them is the cast, specifically the new and classic Ghostbusters, who made an acceptable effort to carry the film’s flawed script with their performances. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon offer some suitable moments as Gary and Callie, respectively, despite not being as memorable as the original cast like Murray and Aykroyd. Mckenna Grace continues to shine as Phoebe, emphasizing her irresistible presence as a young actor. Kumail Nanjiani and Patton Oswalt were the only members who seemed to put in more effort to provide levity regarding their performances as Nadeem Razmaadi and Hubert Wartzki, respectively. Another thing worth mentioning is Gil Kenan, who, as stated before, did a decent job making the beginning section entertaining while maintaining the tone from “Afterlife”. Kenan is no stranger to supernatural horror since he’s done “Monster House” and the 2015 remake of “Poltergeist”. Plus, he co-wrote “Afterlife” with Jason Reitman, so it makes sense why he’s chosen to direct “Frozen Empire”. However, despite his good intentions, he doesn’t hold a candle to what Ivan Reitman did with the first two movies regarding the balance of humor and seriousness. The movie also did pretty well with its visual effects, mainly for the ghosts. With its combination of CGI and some practical effects, “Frozen Empire” continues the franchise’s legacy of delivering ghostly designs that are both fun and scary, including its death-chilling adversary and Slimer. Overall, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” shows that busting ghosts makes us feel good, but its middling plot and execution of its tone prove that the franchise is losing its spiritual spark. Regarding its formula, I would consider the film a bit more entertaining than “Afterlife” because it felt more like a “Ghostbusters” movie. Its new ghostly antagonist also helped seal the deal to prevent its derivativeness. However, I also find it a bit frustrating that the charm and lighthearted humor the franchise is known for were still stuck underneath its newfound tone despite its attempts at providing some. The cast, Kenan’s direction, and visual effects made it a bit more enjoyable than it had any right to be. Sadly, its average script, predictable elements, and dull humor couldn’t prevent it from freezing in fear. If they want to continue this ghostly series, I’m afraid they will have to change things up to make this ghost-hunting business fun again. Until then, it might be best for it to hang up their proton packs for now. If you like the previous “Ghostbusters” movies, you might enjoy this chilling entry, although not as much as the first two installments. C“Arthur the King” stars Mark Wahlberg, Simu Liu, Juliet Rylance, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ali Suliman, Bear Grylls, and Paul Guilfoyle. Released on March 15, 2024, the film has a team captain befriending a stray dog. The film is directed by Simon Cellan Jones, who also directed films such as “Some Voices”, “The One and Only”, “The Queen’s Sister”, and “On Expenses”. It is based on the 2016 book Arthur - The Dog Who Crossed the Jungle to Find a Home by Mikael Lindnord. In specific cases, the unexpected bonds can result in life-changing accomplishments. One such example is another reason why man’s best friends are the most loyal companions on the planet. After witnessing the box office soaring to life thanks to “Dune” and “Kung Fu Panda”, we’re now heading into another slow weekend consisting of low-budget movies that may or may not appear on everyone’s radar. Of course, I am counting the ones appearing in theaters that looked like they could’ve gone straight to streaming instead. However, that doesn’t mean one of them didn’t capture my interest. The one I’m referring to is another feel-good movie depicting a minor yet inspiring accomplishment involving a person and a dog. You can never have enough of those to make us see the goodness of the world we live in, especially when dogs are involved. Does the film succeed in making this story as wholesome as the bond between man and canine? Let’s find out. The story centers on Michael Light (Wahlberg), an adventure racer and captain of his racing team whose stubbornness cost them another race. Three years later, Michael and his team, including influencer Leo (Liu) and rock climber Olivia (Emmanuel), compete in the World Championships in the Dominican Republic in hopes of achieving their first victory. During the event, Michael encounters an injured stray dog, to which he gives some of his meatballs. As a result, the dog follows Michael and his team for the remaining race. When they discover the dog’s impressive knack for traversing around dangerous obstacles, Michael and the team adopt it as their guide, which they name “Arthur”. What follows is a race-against-the-clock trek through the endurance course that leads to a bond that’ll change Michael’s life forever. The plot in “Arthur the King” was inspired by Mikael Lindnord’s discovery of the stray dog, Arthur, during the 2014 Adventure Racing World Championships in Ecuador. This miraculous accomplishment was retold in several media, including an ESPN documentary and Lindnord’s memoir. It also spawned the Arthur Foundation, which ran from 2014 to 2018 and endorsed the LOBA (Organic Law of Animal Welfare) law, establishing animal welfare standards across several contexts. The first time I heard of this accomplishment was