The Reel World

"They think I'm hiding in the shadows, but I am the shadows."

You have certain expectations when you go to a superhero/comic book movie. Sure, it changes a little depending on the character that you're going to see. But there are certain things that all of these films tend to have in common. There's an expectation of frantic action and some mind-bending special f/x. You're looking for colorful villains who tend to act over-the-top and always provide that gentle wink back at the audience. When these expectations aren't met, audiences tend to be disappointed, and big budget films can end up costing the studios huge in the end. Even as we appear to be reaching the last days of the limited pandemic crowds, that risk gets multiplied. It also doesn't help if audiences are still riding the high off the first big global billion-dollar film in almost three years. That's the kind of headwinds The Batman is facing when audiences line up to see the return of one of the oldest and most famous heroes in comic history. What if I were to tell you that you won't get a lot of any of those things, but you're going to love it anyway? That's exactly what I am telling you about Warner Brothers' newest Batman film, simply titled The Batman.

The Naughty Dog series Uncharted has been a bit of an obsession in my home since I played the first game. I always viewed the series as the Indiana Jones video game fans always wanted but just never got. There’s a reason for the game’s popularity. Each game comes with a great story, fun action game play, and memorable set pieces. It’s no surprise that it would eventually become a blockbuster movie, but what has surprised me is how long it has taken to bring the character of Nathan Drake to the big screen. Sure, you can argue we’ve gotten a new Tomb Raider film, and some could argue Uncharted is simply an Indiana Jones knockoff. But then I’d have to ask those people, have they actually played the game? Even with another Indiana Jones film in post production, and as much as I love that franchise, that fourth film simply left a bad taste in my mouth, and I’m slightly concerned about what could happen with a fifth film not helmed by Spielberg.  It’s these thoughts that have me  gotten me so excited about the prospect of an Uncharted film, a passing of the torch for a new adventure franchise that’s filled with treasure hunting, exotic locations, and plenty of action. After a decade of development, does the film live up to my expectations, or does it disappoint like so many other video game adaptations that have been released over the years?

Tom Holland steps into the role of Nathan Drake. When we meet this character he’s nothing more than a clever pickpocket, and though he’s a fan of history and legends of treasure, he hasn’t yet become the treasure hunter we know and love. Nathan is approached by Victor “Sully” Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg), a professional thief/treasure hunter who wants to recruit Nathan for a job, and it’s Sully’s connection to Drake’s long-lost brother that convinces Nathan to go ahead and help with the job that involves stealing a rare cross from an auction house. Also after the cross is Santiago Moncada (Antonio Banderas). The cross happens to be a key that leads to a fortune that is valued at $5 billion dollars. The cross is only the start of this globetrotting adventure that is filled with double-crosses and clues to solve the mystery of this lost treasure.

“It’s simple. You’ll grow a mustache.”

Now here is a movie that the pandemic hit hard. Originally slated for December 2019 release, this Kenneth Branagh directed and starred sequel film is finally coming to theaters after a two-year-and-some-change delay. Branagh reprises his role as director, as well as his role as one of the most famous detectives both fictionally and in the reality, Hercule Poirot. Adapted from another Agatha Christie classic novel, this follow up to the Murder on the Orient Express takes us from the railroad tracks to the Egyptian Nile River, as Poirot once again finds himself in the middle of a murder investigation, where the suspects are aplenty. Just like in the previous film, Branagh is joined by a star-studded cast that includes Gal Gadot, Armie Hammer, Leticia Wright, Annette Benning, Rose Leslie, Russell Brand, and Sophie Okonedo. While there some obvious changes to the source material, such downsizing the number of characters from the book and distributing their attributes to other members of the cast; the story loses none of the quality that made this whodunit tale a classic.

In the 1970's Irwin Allen went from doing campy television science fiction shows like Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, and Lost In Space to becoming the king of the disaster movie. From The Poseidon Adventure to The Towering Inferno, Allen brought us to the brink of disaster time and time again. While others have followed in his footsteps, no one has taken that genre to heart as much as Roland Emmerich. Films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow filled our screens with technology that Irwin Allen could only dream about. But Emmerich worked best when he was partnered with Dean Devlin. Since that collaboration ended it appears that Emmerich has been in a kind of a rut. That wouldn't be so bad, because he knows how to put a big budget film together and give us a lot of bang for our buck with milestone f/x and mind-blowing set pieces. But it appears that a lot of that luster has been eclipsed by his latest sci-fi/disaster entry, Moonfall.

