The Reel World

Any time a film is released that is directed by Martin Scorsese, it’s something any film fan should get excited about, especially because we just don’t know how many more of these films we’ll have to look forward to. He’s one of the few working directors who you can argue has numerous masterpieces on his resume, films that are classics that have stood the test of time and will continue to do so for decades to come. Its why when I hear people scoff at the 3-hour 30 min running time of Killers of the Flower Moon and complain it’s too long, I feel like they are forgetting who they are talking about.  If anything, when there is a 3-hour film like Oppenheimer that has grossed over $900 million worldwide, it shows that people will flock to the theaters and sit through an epic film if the film is good. Sure, there is already Oscar buzz around Oppenheimer, but in my eyes the film to beat this year is Killers of the Flower Moon, an epic western, crime saga and romance all wrapped up into one film that has me close to calling it a masterpiece, but I need a couple more viewings before I feel comfortable saying that.

The film introduces us to the Osage nation and them finding wealth with the discovery of oil on their land. The members of the Osage tribe, for their time, were some of the wealthiest people on earth, and we get to see them living their extravagant lives. While this is happening, numerous members of the tribe were found dead, yet no proper investigation was ever made.

When it comes to watching films at the theater, often I will want to see a movie sometimes three, four weeks into their release.  The crowds have quieted down, and I can often focus on the movie rather than the person next to me who might be munching on their popcorn a little too loudly or on their cell phone.  However, with many films not sticking around as they should, it can often be difficult to make that work.  This past Sunday, I was fortunate enough to see A Haunting In Venice, a film that opened in mid-September to honestly rather tepid box office earnings.  I had seen Murder on the Orient Express on 4K disc and Death on the Nile with my wife in theaters, so I certainly wanted to see the third film in the Kenneth Branagh's version of Hercule Poirot.  So quality time aside, was this film actually worth our matinee dollar, or was it better spent at the local sandwich shop?  Let's take a look.

The birds are all aflutter this morning.  We happen to be in Venice, Italy, 1947, shortly after the Second World War.  The date: October 31st, Halloween.  The date is however unbeknown to Hercule Poirot (played by Kenneth Branagh), who has recently retired from his detective work.  He wakes up to the sound of death, a fairly common occurrence from his former line of work.  Instead of investigating dead bodies, he analyzes his plants as well as the mail.  At some point, Hercule decides to venture outside where a mass crowd follows him asking for his advice or how to solve their own murder cases.  He declines them all, and the people who decide to be a little more aggressive are dealt with by Hercule's bodyguard (and retired cop) Vitale Portfoglio (played by Riccardo Scamarcio), who is nearby and watching.

It’s October, so that means all the studios and streaming services are going to be unleashing some spooky new releases to please their viewers who are attempting to get into the Halloween spirit. This weekend Amazon Prime is releasing Totally Killer, a Blumhouse production that continues to ride the wave of 80s nostalgia with a time travel slasher film. The trailers looked fun and with Kiernan Shipka (The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina) in the lead, and I’m always in the mood for a new slasher with franchise potential. Does the film deliver the goods, or is this one dead on arrival? It’s time to strap in and travel back to 1987 and see what this is all about. In 1987 the town of North Vernon was terrorized by the “the Sweet 16 Killer” after he killed three high school girls, stabbing them sixteen times each. 35 years later, Pam (Julie Bowen) still hasn’t gotten over the murder of her three friends and has become very protective of her teenage daughter, Jamie (Kiernan Shipka). Now it is Halloween night, and Jamie is eager to go to a concert with her best friend, Amelia (Kelcey Mawema). Jamie is only allowed to go if her dad, Blake (Lochlyn Munro) drives them. As it turns out, this was a disastrous decision for Pam, because it’s this night that “the Sweet 16 Killer” has returned to finish what he’s started. In the aftermath of her mom’s death, Jamie goes to the science fair with Amelia. Her big project is to finish what her mother started back in the 80s to create a time machine. Things go awry with another appearance by “the Sweet 16 Killer”, and in an attempt to escape, Jamie is sent back to 1987 just before the murders take place.

OK, the first act of this film has a lot of narrative to set things up.  I enjoyed the world that was being created here, and there are some fun characters, but when it comes to the horror elements of this film, well, to be fair, they are basically Goosebumps-level scares, but it’s only the first thirty minutes of the film, so I haven’t given up hope yet …

The first Paw Patrol movie opened up in August of 2021 during the pandemic era where barely anyone wanted to go anywhere that wasn't a grocery store (because somehow that was safe).  It still managed to pull in forty million domestic and another hundred million internationally.  With the built in audience from the television series, a sequel was almost a no-brainer.  I remember taking my family to go see the first Paw Patrol (the theater was quite bare) and actually enjoying it quite a bit.  It certainly helped to bring all of the key elements from the television series and produce something that wasn't nauseating and over-the-top.  However, sequels of movies based on popular properties often go the wrong direction.  Let's see what the Mighty Pups have in store for us in their second outing.

As is the case with many Nickelodeon films, we get a cartoon short to start off the show.  This one has Dora the Explorer, who is apparently getting a new CGI series in 2024.  This short is entitled Dora and the Fantastical Creatures.  Dora (voiced by Diana Zermeno) and her companion, Boots (voiced by Asher Spence) the monkey are going on an adventure to the land of Alebrijes, where they have the most colorful and magical creatures in the rain forest.  It appears that someone has taken the glowey.  We later find out that it was Swiper (voiced by Marc Weiner).  Swiper is taken down by making him realize that he did a bad thing, and he gives back the glowey.  So it's a totally realistic cartoon.  Much eye-rolling did occur, and I realized that I'm glad that my son never picked up on this show.  However, he might have momentarily picked up the phrase, "Swiper, no swiping."  Curses!  Let's get on to the feature presentation.

