The Reel World

In 1999 when The Sopranos first premiered on HBO, I don’t think anyone was expecting just how much it would change the television landscape. In its run it made cable TV a main contender for the Emmys, but it also changed the way we see TV, as it took the gangster movie dynamic and stretched it out into a series that ran successfully for 86 episodes. Then there was the way the series came to a close that has had fans and critics talking nearly 15 years after it last aired. It’s the show that raised the bar for what television can be and has been the standard since which only a handful of shows have been able to match in quality. Personally (and I know this is a controversial take) I’m only a fan of the first three seasons, but even a bad episode of The Sopranos is better than most television shows out there. There was talk for a while about spin-off shows and possible movies. This kind of talk would of course get fans excited, but the question always was, where can you go with the story? Then in 2013 when James Gandolfini died, it seemed like any possible revival was squashed.

Whenever I hear about a show or film wanting to do a prequel, I immediately think of what happened with the prequel trilogy with Star Wars.  We all got excited; it was Lucas in full control, and he’d be telling us the story of how Vader became the big bad Sith in the galaxy far, far away. How did that work out for us fans? Now, granted, a film talking about how Tony Soprano became the gangster he would evolve to be is a very tempting idea; then when you see how much his son Michael Gandolfini looks like his dad, man, it seems like a sure thing. Sometimes things should be left alone. Heck, we all expected the spin-off film El Comino following Jesse from Breaking Bad would be good, and how did that turn out?  How about that Entourage film? I mean, there are so many examples that should have prepared us for this, but we all just wanted to believe that David Chase could surprise us all and deliver us just one more serving of the crime family we all love. The problem is he teased us all with the promise of one story, and instead he threw in so much more that no one wanted or cared about that he practically pissed all over a sure hit in the process.

"That was a long time ago, wasn't it?"

Everyone has one. There is that shirt in your closet. Or maybe it's a pair of pants, socks, or even shoes. Whatever it is, it should have been thrown out decades ago. There could be holes, and it's certainly so threadbare that you could do the New York Times crossword through the fabric. It's not practical, if it ever even was. If it were any other piece of clothing you'd be embarrassed to be wearing it. But the dang thing is so comfortable. It's soft against your skin, or maybe it brings back one of your favorite memories. Whatever the reason, you love that thing, and you wish you could wear it all the time. That's exactly how some of us feel about Clint Eastwood. I was a teen in high school when he asked us if we felt lucky and begged us to make his day. A lot of years and a lot of movies have come and gone since then. Clint doesn't have the abilities to run around shooting up the joint anymore. His delivery has gotten softer over the years. Face it. Clint has lost more than a few steps. At 91 years of age, it's somewhat amazing that he's still directing with the quality he does, and every time he also steps in front of the camera, I'm in the audience saying my goodbyes. But I've been saying goodbye since before Gran Torino in 2008. Now it's 2021, and after Hollywood has experienced its most grueling two years in the last century, it is becoming clear to me that Clint Eastwood isn't going anywhere. And that makes my day.

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.

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 13^th 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.

"We all have secrets."

Right from the jump there's a lot to like about The Night House, directed by David Bruckner and starring Rebecca Hall. It's the kind of horror film that derives its scares from the point of emotional loss that cuts to the center of the kinds of things that really scare us all. From that point the film immerses us deep into the kind of atmosphere that doesn't come from gory special effects or even some of the nicely placed jump scenes. Instead Bruckner engineers his cinematography to play slight tricks on our eyes that immediately reveal some clever usages of the film's set designs and an Escheresque distortion of our point of view. It's the kind of film that demands you pay very strict attention and then rewards you for the effort. Sounds like a great movie, yeah? Unfortunately, the screenplay, written by Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski, who both penned the now shooting Hellraiser reboot/sequel, is the glaring weak link that caused me to leave the theater repeating, "I almost loved it."

“The past can haunt a man.  That’s what they say. But the past is just a series of moments. Perfect … .complete … a bead on the necklace of time.”

So, an interesting factoid that I learned about the film’s director Lisa Joy: she is the sister-in-law of director Christopher Nolan. This doesn’t really add anything to the review, just an interesting fact that I thought I’d share. Then again, I do remember thinking when the film first opened up that it felt very shades-of-Nolan. Not to say that Nolan had any influence over the film, but just the idea of a movie based off a construct is very much in his wheelhouse. Memory is the construct that is explored in this film, and I must admit that the addictive nature in which the film portrays this construct did have some appeal; however, the film tries to bring too many different themes and elements together, and it results in not enough attention being paid to any of them. Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Ferguson are the film’s big draws, and while their electricity helps to make the film decent, it cannot make it great.

"I know this world is just a game, but this place, these people, that's all I have. So I'm not gonna be the good guy. I'm gonna be a great guy." 

Free Guy is the love letter to video gamers of all ages that Ready Player One should have been. While Ready Player One spent most of its resources on spectacle and a rather convoluted mythology, Free Guy allows the heart to come from the characters and plays out as something much closer to the passion and attachment players have long felt for their favorite games and game characters. The film manages to do this without giving up on the spectacle. There's plenty of that computer-generated magic here, enough to immerse us in the AI world of the game. But the film manages to reach out and connect to the humanity behind the games far better than Ready Player One could do at its best moments. That isn't to say this is a perfect film. There are tons of flaws, and it's not exactly the most original concept out there. In fact you'll find extreme elements of both Groundhog Day and The Truman Show, and Ryan Reynolds has almost become a cliche in this kind of wisecracking, irreverent-but-charming character. Think Deadpool without ... you know ...  the F-bombs and the bloody violence. But take all of that "been there/seen that" aspect of the film, and you walk away smiling a little and totally entertained. Sounds like a fun summer movie to me.

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.

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.

I guess you could say I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with M. Night Shyamalan movies. There are some that I really enjoy (i.e. The Sixth Sense, The Village, The Unbreakable Trilogy) and then there are those I’m just not fond of (i.e. The Last Airbender, After Earth, The Happening). When it comes to his new film, Old, I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the film. There are several elements that I enjoyed, such as the premise, certain characters and their actors’ performances, but then in some instances the story felt underdeveloped, and certain actors were typecast. All in all, as the credits rolled I found myself with mixed feelings about what I’d just seen, and now with time to reflect, I’m still not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the film.

Let’s start with the elements that I enjoyed, such as the film’s premise. Several people get trapped on a beach where time appears to be accelerated, essentially making thirty minutes on the beach the equivalent of one year of their life. This a very intriguing undertaking that is full of suspense, as it ups the pressure to escape, as there is literally no telling which second could be your last. However, I did not feel that the severity of the situation was adequately addressed early on. The group comes to understand their situation quite quickly, but they are more wrapped up in their own personal issues than they are in figuring out a way to escape. Granted, there is a force that is preventing them from escaping, but I don’t feel that we got a good explanation as to what that force is. I feel that some time should have been devoted to that rather than all the individual storylines.