Posted in: The Reel World by Brent Lorentson on September 3rd, 2021
As fans of the MCU, I think it’s safe to say we’ve all been anxiously waiting to see what Phase 4 would be bringing us. In a lot of ways this is the new era of Marvel characters and a new story arc that will be kicking off since Endgame seemed to wrap things up. Disney Plus as been teasing fans and tiding us over with Wandavision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and then Loki. On the cinematic front we had the long delayed Black Widow, but considering that film took place in a pre-snap timeline, the question remained, what was next for the Avengers? With Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, we finally get that answer, and as exciting as that is, I have to admit I’m a little worried. I’m not saying it’s time to abandon ship, because I’ll be upfront and say I enjoyed Shang-Chi, but the Disney influence is starting to rear its head, and I’m a little concerned for how much influence studio heads are having over the product and how much control is being taken away from the creative heads, i.e. the writers and directors.
The legend behind the ten rings is relatively simple; who ever wears and wields the rings is given godlike powers of strength and immortality. For 1000 years Xu Wenwu (Tony Chiu-Wai Leung) has had control of the rings and has led his army and taken on all challengers. I love the time spent with this character as we see him as a vicious leader and then his attempt to enter a magical city stopped by one of the cities’ protectors. This is the first defeat Wenwu has had in his 1000 years, and how he handles this loss, well, it was refreshing. We get more of Wenwu’s journey over the course of the film, and to be honest, I wish the film was all about this character, because this is really one of the most fleshed out “villains” we’ve gotten to see in the MCU. The arc we see the character go through definitely humanizes him. We see him as an immortal who finds love and attempts to go down a road of redemption, and then all that is taken from him. And this is all background story that’s shown to us in a series of flashbacks. Normally it’s something I’d be annoyed with, but I genuinely enjoyed this back story more than the rest of the film, and it’s due mostly to the great performance Leung delivers.
Posted in: Uncategorized by Brent Lorentson on September 3rd, 2021
I grew up a big fan of the kids’ adventure films that populated the cinemas of the 80’s. These kinds of films for the most part disappeared up until this 80’s revival has occurred over the past decade. It’s been a nice nostalgic wave for me, but it’s also become overused. Some of these films and shows are being done by those who weren’t even around, and it just is starting to feel generic. The Water Man, for the most part, has seemed to grasp what makes these films work without overindulging on the 80’s revival craze, and it’s simple. It just focused on doing a good kids’ adventure without treating the audience like toddlers or attempting to fill it with slapstick gags. I’m not sure when it happened that studio executives decided a family film needed to simply treat the audience like a sputtering, drooling toddler, but it’s a big reason why these films are mostly critically panned and, well, are not big blockbuster affairs. It’s all about marketing, and I feel in a non-pandemic world, The Water Man could have been more than a box office blip and a movie that will struggle to find an audience in a DVD and streaming world.
Gunner (Lonnie Chavis) is a lonely boy who seems to live his life through his art. He’s working on a detective comic, and it’s something he’s proud of, though his father played by David Oyelowo is having a hard time relating to it. The real heart of the story revolves around Gunner and his dying mother, played by Rosario Dawson. There is a nice chemistry between Chavis and Dawson, and when Gunner first sees how the sickness is wreaking havoc on his mother’s body, well, this is a rather impactful scene. This film could have played with the heartstrings; there is plenty of drama to milk with this family dynamic that definitely resonates with the audience. But this isn’t a film meant to depress the audience but instead give it hope, and that’s where the legend of the Water Man comes in.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on September 2nd, 2021
When I first saw Nashville, it was back in my days of working at a video store in the 90’s, and I was consuming a ridiculous amount of films a week. For many, it’s considered a classic and one of the better films that Robert Altman put out. Before re-watching the film for this review, I couldn’t remember all that much about the film aside from it having a lot of music in it and there being something involving a political campaign. I’m a fan of Robert Altman. Personally, Short Cuts and The Player are my favorite films by him, but I can appreciate that his way of storytelling paved the way for one of my favorite writer/directors Paul Thomas Anderson. Just watching Boogie Nights and Magnolia you can see the influence of Altman’s work from the script to the way they are filmed. Now that I’m older, perhaps it was time that I revisited this film. After all, for many it’s considered a classic. Perhaps this time it could make a greater impression on me.
The most challenging thing about Nashville is that while it has a running time of two hours and forty minutes, when it comes to story there really isn’t anything going on that you can define as a story that has a beginning, middle, or end. The film is simply about 24 characters and how their lives intertwine over the course of five days in Nashville while a political campaign is rolling through town. The collection of characters is a blend of country musicians who are stars, to struggling mothers with deaf children, to a mourning husband, to a campaign manger along with numerous other characters that populate the town. If not for some of the great performances and the impressive cast, I’m not sure I could have made it through this film that seems like a country/folk music lovers’ paradise.
Posted in: The Reel World by Brent Lorentson on August 27th, 2021
From Bride of Frankenstein to Night of the Living Dead and even Godzilla, horror has been a platform filmmakers have used for decades to handle larger societal issues. In 1992 when the first Candyman released, it was a film that tackled issues of class and race, but it did so in a manner that didn’t feel forced, and in doing so it added an extra level to what I’d consider one of the best horror films of the 90’s. I love the story of Candyman, and the performance Tony Todd gave this tragic character was an equal blend of horror, menace, and sympathy. The way the first film builds its impending doom for Helen Lyle has rarely been matched in films since. Watching as her life crumbles around her up until the moment she finally surrenders herself to Candyman and accepts her awful fate is an impactful moment. The sequels just never lived up to the first film, and it’s a shame, because I simply loved the idea of this modern urban legend that haunted the projects of Black America. Candyman and the tragedy of Daniel Robitaille deserves better. As much as I love Friday the 13th and several other franchises in the horror genre, Candyman has always been the character ripe with so much untapped potential that I’m surprised it’s taken this long to get the reboot/sequel it rightfully deserves. Though the moment I saw that Jordan Peele was involved, I started to worry.
I’m being upfront and saying I just don’t like Jordan Peele when it comes to horror. It’s like when Michael Bay started up his horror company and churned out The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Horror just isn’t for everyone to dip their toes into, and I don’t care about what awards films may get or box office it may gross; I’m not going to cave to the bandwagon. That being said, I’m more than willing to give a film a chance if the trailer can hook me or if I care about the property, so with Candyman this was one I was on the fence with. I was ecstatic about seeing this character back on the screen, but I was still cautious, because it was being helmed by Nia DaCosta, a director with no experience in the horror genre. As it would turn out, she’s a director who shows plenty of talent and promise, but can’t build a moment of tension even with all the tricks and tools of the industry at her disposal.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on August 27th, 2021
1951 was a year that spawned some major classic films. There was An American In Paris, A Streetcar Named Desire, The African Queen, and A Place In The Sun. Of the four mentioned, the one I hadn’t seen and honestly was oblivious to was A Place In The Sun. While I do appreciate many classic films, I don’t have an answer for my ignorance of the film, and with a stacked cast of Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor, Shelly Winters, and Raymond Burr, I was more than happy to check out this film and review it on its 70th anniversary. I went into this film knowing as little as possible, only knowing about the cast and the director George Stevens, a man with an impressive resume as a director as well as a cinematographer. This only flummoxed me further about how this film had managed to escape me for so long.
The film opens up with George Eastman (Montgomery Clift) hitchhiking along the side of a busy highway. Behind him we see a large billboard advertising Eastman swimwear. At the time we don’t know that George’s uncle is the owner of the company, nor do we recognize the significance of the imagery. Before a word is even spoken,, the director has already given us so much and we don’t even realize it. It’s because of this I’m already looking forward to revisiting this film, but I’ll try not to get ahead of myself. George has made this big move to get away from his poor family and hopefully find success in his uncle’s factoryThe uncle does care about family but also doesn’t believe in handouts, and this is how George winds up on the factory floor where he meets Alice Tripp (Shelly Winters). There’s a policy about dating coworkers, but the two budding lovebirds do their best to keep their relationship a secret. Everything is going smoothly, that is until he meets Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor) at a high-society dinner. Is this a romance that simply melds into a story of a man that falls in love with two women? Well, in simple terms, yes, but this film shows just how complicated things can get when you are in love with two people, not to mention struggling to move ahead in society.
Posted in: The Reel World by Brent Lorentson on August 7th, 2021
It doesn’t seem all that long ago that Disney/Marvel decided to fire James Gunn over a couple of tweets and Warner Brothers decided to scoop up the talented director to helm a reboot of The Suicide Squad. Personally, I feel this was the best move WB has done with their DC film projects since the Christopher Nolan Batman films. I’ll come out and say it: I haven’t been a fan of the DC cinematic universe. Wonder Woman and Shazam were decent, but they simply don’t hold up to what Marvel has been able to produce. While I’m fine with attempting to tell more mature storylines and appeal to an older audience, my biggest problem with the DC films is that they just weren’t fun (Shazam is perhaps the only exception to this). I’m not part of the “Release the Snyder cut” crowd; instead I just want to see a comic book film that can be entertaining and not take itself too seriously, and that brings me back to James Gunn. I’m a fan of Gunn. I absolutely adore what he’s done with The Guardians of the Galaxy, those are both in my top 5 of the Marvel films, because I love how he handles the group of misfit heroes. I even like Gunn’s earlier work like Super and especially Slither, his cinematic story of coming out of Troma I view as one of the best underdog stories in Hollywood and how he’s become an A-list director. The moment he signed on for The Suicide Squad I was excited. In my mind I felt this was what WB/DC and movie fans in general needed. Giving Gunn the freedom to make the film he wanted to make could seem like a risk, but I think Gunn had something to prove after being released by Disney, and the result is cinematic bliss that is the injection of gory comic book mayhem that fans have been waiting for.
While this take on The Suicide Squad does have characters and actors returning in the same roles from the previous attempt at Suicide Squad by director David Ayer, do yourself a favor and just pretend that film doesn’t exist. Heck, I even reviewed the film just about five years ago to the day, and while the film does have some fun moments, it just doesn’t hold up after further viewings, though I’d still love to see a Joker and Harley Quinn date night movie, but that’s a whole other discussion.
Posted in: The Reel World by Brent Lorentson on July 30th, 2021
Going all the way back to 2003 when Disney released The Haunted Mansion and The Pirates of the Caribbean, it seemed like the natural progression would be to release a film based on the theme parks Jungle Cruise ride. With the success of the Johnny Depp-helmed films, Disney instead elected to crank out more Pirates of the Caribbean films. Sure, the original trilogy was fun, but the two that followed were forgettable messes. Now it’s 2021, and we’ve finally gotten a Jungle Cruise film helmed by one of the biggest stars in cinema, Dwayne (don’t call me The Rock) Johnson and Emily Blunt sharing top billing credit. The trailers teased a film that was in the vein of the Indiana Jones films, something I believe could be a good thing. What was somewhat expected was the added layer of a supernatural element put into the film. While I was excited about the supporting cast and even the director that came aboard to helm the film, the one thing that bothered me was how long it’s been since I’ve actually enjoyed a live-action Disney film. With the talent involved, I felt there was plenty of opportunity for the film to be a success, but I couldn’t help but worry when I remembered the awful cinematic experience that Aladdin was. I’ll be blunt; I went in optimistic with that film because I’m a long time Guy Ritchie fan, but I really hated Aladdin. So what did I think of Jungle Cruise?
I have to admit I got excited as the film started up with the logo, and I’m hearing the melody from a Metallica song. We get an introduction to The Tears of the Moon, a mythic tree with healing capabilities that is hidden within the South American jungle. Our introduction to Emily Blunt’s character kind of threw me off. Everything seemed to point to her being a strong female lead, perhaps delivering a female version of Indiana Jones, though more concerned with biology than archeology, but the result was something rather different … Throughout the introduction of Lily Houghton (Emily Blunt), all I could think of was the character Rachel Weisz played in the Mummy films, smart but adorably clumsy and always getting into trouble by mistake. Not exactly the strong female lead I was expecting. In fact I feel this movie plays much closer to the Mummy franchise than it does with anything else. Well, Lily finds an arrowhead that is believed to help lead the way to finding The Tears of the Moon. Unfortunately Lily isn’t the only one after finding the mythic tree; a German Prince Joachim (Jesse Plemons) is also looking to acquire the tree.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on July 30th, 2021
If it feels like you’ve been waiting a while for this film, well, you wouldn’t be wrong. Originally the plan was to release the film March 20, 2020, but this would be one of the first of many films that would be shelved due to the pandemic. There was talk about possibly releasing the film on one of the numerous streaming services out there, but thankfully it was decided to hold out till the lockdowns would end and movie theaters would open up wide across the US. It’s been a long wait for this highly anticipated sequel; was it worth it? I didn’t review the first film, but while I wasn’t exactly blown away by the film the first time around, as I’ve revisited the film I have to admit the film has grown on me, and I’d say it was my second favorite horror film released in 2018 (Sorry, Hereditary continues to knock my socks off to this day.) What sort of concerned me going into this sequel is how much would this work without Lee (John Krasinski)? Thankfully the film has Krasinski returning to work behind the camera as director again, as well as aiding in the writing of the film, but most importantly they found a way to bring his character back for the sequel. Was the film worth the wait, or should they have left this as a one-off success?
The film opens up to Day 1 of the invasion. Audiences finally get to see how everything went down when the aliens first arrived. Here we get to see the Abbott family as a happy and whole family. A good portion of this revolves around Lee and how the family manages to survive the first wave of the attack. I absolutely enjoyed this part of the film, though if you’ve seen the Steven Spielberg take on War of the Worlds, well, it will seem a bit familiar, but this definitely helps set the tone for this film. With a bigger budget we get a bigger production design as well as more aliens and more on-screen kills. One of the best aspects of the Day 1 sequence is that it definitely calls back to the first film, when the family is raiding the shop for supplies. Keep your eyes peeled for several props that find their way on screen.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on July 26th, 2021
Just when you thought the Saw franchise had finally claimed its final victim in Jigsaw, Lionsgate has decided to keep the gruesome franchise going with Spiral. I know it seemed like the character of Jigsaw had finally been milked (or bled) for all its worth; what more can they do with this franchise? Honestly, when I first heard about this film, I groaned. I love horror, and I love gore, but even I was feeling the franchise had gotten a bit stale. As it turns out, there does seem to be more story to be juiced from this franchise, and I’ll say it right now, this film was the game changer the franchise needed, and it helps pave the way for plenty of pain, revenge, and justice down the road. This is a film that was long overdue to the franchise, and I’ll go so far as to say it’s perhaps my favorite film of the series since the release of the first film.
Even if you’ve never seen a Saw film before, Spiral works well as a standalone film. It’s not as though the previous films were serious think pieces, but of course if you’ve seen the previous films it will only add more to the experience. That being said, Spiral does take a different approach and plays out more like a police procedural film. If you’ve ever seen the 1995 film Seven, you’ll most likely catch many of the films homages to David Fincher’s classic. Seeing the film play out more as a crime thriller definitely opens the scope of the film, but to a degree I feel it steps up the film’s pedigree, no longer being a relatively small scale “torture porn”. Now it’s as though the franchise has matured, wanting to give the audience more than just some gore on the wall. Then there is the casting of Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson, two names I’m pretty sure no one would have expected to see in this franchise, but most surprising is just how good Chris Rock is in this film. It’s been a while since Chris Rock has been a name that one would call a box office draw, but this is the role that is going to change that (especially when you factor in his performance in Fargo last year). We get to see a lot of range from Rock in this role, and it makes sense why he made himself Executive Producer on the film.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on July 25th, 2021
It continues to amaze me how well Warner Brothers does with their DC products in the television universe but manage to execute so poorly with their films. Despite being a bit formulaic, the CW DC shows are still a blast to watch but it’s the more adult oriented shows Titans, Doom Patrol and Swamp Thing that have left me most impressed. Now they have released Pennyworth for the Starz Network, despite the confidence I have in the other shows I went into this one with cautious optimism. The biggest question that bothered me was do we need another series that delves into the Batman universe? Gotham recently wrapped up, there’s a Batwoman series, Joker was only 2 years ago and a new Batman film coming next year, not to forget all the other incarnations of the Dark Knight. What had me interested though is the notion of finally getting to see Alfred Pennyworth as the former SAS officer in his prime and the chance to see how he became entangled with the Wayne family. Was the series a letdown or yet another success for the DC television universe?
The series was brought to life by Bruno Heller, a writer with experience in this universe since coming off from writing for Gotham. Now if you’re thinking you enjoyed Gotham and perhaps this is a prequel you can enjoy with the kids let me stop you for a moment and say, this one is not for the kids. This series embraces its adult content with its over the top violence, an abundance of sex, drugs and profanity that more closely resembles a Quentin Tarantino film than a comic book series, and I love it for that. Season one was a fun little romp that sets up the story of how Thomas Wayne, Martha Kane and Alfred Pennyworth all met. Season 2 delves deeper into the development of their friendships and relationships and in the process shows how Lucius Fox was brought into the fold. This is all done while a battle is taking place between London and the Raven Union which is led by Lord Harwood (Jason Flemyng) whom we met in the first season. Season two, while it does continue the story I’m a little disappointed with the direction it goes with this so much focus on a war and take over by the Raven Union, my disappointment is with how little most of it doesn’t involve Alfred at all.