“Then we have something in common. You aren’t going to heaven because you aren’t a good person, and I’m not going because I’m not a person.”

So, this film focuses on a interesting viewpoint: what if Skynet weren’t the bad guys? In this Gareth Edwards directed film, John David Washington plays a hardened ex-soldier, grieving the disappearance of his wife, who is recruited to hunt down and assassinate the Creator, an elusive architect responsible for creation of advanced artificial intelligence that humanity has been at war with since a nuclear attack years earlier. Sound familiar? As previously mentioned, while one can draw parallels between the early events of this film and the future that Sarah Connor tried to prevent for her son, in that story, artificial intelligence becoming sentient was the cause; in The Creator, AI appears to be on the losing side of the battle with humanity. Score one for humanity. As a result, they only have one refuge: Asia, or to be more precise, New Asia. I found this to be an interesting viewpoint that was worth exploring with this film. Unfortunately, while the film has moments of intrigue and John David Washington gives an above-average performance as the protagonist (pun intended, given his character’s name in Tenet), things didn’t come fully together in this film.

"Batman's a fascist!"

Let's address the elephant in the room, shall we? Hello there, big guy. How ya doing? There now let's continue. I have to tell you it was hard to get motivated to watch Blue Beetle. I didn't want to like it, and I wanted to try to watch it without letting myself get too involved in the whole thing. This had nothing to do with the character. I know little about him and have only read a few comics featuring the character, mostly the Ted Kord character along with his buddy Booster Gold. But none of this had anything to do with my reluctance on the part of the film. It's Warner Brothers/DC and James Gunn. All we've been hearing lately is how this new regime is going to change EVERYTHING. It all starts with the upcoming Superman film, and everything we see before then is merely filler, I guess. Yes, the Snyderverse had a ton of issues, and I'm frankly glad to see it go away. But the franchise had some solid moments and pretty strong characters and actors starting with Gal Gadot as a powerfully compelling Wonder Woman. Yeah, the second movie sucked, but that had nothing to do with the actress or the character. I should be looking forward to Jason Momoa in the next Aquaman film. I'm currently watching old Stargate: Atlantis episodes and just can't believe how far the actor has come. And I guess the final straw was the dismissal of Henry Cavill as Superman. He's the best Superman since Christopher Reeve, and Gunn is throwing the baby out with all of that bath water. So why should I care about anything Blue Beetle has to offer? Yes, he hinted that the character will likely return, and even with the same actor, but none of this story will likely make it to the other side. I ask again, why should I care about anything Blue Beetle has to offer? The short answer is because there's actually a lot of heart here, and I now kind of feel bad for all of these guys. So let's just pretend that Gunn isn't even here, and try and enjoy a pretty good film just for what it is.

Been waiting on this one for some time, ever since we were introduced to the character in the Justice League movie and it was announced that the film would cover the Flashpoint Paradox storyline, which is one of my favorite comic storylines. My enthusiasm was tempered a bit with the film being delayed and the actor’s subsequent troubles (for the purposes of staying on the topic at hand, that will be my only mention of that situation). However, it is finally here, and after viewing it I can say that it was well done and well received. It is also a bit bittersweet, as it signifies the conclusion of the DCEU as we know it. While I have complete confidence that the future of DC is safe in James Gunn’s hands, it is difficult to say farewell to the only thing that we’ve known since Cavill first donned the suit. Back on topic: in my opinion, while this adaptation does have some slight deviations from the source material, I can confidently say that the film does the source material justice (pun intended).

Speaking of justice, The Flash served as a mini Justice League reunion, as several prominent members of the previous film make cameo appearances. Affleck’s reprisal as Bruce Wayne/Batman is well known given his inclusion in the film’s promotional material. He attempts to act as a voice of reason for Barry, cautioning him about the dangers of time travel. In this respect, Affleck was in top form and fully embodies the mentor role for Barry. He drops some real gems, most notably about the responsibility that comes with gifts and that the cost of their gifts are their tragic pasts. While his role in the film is minimal, Affleck casts a large shadow. The other cameos I won’t spoil, as both took me by surprise, and I want the same for those who intend to see the movie.

"Where the hell did you come from?”

When you consider just how many films have been made about Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula”, I’m surprised it has taken this long to get a film like The Last Voyage of the Demeter. I’m not a huge fan of the novel, but the chapter that centers around Dracula’s voyage from Carpathia to London is a section that I always enjoyed. It’s a chapter told through journal entries from the captain of the ship and how the crew is killed one by one by a mysterious menace aboard the ship. In the movies that have come before, this moment of the film is usually mentioned as an afterthought or simply gets a couple minutes of screen time. So is this the fresh take on the beloved horror icon that cinema-goers have been waiting for, or is this just a lame attempt to revive the vampire genre?

"Of all the threats you've faced from your past and future, you've never faced anything like this."

In 2018 the Transformers franchise began something of a ... well ... transformation. Michael Bay stepped down as the franchise director while maintaining a producer role. The focus also shifted from the continuing story started with the first film and transitioned to the idea of standalone films set within the general continuity established from the beginning. The new focus also allowed the films to go to different times in the mythology. So Bumblebee became more than just a Transformers film. It was a rather charming 1980's period piece  and it was actually a better movie than some of the original run. That tradition is continued with Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. The film is rather loosely based on the Beasts Wars story from the early cartoons and takes us back, but a decade later than Bumblebee. Now we're in 1994, and a couple of your film favorites have returned for the next chapter in the Transformers legacy.

-“This mansion is unhinged. She needs all the help she can get. You wanna be a hero?”

-“Pass.”