Moonfall begins familiarly enough for Emmerich fans with a rather eccentric "professor" who appears to have made a breakthrough discovery. He has learned that the moon's orbit is shrinking and bringing it closer and closer to Earth until eventually it will rain fire and brimstone down on our hapless planet. Of course, no one will believe him, and NASA has stopped taking his calls. Most of the problem is that he has for years been associated with a theory that the moon is actually an ancient alien construct and not a natural celestial body at all. It's the part played on Independence Day by Jeff Goldblum and on Stargate by James Spader. Here he's KC Houseman, played by John Bradley. He eventually gets the attention of washed-up astronaut Brian Harper, played by Patrick Wilson, who experienced something a few years ago on a shuttle mission that no one believes happened. At the heart of both of their problems is a black wave of material that is somehow sentient and a part of this moon structure left over by the little gray guys millions of years ago. Of course, by the time anyone listens to either of them, the real scientists have already discovered the shrinking orbit and have sent a mission to investigate. That goes badly, and eventually it's up to Houseman, Harper, and Harper's once-astronaut partner Jo Fowler, played by Halle Berry, to save the day.

Over twenty years ago, we were introduced to a slapstick television series known as Jackass. While the series only ran for three seasons, it was a show like no other, as it featured its cast intentional doing dangerous things and often risking injury and death for our entertainment. It also went on to spawn multiple spin-off series before transiting to the big screen in what is now four movie adaptations. It also introduced the world to the charisma of Johnny Knoxville, who without question was the most fearless and daring member of the cast; on several episodes, we witnessed as he got seriously injured while performing stunts that included getting gored by bulls, shot with tasers, shot from cannons, and contending with professional heavyweight boxers.

And now twenty years later, after seeing Jackass Forever, I can personally attest, and Chris Pontius said it best, “Even after twenty years, we are still doing the same stupid s#$%.”  It is literally like for the Jackass crew time has stood still. Now that is normally not a good thing, as change is necessary, but when it comes to this success of this popular franchise, consistency is paramount. Similar to how they used to give you disclaimer at the beginning cautioning you against attempt to replicate any of their stunts, I feel obligated to issue a disclaimer of my own: Warning! While the film is wildly entertaining, a strong stomach is needed to fully enjoy its contents. If you are lacking in that department, it may be best to avoid it.

In 1996 when Scream first came out, it’s hard to explain to this new generation of teens just how much it changed the genre and the film industry. To say the horror genre was dead is an understatement. Sure, the early 90’s had a handful of good films, but when you look at where the genre was in the 80’s and earlier, you can see the difference. Then when you look at how the genre has evolved since the first film premiered, what Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven did has been emulated but not quite surpassed. Even with the three sequels that followed, they had the same spirit but just not quite as good. Sure, better horror films have come along in the 25 years since, and several have changed the genre for better or worse. We’ve seen horror go with the intense hyper realism and the re-boot which Scream 4 (2011) took its meta take on, but where could the series go next?  Honestly, when Wes Craven passed in 2015, I figured the franchise was done unless they rebooted the series from scratch with a new cast and director, but I don’t think that’s what any of the fans wanted. For the intense and loyal fans, this is a franchise  that many seemed protective over. I’ll admit to being one of them, so when the talk came of a fifth film going into development, I was just at a loss. After all, how do you replace Wes Craven? The guy is quite literally a master of horror. My first choice would have been the team behind Turbo Kid and Summer of 84 . I like their style and their love for nostalgia, but instead the studio went with the directing team of Radio Silence (Tyler Gillett and  Matt Bettinelli-Olpin) who are responsible for the insanely fun Ready or Not. So how does the new film hold up with these new directors taking a “Stab” at the franchise?

The opening takes us into some familiar territory, as we have Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega) as the teen who is home alone and is tormented by a suspicious caller who of course turns out to be the Ghost Face killer. This sequence sets the tone nicely and definitely is wanting to remind viewers of the first film but shows us there are going to be some modern twists along the way. No, I don’t think this scene holds up to the amazing opening of the first film, but it is definitely one of the best starts of the sequels, and the film only continues to impress going forward.

I wanted to believe that it was possible. I really did. I wanted to believe that it was possible to make a quality addition to the iconic franchise despite nearly twenty years having gone by since the third film. But alas, here we are and it clearly wasn’t possible to make a quality addition to the franchise. I should have trusted my instincts. While the The Matrix: Resurrections may provide us with answer regarding the ultimate fate of Neo and Trinity, those answers come at the cost of entertainment. I am a firm believer in letting sleeping dogs lie, and I can honestly say that this franchise would have been better off without this latest installment, which in my opinion adds nothing to it. I’m honestly shocked at the fact of how disappointed I was with the film given that two-thirds of the main cast came back for the film. Trust me, we are also going to discuss the one-third that didn’t and the dishonorable way that they chose to continue the character.

While its been around twenty years for us since we’ve seen Neo or Trinity, the Matrix universe, it’s actually been around 60 years. When we last saw the couple, Trinity had been fatally wounding invading the machine city and Neo had sacrificed himself in order to destroy Smith and all his clones. Neo is last seen being carried away by the machines. So what happen? Apparently, Neo was reintegrated into the Matrix; his memories stripped and transformed into a video game in order to add a grain of truth to the lie that the machines are selling. Despite this, something about his reality still doesn’t sit completely well for him.

This is an origin story. That is the best way I can sum this movie up. I will repeat it again, so it is clear. This is an origin story. It was hinted at in the first film (Kingsman) how the Kingman intelligence agency was started; however, while it was excellently explained by Colin Firth, how the agency truly came to be was just sort of glossed over. With The King’s Man we get to experience the tale of the organization’s founder and his motivation for creating the organization. The story is informative and at times entertaining, but I must confess that it was missing the wit that the original film had. I would have to characterize this as a case of the original film being the best. In this instance, it is because of the wit and the manner in which the story flowed. I know what you are thinking, I’m disregarding the second film, and you are right; I am. In the case of Kingsman 2, I found it to be an unjustifiable and unnecessary sequel. Plus, the film pretty much lost me the moment that they came up with convoluted explanation for how Firth’s Harry Hart/Galahad managed to survive a bullet to the head at point-blank range. No offense intended to Mr. Firth, as I loved him as that character, but that was just bad storytelling. Then there is what they did with Mark Strong’s Merlin, but I’m getting off track.

In The King’s Man, we meet the man who started it all, played by Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes is an established English actor of the highest order; you need only look at his resume to see that. I mean, he’s been a part of several franchises to include Harry Potter and more recently the Daniel Craig-led James Bond films. Now he has a chance to be part of another franchise. Unfortunately, I don’t imagine there will be much potential in a continuation of his character. Not through any fault of Fiennes, but merely because this film was clearly intended as a prequel and additionally, the story wasn’t strong enough to warrant a return in my opinion. To its credit, the film accomplishes the goal it set out to accomplish: it establishes the agency’s origins. Outside of that, I just don’t see a reason for a continuation. To my mind, this actually argues for a conclusion of the franchise. I just can’t imagine a scenario where this series needs to continue.

"If you expect disappointment, you will never be disappointed."

That's the trouble with sequels. The filmmakers feel this great responsibility to give us more than they've given us before with no thought to the idea that more is often less. There has never been a truly great comic book hero film that had extra villains. It just doesn't work. You can't give enough time and back story to everybody, so you have to cheat somewhere and cut a few corners. Those corners are things like characterization and heart. But what if you could? I mean, seriously. What if it were possible to do a multi-villain comic book movie that was really good? Until just now, I would have thought it was impossible. But isn't that what the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has been doing for over 20 years now? Isn't that what comic books have been delivering since the 1930's when an alien baby stole the hearts of millions? Aren't they in the business of doing the impossible? Spider-Man: No Way Home has done the impossible. There are five ... count them ... five villains, and this is the best Spider-Man film of them all. The pandemic might not be over, but the box-office drought will be. Spider-Man is set to break all post-COVID records, and there's just one reason why. This movie reminds us why we used to go there in the first place. A movie that feeds the 10-year old Spider-Man comics fan inside of me and the adult looking for some real entertainment from my center seat in an IMAX theater. Run. Don't walk. Run. Take your precautions, of course. But run. Run to the box office, and remember: 

"Step right up and behold one of the unexplained mysteries of the universe! Is he a man or beast? This creature has been examined by the foremost scientists and pronounced, unequivocally, a man. I am prepared to offer you folks one last chance to witness this supreme oddity. Where did it come from? Begotten by the same and threat that got us all walking on this earth, but gone wrong somehow in maternal womb. Not fit for living. Is it a beast, or is it a man?" 

Guillermo del Toro knows how to deliver atmosphere. His love for the horror films of the 1930's shows in his use of shadows and lighting to build a world that's always uniquely belonging to each of his films. He makes these worlds a thing unto themselves while leaving all the familiar markers that keep his worlds from appearing too alien. You want to take a ride in his worlds even if they are dark and foreboding. Mix in more than a little film noir with dark, saturated colors, and you pretty much already know what to expect from Nightmare Alley. The film is based both on the 1946 novel by William Lindsay Gresham and the 1947 film by Edmund Goulding and staring Tyrone Powell and Joan Blondell. The film leans heavier on the novel for source material and less on the original film. That's because only del Toro is willing to go quite this dark, and it's a good thing for us he is.