from the movie’s marketing, which impressed me with this inspirational story. Then again, I’m always impressed with any thought-provoking real-life event I was introduced to, so this isn’t all that surprising. Regardless, its concept, along with Mark Wahlberg, was enough for me to see how and why it deserved to be told as a film. Plus, I’m a sucker for dog movies, if you don’t know that already. “Arthur the King” is another film that provides the heart and charm of its themes and characters but also attempts to deliver a compelling narrative around them. Most feel-good movies succeed in displaying this combination, while others falter in balancing the sentimental appeal with quality, with only the tenderness carrying their weight. While it may be easy to accomplish based on audiences’s demand for inspirational content, it’s a bit challenging to win over everyone with its feel-good vibes regarding the execution. So, where does “Arthur the King” stand? Well, it’s somewhere near the edge of greatness, but not by much. While it struggles to maintain the story’s emotional core throughout its runtime, the movie is a charming and unsurprisingly inspiring adventure drama that’ll likely warm the hearts of sports fans and dog lovers alike. It is also the latest collaboration between Mark Wahlberg and director Simon Cellan Jones, following “The Family Plan” last year. I managed to watch that film with my family, and even though I didn’t review it, I thought it was just okay. It didn’t do much for its formula, but it wasn’t without some moments that kept me from switching to another streaming service. Fortunately, “Arthur the King” proved to be a welcoming improvement over Apple TV+’s action comedy about a father who’s secretly an assassin. The main reason for this is Jones’s attempt at providing dramatic heft into its fact-based tale. Instead of focusing on the combination between action and comedy like in “The Family Plan”, Jones provided a consistent tone that’s dramatic on some occasions while offering a sense of levity and heart that didn’t feel too out of place. I would say that “Arthur the King” may be one of the most light-hearted teen-rated movies I’ve seen. But, of course, since the film involves adventure racing, it does have a few moments that may frighten younger viewers. It’s far from groundbreaking regarding its pacing and inability to delve deep into its storytelling, but for a guy who helms television movies, Jones didn’t do too badly with this balance. Then, you have the film’s screenplay by Michael Brandt, whose track record with collaborator Derek Haas has been hit-and-miss so far. The “3:10 to Yuma” remake and “Wanted” were the only gems in their filmography, but everything else wasn’t that great. “Arthur the King” sees Brandt writing the script without Haas for the first time, and it’s…actually passable. It follows a similar pattern to the other fact-based movies, especially ones involving dogs, but it does its job well in faithfully displaying the story through its characters. “Arthur the King” depicts its heartwarming messages involving teamwork, perseverance, and selflessness amid the friendship between a man and a dog. These things apply to Michael Light, whose obsession with achieving his first win cost him the trust between himself and his team. The Dominican Republic race gives Michael a shot at claiming that glory, but Arthur’s persistence through the harshness of the country makes him realize what he should really be fighting for. It doesn’t delve deep into its themes much, but it’s serviceable regarding its healthy balance of humor and soul. Like the adventure racing teams portrayed onscreen, the cast made a solid team effort to carry the movie’s heartfelt weight on their shoulders, including Wahlberg. Mark Wahlberg is often seen as a decent actor if the concept is just as good as his talents. Sure, he’s been in more movies than he can count, but his presence occasionally compensates for their quality, even the bad ones. “Arthur the King” proved to be another film that fully realizes Wahlberg as a dramatic actor. While his performance as Michael Light wasn’t Oscar-worthy, I can easily say it’s one of the most wholesome performances he delivered in his career. Simu Liu was also decent in his role as Leo, and Juliet Rylance had some good moments as Helena, Michael’s wife. I’m also glad Nathalie Emmanuel is getting more work outside the “Fast & Furious” movies. Her performance as Olivia showcased her as a solid addition to the lineup, even if she was constantly overshadowed by Wahlberg and Liu. Overall, “Arthur the King” is a worthy fact-based drama that endures most of its flaws to gain a cinematic victory. It doesn’t rule as much as the actual King Arthur in terms of its narrative structure. However, like the feel-good movies before, the film packs enough heart and charm into its storytelling to provide a decent dose of entertainment for the genre. With its enjoyable cast, serviceable direction, and a screenplay that combines its cliches with heartfelt characters, the movie is good enough to take home the silver medal. People who enjoy watching inspirational movies and dog-related content would likely enjoy it as much as I did. However, if you prefer a fact-based movie that’s meaty in quality and story, you might not find it in this one. B-“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- |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |