Terrifier 3 Review

Written and directed by Damien Leone, the "Terrifier" films have a cult following unlike any other of recent memory; you're just as likely to see the series' slasher icon "Art the Clown," played in absolute silence by David Howard Thornton, merchandise next to more mainstream villains like Jason Voorhees or Chucky at those popup Halloween stores that disappear November 1st.

But by virtue of being an entry in a franchise, the other films unseen by me, the plot had a considerable amount of, well, plot. In fact, to someone new to these movies, it was basically incoherent, sometimes being your basic (albeit extremely gory) slasher and other times involving a sacred sword and spirits. Or demons. Or something like that. Guess that's on me for not having done my horror movie homework.

But no, it's not entirely my fault- why does Art sometimes kill innocent bystanders and other times not? Why is one Santa explicitly targeted and not another? Why do some killings happen off screen in a series famous for its bloodshed fetish? Or, perhaps the best question of all, why am I even bothering with a review?

The story mostly follows Sienna (Lauren LaVera) right before Christmas, who leaves the hospital to spend the holiday with her aunt Jess (Margaret Anne Florence), uncle Greg (Bryce Johnson) and their young daughter Gabbie (Antonella Rose). Sienna, who's explained to have killed Art in a previous movie (or did she??), still suffers what is clearly some type of PTSD from the events, who soon becomes convinced the clown is back.

We the viewers, of course, know he is; we watch him slice through nameless tertiary and background characters as he makes his way to her, using everything from hammers to bombs, filmed with a sensual thirst as every ounce of blood is drained from his screaming casualties. But the police never seem to care that bodies are piling up; the world of the "Terrifier" exists in a most make-believe world where only cruelty exists.

Damien knows that the series' whole appeal is its unflinching mayhem, but even he seems to be operating with some level of restraint; the opening, which depicts a seemingly random slaughter of some random family, lingers over the onscreen murders of two adults, but cuts away from showing the slashing of children. Why?! This is a gross film, unfettered by morals and frequently logic, but if he's willing to show male genitalia being chainsawed, the victim's body jiggling against the blade's vibration, then why are kids off-limits? I'm not in anyway shape or form saying I want to see that, but clearly the fans would eat it up. It seems like a surprisingly chaste decision in light of two-plus hours of otherwise absolute depravity. You're telling me this guy has any ethics? Please!

Seen in a relatively packed theater, the audience laughed at nearly every act of violence, no matter how nasty, which aligns with Art's frequent exaggerated facial expression and gestures. Filled with cameos and callbacks, the interwebs tells me this had the highest budget out of franchise, clocking in at two million, so Damien clearly has found, and knows, his audience, mainstream be damned, but I sat mostly unfazed, not that I'm showing off- the abhorrent rampaging is disgusting and very-much intended, but so what? He fails to have a single piece of clever dialogue in this dense story, scenes between killings are talky and downright boring, and Art's goofy antics as he shoots, slices, and dices come off as a big joke, staged without menace or atmosphere, lacking the surreal punch of giallo films or the visceral dread of George A. Romero's work, just to name a few. He lays it all out there, and it just sorta lies there as a giant lump of rotting flesh.

Not to try and defend myself, but I'm not cinematic prude: "Zombi 2" and "Bone Tomahawk" are just a few of my top gory picks, but they have personality or interesting characters to help give impact to the brutality. Not here; at one point the music's lyrics include "a Terrifier Christmas," as if that makes it a satire.

Maybe that's the point, perhaps this is all an attempt at some sort of exploitative comedy act? That or the others in their own reclining seats of worn leather next to me were all sickos.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Review

"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" lacks any reason for being outside making money. Sure, it's amusing to see one's favorite characters portrayed by the same actors as in the 1988 original, but so what? If you're fan, just, I dunno, watch the first one again. And if that doesn't do it, well then neither will the sequel.

Or maybe it will- the rather empty theater I saw this in had a small crowd who laughed at every gag as if they were paid to chortle, and when the credits rolled around, I half-expected them to give it a standing ovation. They didn't, but they certainly enjoyed it, but on what grounds?

I thought about this as I drove home from the cinema, but I couldn't place what they loved so much. Maybe there are folks out there who think watching a teen romance between Astrid (Jenna Ortega) and mysterious local boy Jeremy (Arthur Conti) is not cringy and forced? Or maybe they felt her mom Lydia (a returning Winona Ryder) hosting a show about ghosts wasn't totally out-of-character?

The story is way too complicated here, but lemme try to explain it in as simple terms as I can: Lydia's father has died (by a shark attack, no less), so she takes Astrid and her mother Delia (Catherine O'Hara) back to the home of the first film to have a funeral. His body is lowered to the earth with a child choir singing "Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)," which probably played well in commercials, but it is only one of probably over a dozen different nostalgic-fueled moments that serve as winks at the audience. If you read the script, it probably says "hey, remember this" a bunch of times.

Anyway, at the same time Betelgeuse's (Michael Keaton) ex-wife Delores (Monica Bellucci) is resurrected accidentally by an awkward cameo of Danny Devito, who we later learn only married him because she was the leader of some cult. She poisoned him on their wedding night, but before he died, he killed her with an ax, so now that she's back, she wants revenge. Detective Wolf (Willem Dafoe) warns him that she'll suck his soul out of his body, leaving him "dead dead," and advises him to lay low. A life-of-the-party like him lay low? Please!

But back to the mortals: Astrid ends up meeting Jeremy, and the two have an immediate attraction, they even kiss, on Halloween night I might add. But there's a problem, one which I won't spoil, but it does demand Lydia say that frightful word three times, ask for help to illegally get her into the afterlife, sign a contract, and, well, that's about it. And that's ignoring all the side-stories, which involve shady producers, totally-not-dangerous snakes and real estate agents dressing their kids as fruit.

Of course, it's just an excuse for a lot of wild sets, sight gags and lots of visual effects, some looking practical and others distractingly digital, but a lot are just repeats of the first "Beetlejuice," from the desert sandworms to the famous red-roofed bridge. The entire production feels like a "greatest hits" of the franchise, which sucks since it's only the second movie.

Out of the principal cast, only Keaton seems to know how stay afloat amongst all the special effects, carefully balancing actual acting and comedic shtick perfectly. He's so good you wish it was just about his many misadventures, but maybe the studio or writers or director Tim Burton himself felt that couldn't support an entire movie. But then give me a story I should give a damn about! Ortega only mopes around, O'Hara overreacts and Ryder just stands around looking confused, as if she doesn't understand the story either.

Take, for instance, when at one point Wolf points a gun at Betelgeuse, since he's a wanted man, what good is that supposed to do? Isn't he already dead? Or how Wolf plans to try him once he's under custody; just what does the criminal justice system look like in the "afterlife?" (Would he get the "life" penalty?)

The film ultimately is a mixed bag, working only when Burton ignores the story for a moment and embraces the inherent silliness of the entire concept, the best part easily being a wedding where the main cast lip-sings to, of all songs, MacArthur Park. He has a sense of humor to his visuals that immediately falls apart when it's bogged down in plot, because with plot you begin to introduce logic, and he is a filmmaker who defies it.

The Killer Review

John Woo's "The Killer" (2024) is a remake of "The Killer" (1989), also by John Woo, with no relation to David Fincher's "The Killer (2023). And I'm sure a half dozen other films with the same name exist too, but I'm too tired to get into that 

Whether this remake is better than the original (or the same-named but unrelated one) is an irrelevant comparison I'm disinterested in making: "The Killer" (2024) is a decent time waster surprises no one by debuting on the streamer Peacock instead of in theaters. The action is stylized, well-staged and frequent, but since the rise of "John Wick" in 2014, it seems every Hollywood action film wants to also have action that is stylized, well-staged and frequent. Where's the originality?!

I will say this, though Woo uses slow-motion throughout, he understands when and why to use it, unlike, say, Zack Snyder and his "Rebel Moon" movies, who uses it to bludgeon the audience with its arbitrariness. You, Mr. Woo, know how to direct.

But where he fumbles is in the story, which, look, I get it, this is a remake, but the material was musty then too! Tell me if you've heard this one before: an incredibly talented hit(wo)man Zee, played by Nathalie Emmanuel, is sent on a job to take out "everyone in the room." Only she declines to kill a woman (Diana Silvers), a singer named Jenn who ends up blind due to the mayhem. Her boss (Sam Worthington) is pissed she let the girl live, and ends up entangled with an honest cop (Omar Sy), dirty cops, a setup, double-crossing, drug dealers, stolen heroin, missing heroin, kidnapping, hospital shootouts, an abandoned church, and a pet fish.

The plot ends up being simultaneously threadbare and complicated, thanks no doubt to its France setting, necessitating subtitles for certain characters (some real heavy accents don't help the matter), but that's not really what I'm talking about. When you deconstruct the narrative, there's practically nothing here that you won't find on some basic cable cop drama (only the streets of Paris and not Chicago or Brooklyn, etc.,), only, you know, quite bloody.

I knew the seemingly random girl was important because, why else would she be spared (or given a name)? I knew during the fights that Zee wasn't really in danger because there's still half a movie left. At one she has a gun pointed to her head, and the villain just talks and talks instead of just shooting her. Why antagonists keep doing that is the real mystery here. The real mystery is how this is all the three credited screenwriters (Brian Helgeland, Josh Campbell and Matt Stuecken) could come up with.

