Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire Review

Netflix is so desperate for a franchise to call their own that they've appeared to have written director Zack Snyder a blank check and said "make us "Star Wars."" And the end result, the mouthful-of-a-name "Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire" is exactly that, only it has all the style and budget but absolutely none of the heart, soul, or reason for being.

This is not just a bad film, but also an ugly, needlessly long, cliche, tedious, monotonous, sterile, joyless, tired, absolutely plain old cinematic travesty. I'd call it a turkey, but it's more of a tofurkey, no real meat here.

It doesn't help that the apparently blank check the streaming titan provided didn't come with anyone to keep Snyder's energies in-check; this is perhaps the most self-indulgent piece of movie making I can recall seeing. My mouth laid agape as all his bad habits appeared in such excess that you wonder if he intentionally set out to make a terrible film. Dialogue is terse and often shouted, lacking the magic of a truly gifted screenwriter (or world-builder). We get this huge, sprawling world, highly stylized but devoid of personality, where all sorts of nasty people and even nastier creatures function in a society barely explained. Our main villain (Ed Skrein) at one point wears a white shirt and black tie, yet other characters are draped in flowing robes, loin-cloths and humble scrapes of fabric seemingly sewn by hand. When does this take place? Why do the horse-like creatures, Urakis, look just like regular horses with a tree-trunk taped to their heads? Why is Anthony Hopkins voicing a robot? Why is Anthony Hopkins barely in this? Why is he here at all? Does he really need a paycheck that badly?

His egregious overuse of slow motion, a trademark of the director, is easily the worst, we sit bored stiff as this laborious lemon of a movie shows us scenes including, but not limited to, slow motion walking, slow motion running, slow motion standing, slow motion falling snow, slow motion hand-to-hand combat, slow motion gunfire, slow motion space ships, slow motion removal of hats, and, my favorite, slow motion sword fights against a giant spider woman. What a hell of a sentence, I know.

The plot is a garbled mess of sci-fi stereotypes, one involving an evil empire called the Motherworld, who comes land one day on the small farming village of Veldt asking for demanding food supplies. The evil people do evil things to innocent people because that's what they do in cliches, and it takes only a few dozen minutes before there's an attempted rape on one of the local girls. Why in the world anyone thought this was a necessary plot point is beyond me, then again, it's directed and written by all men so, I dunno. You tell me what that means.

Our protagonist Kora (Sofia Boutella) saves her of course, by killing all the baddies left in the town, so the community decides that, well, better join "the resistance" now, because, cliche. Heading out with Gunnar (Michiel Huisman), a farmer who may have a lead on someone who'll get them in-touch with "the resistance." The two travel from one empty hull of a set piece to the next, searching for would-be warriors to join their cause in hopes of strengthening "the resistance." And yes, much of this is done in sloooooooooooowwwwwwwwww moooooottttttttiiiiiiiiiooooooooonnnnnnnnnn.

There is an awful lot of money on the screen, but there is not a single interesting character. There is not one piece of interesting dialogue. I counted two interesting moments, though. That's not a typo, there are truly only two genuinely amusing things that happen here, and one is the aforementioned spider woman fight. The other is this little creature who talks through a human host. It exists for the sake of moving the narrative along, still, it was a fun little visual effect in an effort so starved of excitement that I was happy to just have something new to look at.

A bit of interwebs searching brought me to the Rebel Moon wiki, because apparently that's a thing, and it tells me there's going to be a directors cut next year, alongside part 2, and it'll be rated R (this, um, "streaming cut" is PG-13). Considering they didn't have to worry about losing money to teenagers being unable to buy movie tickets (anyone with a non-kids account can probably access this), I suspect this is purely a marketing move. I do not look forward to seeing what other slow motion scenes were cut.

I went into "Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire" with no context, I hadn't even seen the trailer. Had I watched it before, I probably wouldn't have added this to my Netflix watchlist.

Godzilla Minus Zero Review

Finding a screening of the latest installment in the "Godzilla" franchise, "Godzilla Minus Zero," was surprisingly difficult, especially considering I was able to see the last entry, "Shin Godzilla," theatrically twice. Why twice? Because I was so disappointed the first time that I thought, maybe, I had missed something.

Unfortunately, I hadn't.

When I did finally find a matinee (the real way to watch these films in the states, aside from maybe a UHF TV station), I was shocked that my local, usually premium, movie theater had it showing in one of those outdated arenas, one without those now-commonplace leather reclining chairs. It felt cramped and cheap, like the place didn't respect the literal King of the Monsters. All signs point to walking out, again, crestfallen, but I am more than pleased to say I walked out instead in awe.

"Godzilla Minus Zero" achieves the perfect balance of intimacy and spectacle, frequently simultaneously, something the franchise hasn't hit since the 1954 original (and no, not the one with Raymond Burr). Taking place during and after WW2, making this the literal first appearance of Godzilla, the narrative focuses on Koichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) a kamikaze pilot who cowards out of his mission, landing under the guise of mechanical problems on Odo Island. And like any good film in the series, Godzilla appears shortly after to cause destruction. He's the only gunner on the island, with only mechanics there during the battle, but he freezes behind the trigger, and all hell breaks loose.

But unlike almost every one of its predecessors, the titular monster doesn't just focus on environmental damage, but attacks like a dinosaur out of "Jurassic Park." It's the first time since I was a child that he'd been, for lack of a better word, scary.

Koichi makes it out alive, and is in shock of what happened. He suffers from survivors guilt, in addition to the shock of hearing his hometown was destroyed during the war, his parents killed too. Maybe he should have just done his mission, kamikaze or not. Maybe he'd stop the war. Or at least his mom and dad from dying. It is a dour opening, and a relentlessly cheerless film throughout, but what else could writer/director Takashi Yamazaki do? It's goddamn WW2! He understands what Godzilla means to the medium, and not the sullied reputation that the American dubs have been inflicting since the 50's.

Not long after first arriving, Koichi stumbles into thief Noriko Oishi (Minami Hamabe), who's looking after a newborn her dying mother gave to her. They form an unlikely and mostly platonic relationship, both outcasts and both struggling to keep themselves (and infant Akiko) alive. The laser-focus on so few principal characters means you really get to know these imaginary movie-people, something that Hollywood continues to fail at.

Most of the runtime is dedicated to their survival, and eventual success, which inevitably leads to long stretches of dialogue. Being subtitled instead of dubbed, there are numerous awkward pauses, where scenes linger with a few seconds of needless fat. Possibly a side-effect of the English localization, but as I cannot speak Japanese, I will never know, and I can only review the film I saw.

But that's OK, because it only means that when Godzilla returns to throw another hissy fit, that you root for our main cast. It's a remarkable feat when you consider that you have to not only read the subtitles but quickly glance back to soak up the imagery. In short, I really, really enjoyed "Godzilla Minus Zero." It might not be a perfect film, but it's the perfect "Godzilla" film. It's dark and damn depressing, but without time-travel, talking kaiju, space or gymnastic rubber suits, it perfectly fits the tone Tomoyuki Tanaka, Ishiro Honda and Eiji Tsuburaya intended way back when they first showed the world the cinematic horror of nuclear warfare.

Sly Review

To make a documentary about Sylvester Stallone, honestly probably one of the most recognizable actors alive, and just spend the runtime patting himself on the back seems so, I dunno, disingenuous? I like Sly, I know the impact his "Rocky" and "Rambo" films have meant to cinema, even if they sometimes dip into pure commercialization, but the man is so much more than that. I mean, look at his filmography! He's acted in so many well-deserved bombs and probably even more unappreciated ones that seeing the actor star "soulfully" at all his boxing memorabilia is just so smarmy.

Oh sure, I mean yeah, he does spend some time talking about the infamous "Rocky V," but come on, how the hell did he get tricked into staring in 2018's "Backtrace?" (The "how" is probably more interesting than the movie itself.) Hell, we never even mention how he played the villain in "Spy Kids 3." Maybe he forgot? I didn't.

I said in my review of his latest theatrical film (one of those aforementioned "well-deserved bombs"), "The Expend4bles," and I quote, "I read online that the budget was something like 100 million dollars. Whatever house that bought Stallone must have been nice." And just a few months later in his own ego-stroking documentary, he's moving. I don't recall ever seeing his new house, but his old one certainly looked expensive. I also don't recall him ever saying he's modest.

If there is anything good about the documentary, the one area that feels "real," is the earnest look at his relationship with his father Frank Stallone Sr.. Sky portrays him as a violent man whom he probably hated, it helps show that the Italian Stallion actor is more than the meathead. It is almost heartbreaking to see how long he spent not-quite begging for his dad's approval and how that never really came, until he was on his deathbed and almost-but-not-really made amends. How did this all ultimately affect Sly? Well, he never road horses again. How emotional...

It is also peculiar how we only see infrequent interviews from a handful of others, from the obvious ones like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Talia Shire, to more surprising appearances like Henry Winkler, all they do is say things we already know. Yeah yeah I know, Sly and Arnie had a rivalry in the 80's: who could have the biggest guns, muscles and knives. But what about the troubled production of "Tango & Cash" or "Eye See You?" I'm sure someone who worked on those films could paint a very interesting picture.

I would say I'm the wrong audience for this documentary, since there was seldom a moment where I didn't think to myself "oh I already knew that," but as a fan of the actor himself, I'm of course the right audience. So who the hell is "Sky" for?

On a side note, Netflix also released a documentary earlier this year on Schwarzenegger, which was a three-part series. Dear Stallone, his knife is bigger than yours again.  

Five Nights at Freddy's (Film) Review

"Five Nights at Freddy's," Universal's and Blumhouse's latest venture, is not only based on the popular video game franchise, which is unplayed by me, but also is clearing up house at the box office. It's made something like over a hundred million dollars, which is crazy when you realize it debuted day-and-date with Universal's own streamer Peacock. That means even more people have watched this. 

And that's a shame. All those people spending all that time when they could have gone outside, gone on a walk, breathed in some fresh air- not to mention save a few bucks. The human body was not designed to passively absorb all these cynic innuendos and dour imagery. There's birds chirping to hear; leaves to watch being blown in the wind, so much else to do. And digital entertainment does not need to be so... blah. There's enough of that in the world already.

I have only the faintest idea what the games this movie is based on are about, except that it's about possessed animatronics in a long-abandoned "Chuck E Cheese"-esque pizza parlor. I've watched gameplay of it, the first game anyway I think, and with that bare bones narrative (or what I saw in the brief footage), there's a lot more plot here than I excepted. Maybe it's all in the manual...

It's supposed to be scary, which it isn't, but because of that, I can't in good faith discuss much about the story, but here's the basics: Josh Hutcherson plays Mike, the deadbeat elder brother of Abby, played by Piper Rubio, after their parent's off screen demise. We see him lose his job as a mall security early on due to the convenience of the script, and their evil aunt (Mary Stuart Masterson) wants to gain full custody. Why? For the monthly checks, Mike believes, but her character is a complete cartoon, vindictive for no reason other than to drive the story along.

So far, there isn't anything necessarily awful about the plot, but the backstory behind Mike is his addiction to sleeping pills. Why is he addicted? So he can dream the same dream about the day his little brother was kidnapped and never seen again. His goal is to remember "who" the abductee is, and his obsession makes up about his entire character arc. Child abuse is a nasty subject for slick entertainment, but wait, there's more! One night while on his new job running security guard at Freddy's, he meets Vanessa, played by Elizabeth Lail, who always seems to know more about the place than she should. She explains that in the 80s, several children went missing there, and their souls live inside the giant, moving, murderous puppets. It's just... all so unpleasant.

A lot of criticism can be directed at her character, as she randomly changes tone, at one point threatening to shoot Mike. What's her problem!? I'd tell you, but I'm not sure the movie even knows.

This is such a disjointed, mess of a movie that it feels like a sort of companion piece to Blumhouse's equally dreadful and equivalently awkward "Halloween Ends," where people die movie deaths betwist plotholes and some extremely clumsy exposition. Not too long into the runtime, the evil aunt hires some local goons to trash Freddy's, so that Mike may lose him job and help her gain custody, but it's just an excuse for some very PG-13 violence. Vanessa then tells Mike about the break-in, who proceeds to cleanup the place. Yeah, not like it's an active crime scene or anything.

Totally Killer Review

It's almost Halloween, which means it's time for all the streaming services to drop some low-rent horror film unceremoniously. This week sees Amazon Prime releasing "Totally Killer," a slasher-comedy that also happens to be an 80's set time-travel movie. It's a lot of leftover ideas from other films, but it's mercifully better than the app's last year horror-comedy, and also 80's set, "My Best Friend's Exorcism."

"Totally Killer" isn't bad but it's more amusing than clever, and boy does it want to be clever. The time-travelling narrative immediately complicates the plot, as it has to work around the butterfly effect, but it cops out when teenage Lauren (Troy Leigh-Anne Johnson), as opposed to adult Lauren (Kimberly Huie), says that there are multiple time-travel theories. I mean, she's right, since it doesn't exist (or does it?), but come on man! If the film was really good it wouldn't matter. That, or it'd have an actual answer.

Anyway, the plot: Jamie (Kiernan Shipka) is your average present-day teenager who's mom Pam (Julie Bowen) is killed, thirty five years or so after her friends were killed by the "Sweet Sixteen Killer." Why the name? Because of the killer stabs their victims, you guessed it, sixteen times. Also like your average teenager, her best friend Amelia (Kelcey Mawema) has invented a time machine for the school's science fair, as one does.

Jamie's blasted back in time, to the night of the first of her mother's friends' murders, and that's about all you need to know. There's plenty of the obligatory scenes where Jamie comments on how insensitive and irrational the 80's were, yet she and everyone else keeps calling the killer "he" without knowing for sure. I'm not suggesting the killer's gender, nor will I get into gender politics, but it seems like a needless assumption that stands out for a film as self-righteous as this.

Because at the end of the day, this "is" a slasher, so there's plenty of horny teenage sex, or at least insinuation of handy-panky. I imagine it's to titillate actual teenage viewers, but is a non-teenager adult supposed to be aroused? Isn't that, gross? And since this takes place decades past, doesn't that mean those actual teenage viewers are watching people their parent's age "doing it?"

It probably doesn't matter, but hey, I thought it was a good question.

I won't go into much of the actual plot, since the murderer's, or murderers', is unknown, but you can expect all the same stupid moments like when, in a particularly frustrating and frequently repeated moment, the heroes don't unmask the masked assailant, but it's fine. At least "Totally Killer" doesn't masquerade as intelligent filmmaking the way "Scream VI" did.

Though, the more I think about it, Jamie here should have decades of horror cliches to help her solve the case, but alas, just another example of the film critic being smarter than the filmmakers.

Saw X Review

The only surprising thing about "Saw X" is that there are now ten "Saw" films, and even that shouldn't be surprising if you remember the yearly release cadence they had for a bit. It's far less "Spiral: From the Book of Saw" and far more, er, well, "Saw," for better or for worse.

Since the entire franchise is so convoluted (and a franchise...), I'll refrain from going over much that the trailers didn't already explain: John Kramer, also known as Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), has brain cancer and through plot finds Dr. Pederson (Synnøve Macody Lund), who's dad developed experimental cancer treatments with an incredibly high success rate, something like 90%. He's in hiding so she continues his work, or rather, promises that and instead just takes the dying person's money. You know what they say, something that is too good to be true, often is.

He's given just three months to live by a legitimate doctor, and in desperation contacts Pederson, who arranges for him to meet her in a secret facility (a decrepit chemical plant right outside Mexico City) in just two weeks time. He meets various people along the way, all of course in on her nefarious plotting.

How an incredibly intelligent man like Kramer falls for her decite is never really explained, and by the end of his "procedure," he of course isn't cured. Only since he still has something like two and a half months to live, you know, let the games begin. What also is never explained is how he is able to round up all those involved and get all these series trademark traps setup in so little time, but hey, actual logic isn't the franchise's forte: "cinematic universe logic" is.

What follows is a grisly exploration of imaginary people who exploit others, so what am I to say here? I certainly wasn't ever scared, only occasionally grossed out, and the rather crowded theater I attended never jumped or hollowed in terror either. So what is the point? I suppose it's the same sick attraction that so many of us watch those Lifetime or Discovery Channel shows about actual murdering. Only I don't watch those shows, so shrug.

What I can say is that "Saw X" does take take some detours from the previous films; contestants in Jigsaw's games see exactly who Jigsaw is, and the twist, because of course there's a twist, is at least something that didn't just result in "oh this tertiary character from the film three films ago is back AND bad," but it is equally trite.

I can say that I do feel bad about Kramer's situation, a sick man on the verge of dying a slow and awful death, and there is a more psychological story here somewhere that would make for a really fascinating film. Instead, we watch a child in danger and an attempted rape, just to show how "bad" these bad people are. It is cheap, sleazy and below the moral the character Jigsaw claims to have.

Oh an before I forget, fan-favorite Amanda (Shawnee Smith) is back too, former druggie who still struggles to understand John's levelheaded approach. That is, as levelheaded as having a character cut their own dome open and slicing out a piece of brain tissue can be.

The Expend4bles Review

You know, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a pretty smart guy: I learned in a recent Netflix documentary that he was wealthy before becoming a huge star via real estate. Or, something like that. I bring this up because he wisely skipped over "The Expendables 4" after appearing and eventually staring in the first three. The "why" is unimportant ultimately, be it Hollywood politics or money or whatever, because "The Expendables 4" is not very good.

From stilted acting to stilted action, the franchise takes an amazing nosedive following a perfunctory opening action sequence where we're introduced our bad guy Rahmat, played by Iko Uwais. He follows the franchises former villains Eric Roberts, Jean Claude Van Damme and Mel Gibson, actors who outclass Uwais in terms of onscreen presence and pure acting chops. He's very convincing in the hand-to-hand fights, but so what? He just smirks at the camera and recites a few bits of somewhat pithy dialogue and that's it. That's his character arc. He's lame to watch and I really fault screenwriters Kurt Wimmer, Tad Daggerhart and Max Adams for not exploring the whys and hows to why and how he's doing anything.

Sylvester Stallone, who pretty much help create the series, seems bored, skipping on an early bar brawl for a cheap joke about hurting his back, and his paycheck-cashing attitude is felt throughout the runtime. (Let's just say this: newcomer Andy Garcia, who fills the roll of Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford of the mysterious guy who gives the team orders, has more screentime than Stallone.) Not only by Stallone but also by every cast member. Jason Statham, also returning from the last three, at least gives his all to the physical role he's been hired for, but remember, he's the one who signed on to fight a CGI shark in front of a green screen. (Twice!) Also returning is Dolph Lundgren and Randy Couture, who do nothing but look serious when firing a pretend gun, and supply a gag or two about their physical appearance. Lundgren fares worse, as he's shown to have overcome a drinking problem, but who ends up returning to the bottle (er, well flask) to help his aim. What a great message.

To fill out the cast we also get Megan Fox as Statham's girlfriend and new member of The Expendables. She's introduced barely wearing anything and has perfect hair and makeup even during gunfire. There's such thing as sex appeal and then there's just laziness. She doesn't even look comfortable and I felt uncomfortable watching her. 50 Cent is also new and, so what? He's fine as an actor, but the script gives him the generic roll of rolling his eyes at everyone. Har he har har.

To risk any spoilers, there are a few plot twists, three if I recall, and they are all so obvious that the only surprising thing is that they went through with them.

The action, the whole reason anyone would watch an "action" movie, is unexciting, with so many quick-cuts and panning cameras that it's hard to figure out what's going on or where the heroes are in to relation to the baddies. Director Scott Waugh, who handled the more entertaining "Hidden Strike" earlier this year, offers just one, ONE interesting sequence, where Statham is chased on a dirt bike inside then on top of a large cargo ship. I wasn't at the edge of my leather reclining seat, but it was something new. A bulk of the movie takes place on that boat because plot, so we get the same ol' creaky corridors of the same ol' hull of the same ol' ship that I've seen a hundred other times in other films.

I read online that the budget was something like 100 million dollars. Whatever house that bought Stallone must have been nice.

Equalizer 3 Review

Denzel Washington is a cinema heavy but his vigilante series "The Equalizer," with part 3 debuting this week, gives him nothing to do but look imposing and recite faux-philosophical and sometimes doomy dialogue betwixt bursts of extreme bloodshed. The mayhem is well shot by director Antoine Fuqua, who's helmed all three flicks, but so what? Violent films are a dime-a-dozen, and "The Equalizer 3" seemingly ends the franchise with a third act feeling left on the cutting room floor.

Of course I have no idea of the production history, but all the sudden the credits rolls and I'm left feeling cheated- the bad guy and hero exchange threats, tell each other that they'll meet again "soon," only for exactly what you think'll happen to immediately happen. Suspense is something in such short supply here that the film's trailer was more dramatic.

That isn't to dismiss the movie completely: the action is well shot, well staged and well acted, but the plot is simultaneously underdeveloped and needlessly complicated: Denzel of course returns as Robert McCall, who we see avenging a throwaway character when he stumples upon a drug-smuggling operation at a winery. He's shot by a young boy and is found by Italian policeman Gio (Eugenio Mastrandrea), who takes him to the town's local doctor Enzo (Remo Girone) and patched up. This of course means we ye olde trope of having our hero needing to recover their strength, but come on, why toy with the audience? Does anyone think for a second that his injuries are going to have any baring on the plot? It. Does. Not.

Perhaps it's Denzel's advancing age (the man's nearly seventy!), but an injury is (allegedly) a cinematic way to distract from the idea maybe he's too old to be taking down baddies like he does. In fact much of the action tales place in the dark of night, with McCall sneaking up upon foes; could it be that he's just not as sprightly as he used to be?

Almost the entirety takes place in this little Italian village, where we get rudimentary scenes of McCall interacting with the locals, and moments like this are just more and more cliches. He's reduced to the mysterious and mythical stranger who rescues a town in peril. It wouldn't feel so slightly insensitive if the townspeople had more to do except live quaint little lives where they sell fish, serve tea and coffee and help the community. It's an idyllic false reality that only exists in Hollywood and travel brochures.

There's a parallel narrative where McCall alerts the CIA's Emma (Dakota Fanning) to his earlier drug bust, and it's just narrative noise. The who's, why's, when's and how's amout to "terrorists" and the Camorra, or as the film tells us, the "Italian Mafia," and so what? The bad guys do bad things not because they have anything interesting to say or do, but because that's what stereotypes are.

Honestly the most interesting thing is how there exists a film trilogy, based on the 80's show, exists concurrently with a reboot of said show on TV, all of which share the name "The Equalizer ." I have not watched the new series, or the old one for that matter, but it can't be as disappointing as the first, second or third film.

Retribution Review

I imagine Liam Neeson read the script to "Retribution," his latest "geezer pleaser," saw he sits in a Mercedes Benz for almost the entire thing and thought "wow this is gonna be an easy paycheck." But it's only because he's bound by touchscreen and chrome door handles that he actually gets an opportunity to do some real acting.

Not that the end-product is Shakespeare, it's just a brief thriller, but Liam gives his character Matt Turner such dimension that you're wondering if he thought it might be. At first coming off as a workaholic, and frankly deadbeat, husband and father, and there is a weariness so barely underneath that by the time he gets the phone call telling him there's a bomb in his car (the same car his kids are in), his face and voice somehow expressed rage and worry ontop of the exhaustion. He remains consistently the best thing about his movies, and for fans, "Retribution" has the goods.

Too bad the rest is old hat; the explosive has a pressure trigger, meaning that if he leaves his supple leather seat, kaboom. Or in cinema terms, it's a riff on "Speed," a superior film because of one critical failing here: the villain. Their identity is supposed to be a surprise (speaking to Matt via a voice-changer), robbing us of a juicy character actor to really engage the audience. By the time the big reveal comes, not only is it obvious, but also it is a character actor who clearly is eager to sink their teeth into. It's such a shame it comes far too late in the otherwise breezy runtime.

I won't lie though: it doesn't always make a whole lot of sense; at one point the mysterious person on the phone warns Matt "not" to stop the vehicle, but wouldn't you know, what felt like ten minutes later and the car is parked! The bad guy's demands, or rather their motivation, is also hidden until almost the halfway point, so you spend time guessing only for it to not matter.

But whatever: "Retribution" is another high-concept Liam Nesson film ("the one where Liam Neeson drives a car with a bomb"), so much so that eventually Hollywood is gonna run out of families for him to need to avenge.

Heart of Stone Review

Hollywood wants so badly to make Gal Gadot a star that they're tossing her into movies before the script is finished: case in point Netflix's "Heart of Stone," a perfectly serviceable spy thriller that has all the action beats but ironically none of the heart.

The crux of the story, and probably namesake too, is "the heart," which the film tells us several times "is the most dangerous weapon you've never heard of," able to track almost anyone, anywhere at anytime. A mysterious group of elite agents called "Charter" owns "the heart" and allegedly do good with it. It is able to calculate the odds of almost any situation and Rachel (Gadot) is one of their operatives; she's infiltrated the U.K. Secret Service tracking down some bad person who does bad things, because why else would they be the target in a generic spy thriller?

Only they're not the film's primary antagonist, the identity revealed in a silly plot twist that means I cannot disclose who that person is. I can, however, tell you that it ultimately doesn't matter. A few more "twists " and revelations later make up a plot so rote that not even Roger Moore's James Bond would touch it.

The narrative flirts with becoming interesting when it briefly touches the topical topic of AI being so ubiquitous that only those "off the grid" can't be found by "the heart." And right when the story begins to toy with the idea of using one's "gut feeling" as opposed to machine learning, it's right back to scraps left over on the screenwriter's floor of Eon Productions.

There's also some glorified cameos by not only BD Wong but also Glenn Close, yet even these heavies can only "so" look professional delivering inane rabble filled with buzzwords like "warlords" about "pulling favors" or something or other. I was excited to see both veterans, only to be almost immediately disappointed that they're given roles that involve them to sit, stand, or walk at a brisk pace.

But what keeps "Heart of Stone" from being a total turnoff (or rather, a "press back on your remote") is the action scenes, which are plentiful and mostly well shot. Outside of some questionable CGI during the opening moments, where Rachel is paragliding down a snowy mountain (atop which sits a casino where dastardly men and women gamble, of course) and whenever a star's face is seen on a motorcycle (veiled otherwise by a helmet, of course of course), the stunt work is top-notch, if not familiar. Do you sense a theme here?

Look, I love a good chase or fight as much as the next jaded critic, but the only thing here that is unique is that they feature Gal Gadot as the heroine. Well, that and she's not a superhero bound by the rules set forth by an existing franchise. Here, she's bound by the rules set forth by every other spy thriller ever.

Hidden Strike Review

What makes "Hidden Strike" so, er well, striking, is how it's actually from 2021, according to its Netflix page (where I watched it) and the internet (some even putting it earlier!), so what am I doing today reviewing it? For reasons probably more interesting than the film itself, it wasn't released stateside until now. And although it's not the sort of thing you'd line up to buy tickets for in July, it would make for a perfectly entertaining January matinee. Or like how I said I did, on Netflix.

Chan and Cena are both naturally charismatic in front of the camera, and remain easy on the eyes even with a subpar script from Arash Amel working against them; they're actually two old cinema favorites, being both an "odd couple" AND "reluctant partners," where due to plot good guy Luo Feng (Jackie Chan) teams up with antihero Chris Van Horne (John Cena) to take down Owen's (Pilou Asbæk) plot to steal oil in Baghdad. Owen's goals are refreshingly simple; he simply wants to "get what he's owned," which in other words means he wants money. I'm glad he didn't want to conquer the world like some would-be B-villain in an also-ran superhero movie, though it'd be at home during the few moments of especially grating CGI and unrealistic physics.

Aside from a few shots of unspecial special effects, I was surprised at how well the hand-to-hand combat was shot, Chan not exactly going above and beyond but easily giving his fans what they'd want in his latter-day career. A particular standout is a fight involving soap, something I'd never seen before; I liked it so much I forgave logic, I mean how could you be climbing pipes with slippery suds all on your digits?

The more I think about it, why would an oil refinery have a soap gun? Maybe it was a fire extinguisher? I don't know, but I also don't know if it matters, the fact I was thinking about this picture post-credits at all is noteworthy.

It doesn't matter, because it ultimately held my attention effortlessly. My hats off to the entire stunt team as well as to director and editor Scott Waugh, who in the trailers for "Hidden Strike" mention his career includes the not-yet-released fourth "Expendable," as there was nary a moment where my eyes could not decipher the onscreen mayhem. (However, the human drama is handled with all the grace of an equally antiquated soap opera.)

I also enjoyed a brawl where Luo fights atop pipes and Chris fights with a pipe, showcasing the star's two very different personas. Overall, it's a wonderful low-rent throwback to the kind of movies of the 80's and 90's, though one only wishes there was a better script because, you know, one-liners kinda come with the territory.

I could keep going over enjoyable individual scenes, and part of me wants to, but what about the plot? It can't just be a simple as I'm making it out to be. Well yes and no, but "Hidden Strike" doesn't aspire to be anything more than the sum of its parts. It doesn't try to be the best film staring either Chan or Cena, or even the best action film of 2023. Or was that 2021?

Extraction 2 Review

I wrote in my review of 2019's "John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum" that the plot got in the way, breaking up a series of ridiculous moments of action with talk of a grander mythology that is never explored. It cheats the viewer and, although I missed out on that obligatory fourth one, Netflix's "Extraction 2" is exactly what I was talking about. Less "talky talky" and more "boom boom." And boy does this go boom real good.

"Extraction 2" is less a ballet and more a blunt instrument, a showcase for film making where all that matters is explosions, muscles, guns and bigger guns. Plot doesn't so much matter as does what looks good in the brief few seconds of "autoplay" on the app. In other words, it is a perfect followup to the 2020 original; it's not just "more of the same," it's also just "more."

We get another one of those terrific "one shot" action sequences, starting with a jailbreak to a train derailment and, if anyone accuses me of spoilers, words couldn't describe how much fun it is to witness. In fact I'm sure even the script itself undersold it. The rest of the picture never reaches the delirious heights of that one (very long) scene, but considering those "other" moments include a fight in a gym that uses gym equipment, rest assured that the technical skills are all top-notch stuff.

Chris Hemsworth reprises his role of Tyler Rake, an injured mercenary who's told he's "retired" in the first five minutes, which means the opposite happens. A mysterious stranger (played by the always-dependable Idris Elba, who probably just stumbled on-set while filming his nihilistic "Luther: The Fallen Sun" for the streamer) gives him a job to rescue his ex-wife's sister Ketevan (Tinatin Dalakishvili) from a prison in Georgia. It is a place where women are weak and subordinate to men, who are violent and misogynist in the name of god. (And if you'll notice my lack of capitalization there, you can tell where I fall on the subject, but I digress.)

The villains, a pair of brothers played by Tornike Gogrichiani and Tornike Bziava, respectively, run the Nagazi, a gang with "every politician in the pocket" or something like that, and they've gotten Ketevan's son confused with their macho bigotry. This could be a stereotype of either the country or the USA state (ba dum tis) but I of course mean the country, so all this could be labeled as xenophobic and/or sexist, probably both and more; I can't stomach how Hollywood always shows anyone who isn't white is either poor and unkempt or Americanized. This is something I cannot defend and has been a problem since the first moving picture show was shown.

Imperfections aside, there is an undercurrent of intelligence here, and to dismiss this as just savage trash would be the wrong way to ultimately interpret this: the antagonists are an metaphor for toxic masculinity. Of course, the film's answer to combat this is more angry men, but damn were the filmmakers close to something special here.

The Mother Review

It feels like every few months I end up watching the same exact movie, with one or maybe two "big" names in a story about some former military or police or special forces (or CIA or FBI...) who has to rescue some kid, be it theirs or someone important. They usually need to travel to some stereotyped "Hollywood" idea of a foreign country, typically involves lots of guns or drugs and almost always human trafficking, which is what Netflix's timely "The Mother," debuting Mother's Day weekend, has with even more cliches.

Jennifer Lopez stars as the titular mother, who after a lot of silly and needless plot, ends up trying to save, and keep safe, her teenage daughter from two former lovers(?) and all-around bad guys Adrian (Joseph Fiennes) and Hector (Gael Garcia Bernal). The "why" is because she double-crossed them in a goofy business triangle involving guns (check) and children (check) during her time in the service, but all that does is explain why she and they are so dangerous. Who cares? There's probably seventeen minutes of fat in the nearly two hour runtime, and much has to do with this gobblygook narrative; sometimes the unknown is far more interesting than what actually is, and this explanation is unsatisfying.

This is not explicitly a bad thing, I mean, I can enjoy a dumb movie as much as the next would-be critic, but considering the feminist themes that are superficially on display, it is a shame there isn't a decent message here. Between Liam Neeson and Gerard Butler, old white men have a stranglehold on the lightweight action thriller genre, and not even Lopez's unflappable screen presence can save such a misguided movie.

The largest problem is the depiction of strong women- there is no denying that Lopez's character is a badass, but the script has no issue showing her throw up at the sight of a freighter filled with supposedly stolen kids or taking a pause so she can cry, you know, just to remind you that she isn't above her "emotions." Why bring them up to begin with?

Another problem I had is with her associate Cruise, played by Omari Hardwick. In the opening she saves him after a gunshot wound, which I was assuming it was because it was the right thing to do, but when he later asks her why she didn't let him die, she replies that it's because he offered her water, that "it seemed" he wanted to take care of her. Excuse me, she looks like she can take care of herself.

It makes you think back to how well James Cameron wrote and directed Sigourney Weaver in "Aliens," and that was 1986; this is 2023, and women deserve better. Then again, what do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet after all, so who the hell says I can say what a proper portrayal of a woman is?

As for the film itself, the action is decent, aside from some occasionally dodgy snowmobile shots, it all looks convincing, grounded in the real world with physics that understand gravity. But that doesn't mean it follows logic- take an extended chase where Lopez and Cruise head after a man named Tarantula (Jesse Garcia), who has a tattoo of the arachnid. The first issue is that villains will no doubt not only have a visible tattoo, but also be nicknamed after it. But whatever, because the second issue is when Cruise is stabbed in the back, he still gives chase and shows no signs of being impaired. OK sure, maybe he's sooo tough that it hardly fazes him. But while the two men are on foot, she steals a car and moves at pace with them. If I could run as fast as a car, I wouldn't need one.

It's at this point where I realize that I neglected to bring up her daughter Zoe (Lucy Paez), who was adopted by another family due to her history with criminals (including being one herself, but why bother bringing it up if the film forgets to follow up on it). Zoe is shown to be your usual teenager, but Lopez trains her with knifes and guns, so you just know that'll come in handy later, but I don't wanna spoil anything. I dunno, none of this matters; this is a fantasy that costs you just your Netflix subscription and an afternoon that you could have spent doing something more useful, like calling your own mother.