Posts by Brent Lorentson

It has been about 36 years since the release of the first Top Gun. This is one of my earliest memories as a kid, seeing the movie on the big screen with my parents at the old Main Street 6 Cinemas. I was a bit obsessed with this movie growing up. I had a copy of the film that I had recorded off of Showtime, and over the years I’d imagine I’ve seen Top Gun at least 100 times. I was obsessed with the movie and its soundtrack. Kenny Loggins and “Danger Zone” lived rent free in my head throughout my childhood.  I know I’m not alone on this when saying just how much Top Gun is a movie I just love. It’s not perfect, but I just can’t find anything I dislike about it. Even in my forties, I look at this film as comfort food. It doesn’t matter the time of day; if it’s on, I can’t help but sit down and watch it. I’m putting this out there because yeah, when I heard about the talks of them first doing a sequel I was excited, but I wasn’t too optimistic.  Then when Tony Scott died in 2012, I thought for sure that was the nail in the coffin for any potential new Top Gun film. Ten years later, after over two years of delays, Top Gun: Maverick is finally hitting the big screen.  After all these years and all the hype, is it worth the wait?

In case you haven’t realized it, Hollywood has been riding the wave of nostalgia for a while now.  Just this week alone, Disney Plus is debuting the Obi-Wan Kenobi series, Netflix is releasing the new season of Stranger Things (that alone is borderline 80s nostalgia porn at its best), and then we have Top Gun: Maverick.  This week is simply old school pop-culture on steroids week and a reminder why it’s a good time to be alive as a cinephile.  It’s important to keep all this in mind, because when you go in to the theaters to see Top Gun: Maverick, you are not just simply getting to see a new movie, but it’s also a nostalgic trip back to the first film that will leave you excited and at times maybe a little misty-eyed reuniting with these characters we first met so many years ago.

As I mentioned in my review for Amsterdam, it’s awards season, and the studios are churning out the films they hope will garner praise and a lot of statues celebrating how great their film is. Spoiler alert, Amsterdam won’t be one of those films, but one that will be is a film that is easily one of the top films I’ve seen this year, and it’s The Banshees of Inisherin.  Because of the title I know many have been put off from watching the film because they think it is going to be a horror film. Well, let me assure you that this isn’t a horror film, nor are there any banshees in the film. As to why the film is called that, well, you’ll have to see it to find out for yourself.

This is the first film writer and director Martin McDonagh has done since his critically acclaimed film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017), and as great as that film was, I feel he’s managed to outdo himself with The Banshees of Inisherin. Though the film may be simple in plot, the characters he’s crafted for this story are so well done that every scene they populate they are engaging. The dialog is sharp, and the actors deliver some of the years best performances that just makes this such an enjoyable experience to watch.

After watching this film I needed a good 24 hours to process what I had watched before getting too critical and writing this. I love the Halloween franchise. Sure, like any of the horror franchises there are some duds, but it doesn’t take away the fun these films can bring, especially during the month of October. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is definitely an icon of horror and for many will be seen as the genres ultimate “Final Girl”, so when Curtis said that Halloween Ends was really going to be her last time stepping into the role of Laurie Strode, well, it gave the film a bit more meaning for fans.  It’s not just the end of the trilogy that director David Gordon Green kicked off in 2018, but this film is the final chapter of Laurie Strode, the babysitter horror fans first fell in love with back in 1978 with John Carpenter’s Halloween. You look at the trailers for this new film and you think that this third installment is going to be the final showdown between Michael Myers and Laurie Strode we’ve all waited for, a film that could possibly end this franchise on a high note. Even I was optimistic. Halloween (2018) was a fun reboot of the franchise and made Michael Myers a brutal force to be reckoned with, and Halloween Kills in my opinion was a great follow-up on how dangerous things can get when a town is in a panic. So how does it all end? In a spectacular failure, if I’m being honest.

The film opens up on Halloween night in Haddonfield in 2019, a year after the events of Halloween Kills. Corey (Rohan Campbell) is going to be spending his night babysitting. It should come as no surprise that things don’t go as planned and the night ends in tragedy. The opening definitely subverts expectations, which is fine at first, but this was honestly the first clue that things were not going to go as expected with this film. The film then jumps ahead four years, and Haddonfield continues to be haunted by the ghost of Michael Myers since that tragic night back in 2018. Well, except Laurie; this film gives us a Laurie we haven’t seen before, at least not since her friends died back in 1978. She’s actually happy, and she’s moved on from the past and has taken on the role of the parental figure to Allyson (Andi Matichak), who seems to be grieving the death of her parents fairly well, considering. The relationship between Laurie and Allyson is honestly my favorite aspect of this film, everything from Laurie trying to celebrate Halloween with her granddaughter, to Laurie attempting to set Allyson up on a date are kind of the sweet moments I didn’t realize I wanted till I saw them in the film. The chemistry just jumps off the screen with these “final girls” so much that I hope we’ll get to see another film with these actresses at some point.

It’s that time of year again, when studios begin to release the award contending films. Considering how lackluster the summer release slate was, when I look at the release schedule, these next couple months are pretty stacked with films for film lovers to get excited about and hopefully give them a reason to return to the cinemas. This week the film I’m talking about is Amsterdam. You look at the star-studded cast, you see the writer and director, David O. Russell (American Hustle, Silver Linings Playbook, The Fighter) and you wouldn’t be wrong to think that this is going to be a big film. I’ve been a fan of David O. Russell since he did Three Kings, and any time he has a movie come out, it’s something I get excited about. Sadly, this is one of those films that just seem to be too ambitious for their own good. I’ll say this; if it wasn’t for the amount of talent on screen, I don’t think it would be as good as it is.

It’s 1933. Burt Berendsen (Christian Bale) and Harold Woodman (John David Washington) are best friends ever since serving in WWI together, each saving the other’s life. Berendsen is now a doctor who specializes in treating disfigured vets while concocting his own pain medicines. Woodman has gone on to establish himself as a successful lawyer. The pair have been hired by Liz Meekins (Taylor Swift) to find out if her father, Burt and Harold’s commander in the war, has been murdered.  As it turns out, he has been murdered, and in the process of disclosing this to Meekins she is murdered, and Burt and Harold are fingered for the crime. This kicks off the adventure of these two where they are forced to clear their names and uncover the truth behind their former commander’s murder. If things were kept this simple the movie could have had more promise, but David O. Russell seems to get too clever for his own good, throwing in twists and hijinks that seem to come out of nowhere, overcomplicating the plot to absurdity.

I’m lucky; I got to see the premiere of Smile in perhaps the best environment possible to experience a genre film. By this I mean I saw it at its premiere as the opening night film of Fantastic Fest in Austin, Texas at The Alamo Drafthouse. It’s important I state this, because it reflects the amount of excitement that I had going into this film, not just for the film but for the festival as well. I’d be seeing this film with about 180 plus film fans who are ravenous for genre films from around the globe who are definitely more than just casual filmgoers. Still I went into this film knowing as little as possible. I believe I had only seen one trailer for the film, which was the night before; it was attached to Barbarian. (Seriously, you need to see Barbarian on the big screen and with a crowd, it was a friggin blast to experience.) What I remember from the trailer was intriguing, and it certainly showed promise, though I feel the marketing tactics they did by placing actors in baseball stadiums to leer at the players with creepy smiles was some of the most brilliant marketing for a film in years. With all that said, is it a good film?

Dr. Rose Cotter (Sosie Bacon) is overworked at the hospital she works at, spending most of her time attending to her mentally ill patients, so much so that even when she is told to leave she forces herself to make time for one more patient. As it would turn out, it would be a regrettable decision. Rose meets with the new patient, a PhD student who claims there is something trying to kill her, something only she can see, and its one defining characteristic is that it has a grotesque smile. The patient suddenly changes from her panicked state and has a hideous smile of her own as she begins to mutilate herself in front of Cotter and eventually dies. The sequence is creepy and effective and has the kind of vibes that reminded me of The Ring, The Grudge, and It Follows, so I felt like I was in good hands, expecting a fun story with a few jump scares thrown in for good measure.

In 1978 when Good Guys Wear Black came out, Chuck Norris wasn’t the global superstar that he would later become, but this was one of the films that helped establish him as an actor and not just some martial arts guy on the big screen. This is definitely a movie that was a product of its time, and it can be argued how well it has actually aged over the years. Personally I have a hard time calling this an action film. When you compare it to most of the other films that Chuck Norris has in his filmography, this is very much one of the more tame ones and comes off more as a thriller, a fun little espionage film that actually leans heavier on Norris and his acting abilities than his ability to take down bad guys with spin-kicks, though the film does offer a few kicks to please the action-hungry audiences.

Chuck Norris plays John T. Booker, an ex-Vietnam soldier who left the military after a mission went wrong and most of the members of his team were killed during the ill-fated mission. Now Booker has gotten himself into auto racing and teaches political science at UCLA and is enjoying his new life, that is until he discovers that he is on a hit list created by the CIA.  Booker must find out who made this list before he and the others who are on the list are taken out. Booker is approached by Margaret (Anne Archer), a reporter who seems to know too much about the top-secret mission that Booker was involved with, and as she’s chasing leads, ex-soldiers who happen to be on the hit list, the soldiers are winding up dead before she can get any answers.

“Gentleman, I’d like you to meet Matt Logan. He’s a karate man.”

I still can’t decide if that line of dialog is awful or genius. In 1979 martial arts movies were going strong in the states, but they were certainly lacking in quality as compared to what was coming out overseas. Chuck Norris was the “American” answer to make a successful martial arts film, but it wasn’t till A Force of One where I feel Chuck Norris finally arrived as not just a martial arts star but a bonafide guy who was worth watching on the big screen. The story may be a bit farfetched, but this is a film that is fun. It’s something I’d throw on when I’m wanting to have a late night movie marathon. It’s what “midnight movies” were made for.

George Miller is a filmmaker who will forever be known for his Mad Max films, and to be fair, it’s a pretty awesome legacy to leave behind, but when you take a look at his filmography, it is one that is filled with variety. There is The Witches of Eastwick, his segment from The Twilight Zone: The Movie, and then there is Happy Feet, a variety that shows that he has more to offer than testosterone thrill rides. I feel it is worth mentioning this because it shows that as a director he’s willing to take chances and stray beyond his comfort zone and show that he is one of the more talented visual storytellers still working in the industry. The film Three Thousand Years of Longing is, simply put, a love letter to storytelling and its use over the existence of mankind. Sure, there are some mythical aspects involved and plenty of CGI, but at its heart the film is simply about two characters sharing stories inside a luxurious hotel room where Agatha Christie is said to have written “Death on the Nile”. Tilda Swinton plays Alithea, a self proclaimed “narratologist”, an academic who tells stories. She’s in Istanbul to help give a lecture on the history of storytelling, and it’s not long after her arrival that things seem to be a little strange. Alithea has a condition that causes her to hallucinate figures, OR does she have a gift to see into another realm? Miller really isn’t interested in what the truth is, and that’s one of the film’s strengths, it asks the viewer to ignore logic and simply accept fantasy for the next two hours. Logic simply has no place with this experience, and it’s something more if us should embrace when we consider the stresses in the real world that we are all dealing with these days.

Idris Elba plays the Djinn that Alithea releases in her hotel room. Though it appears some prosthetics and CGI were used to make the Djinn more whimsical, I appreciate that the look they went for with the film was nothing like the Genie we saw in the live-action film for Aladdin. To be fair, going into this film I was worried that this film would be just a more adult version of the Disney classic, though in the end it really had me calling back to the great 2006 film The Fall (if you’ve seen it, then this should get you excited for 3000 Years of Longing; if you haven’t seen The Fall, it is one of the most beautiful films ever put on the screen and should be seen immediately). I feel these movies perfectly complement one another with how they are filled with stories that are beautifully told cautionary tales. When Alithea is confronted with the task of making her three wishes, she is quick to object, and this begins the Djinn telling his story and about the previous people that had come before Alithea and were given the chance to ask for their wishes. The stories are told with a visual flair and are done in a stark contrast to the very sterile hotel room. The bond that develops between Alithea and the Djinn is very charming, but when it inevitably develops into a romance, this is where the film lost its hold on me.

With the success of Yellowstone and the spin-off series 1883, I’ve been patiently waiting for a resurgence of westerns to come out. Bone Tomahawk and The Hateful Eight are pretty much the best westerns we’ve gotten in the past decade, and they both came out in 2015, so I feel we are long overdue for a great western (sorry, but The Power of the Dog didn’t impress me in the least). While I’m always hopeful a new title will impress me, unfortunately, despite the solid cast, Murder At Yellowstone City is a film that simply disappoints. Cicero (Isaiah Mustafa) is a drifter and a recently freed slave who happens to be a big fan of Shakespeare. It’s his unfortunate luck that he rides into Yellowstone City, Montana when a prospector has struck gold, and soon after the prospector finds himself on the unfortunate end of a gun. Sheriff Ambrose (Gabriel Byrne) doesn’t take long to arrest Cicero, considering he’s the new face in town and ignores the notion that just about any other person in town would have a good reason to kill the prospector. The film is definitely an ensemble piece with each of its characters having a secret. If executed properly, this could have been a fun murder mystery, but the Sheriff simply is too lazy to investigate anything, even as more dead bodies start showing up around town.

The mystery element of the film is even taken away about midway through the film as the plot goes into all too familiar territory with generic storylines that simply lead to an evitable shootout. Filling out the cast is Thomas Jane as Thaddeus Murphy, the town preacher, who has a mysterious past and is one of the only ones who believes that Cicero is innocent of being the murderer. What Jane is able to do with this character is genuinely one of the more enjoyable aspects of this film, though I wish they didn’t take this character in such an obvious direction as the film plays out. Richard Dreyfuss is Edgar Blake, the town barkeep, who is friendly with everyone, and while it is nice to see Dreyfuss on screen, well, there simply isn’t enough of him. Aimee Garcia (Lucifer) plays Isabel, one of the town’s many prostitutes who has a connection to the deceased prospector and of course wants to see vengeance. I mention that there are a lot of prostitutes in this town. Well, it just seems that all the women in the town are prostitutes with the exception of the preacher’s wife and the prospector’s wife. The town isn’t quite a boomtown, and I’ll simply blame the low budget for the mostly empty streets and lack of diversity with a background cast.

From the moment I saw the trailer for The Lost City, it immediately gave me vibes of Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile, the adventure-romance films that starred Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner back in the mid-eighties. The basic story for those films was simple: a romance writer who finds herself in an adventure to find a rare jewel alongside a handsome rogue with bad guys coming after them around every corner. I loved these films as a kid, and getting to see a modern twist on these stories is something I found welcome. What is even more welcome is getting to see Sandra Bullock back in a comedic role. I’ve been a fan of just about everything Bullock has done since she graced the screen in Demolition Man and then the following year in Speed. My only concern was seeing Channing Tatum as her co-star; while I like him in numerous supporting roles like Logan Lucky and Foxcatcher, he’s never really convinced me that he has what it takes for leading-man status. Well, that changed after seeing The Lost City, and my feeling about this film is that it’s the movie audiences don’t yet realize they needed, and I hope it becomes the box office success it deserves to be.

Loretta Sage (Bullock) is a successful romance novelist who is mourning the passing of her husband. She’s become a bit of a shut-in, and after struggling to finish her book, “The Lost City of D”, her manager Beth (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) has put together a book tour for Loretta and her cover model, Alan “Dash” (Tatum) to promote the book. Loretta seems to be content with giving up on her romance adventure series, though this could possibly mean an early retirement for Alan, who has embraced being a sex symbol for her readers wearing a ridiculous wig, acid-wash jeans, and a shirt that seems to have lost most of its buttons. Channing Tatum immediately stands out in this performance as he hams it up on stage for the adoring fans but is charming when he’s off stage trying to convince Loretta to not stop writing. It’s after the near-disastrous promo appearance where the plot escalates after Loretta is kidnapped and taken to see an eccentric billionaire, Abigail Fairfax (Daniel Radcliffe). Fairfax believes the island in Loretta’s new book is based off the island he has recently purchased and is in search of a lost city that contains a rare treasure.