While I can commend the performances (specifically Omar, who balances world-weariness and authority quite well), there isn't a single piece of clever dialogue or interesting character development, hollow vessels we watch shoot, kick and punch each other in set-pieces that failed to stick with me by the time the credits rolled.

The Union Review

Mark Wahlberg stars in this lightweight romantic comedy as Mike, a New Jersey construction worker who misses his friend's bachelor party when his old flame Roxanne (Halle Berry) walks through his favorite bar one night. Oh the shenanigans that could happen!

Actually no, "The Union" isn't a romantic comedy - it's really an unremarkable, unfunny, unexciting and unoriginal action spy comedy, but it's never an unpleasant one. This Netflix original comes and goes through you as passively as one wants background noise to.

The two are former lovers, and though I won't say whether or not they'll rekindle their love, but boy howdy do they have all the chemistry as a kindergarten's homework. They're fine performers individually, but neither their flirting nor bickering feel like anything other than actors reading a script in different auditions. As partners, sure I could buy it, but as romantic partners? I've said sexier things to a vending machine.

But the plot, you might be wondering, and you're right to ask that. But it's built from scraps from discarded James Bond stories. Roxanne works for "The Union," a secret organisation who's only personality comes from them hiring blue-collar workers over college graduates. That and it's headed by J. K. Simmons, who plays bossman Brennan, sleepwalking through his role delivering terse dialogue with familiar intensity.

Mike's recruited because a recent job went south, when they lose a briefcase with "intel on everyone from cops to the C.I.A.," so you know, the same thing that tops the Christmas list of every bad guy, right after nuclear weapons. Then we cut to shady auctions, murders, double-crosses, and of course, evil Russians. It's all just an excuse to have big name stars fire guns, throw punches and drive recklessly through international scenery and greenscreens.

The major problem is just how unstimulating it all is; even the action just sorta hangs there, it happens then it ends. Much like the movie itself.

Jackpot Review

I sat in disbelief at Amazon Prime's latest would-be comedy "Jackpot," a film so disgustingly nihilistic involving, in the near future that looks absolutely no different from the present day, a lottery in California where losers of jackpot have until sundown to kill the winner and keep the money for themselves. It's "The Purge" with one-liners, but director Paul Feig and writer Rob Yescombe fail to inject the story with any meaningful satire. So people die, we watch the blood squirt from wounds, but don't worry, John Cena will make a joke about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, so it's all good.

Cena plays Noel, a "lottery bodyguard" if you will, who happened to spot winner Katie (Awkwafina) right as people begin attacking her with shoes, knives, axes, purses and pretty much everything this side of a gun. See, firearms are forbidden by the terms and conditions of the game, which is odd considering the filmmakers don't even bother tying with the country's fetish for them, I dunno. I mean, the material was right there. I suppose the filmmakers felt excessive vulgarity, in both language and visuals, was not just what the audience needed, but all they needed 

The entire city of Los Angeles is after Katie, as Noel tries to keep her alive so he can collect 10% for his services. but eventually he needs to call in a favor to Louis (Simu Liu), an ex-friend of his who runs the "most popular lottery protection agency around." In case you couldn't guess it from the trailers, Louis is bent and well, there you go. Along the way bodies hit the floor with a level of violence that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger proud, whether it be a low-rent wax museum, Machine Gun Kelly's panic room, a dojo, or an abandoned theater, it all boils down to lots and lots of mayhem. And for what? Because people are greedy? Because they're OK with killing someone just for money? Is that what "Jackpot" thinks of us as a society?

Even if it's true, it's a pretty heavy concept for what ultimately amounts to an inconsequential action comedy, just using it as an excuse to show an old lady swear and attempt murder. Har he har har.

The action is competently staged, if a bit unremarkable; the only big chase scene involves a rundown building and an alleyway, so it's hard to sit at the edge of my seat in excitement. There's a lot more hand-to-hand combat, which is also filmed rather well, but so what? Am I supposed to feel good that John Cena just tossed some guy through a wall because he's protecting some soon-to-be billionaire? What if that poor chap was broke beyond all means and desperately needed the dough? There is this underlying and unrelenting sadness here, and it does nothing with it.

More egregious though are the attempt at the characterizations, with Katie struggling to cope with her dad abandoning her and her mom's recent death, and Noel probably dealing with PTSD. It's all just so melancholy, and a tonal and total shift from the dour worldbuilding and innocuous sense of humor. It's all just so awkward.

Speaking of comedy, while a few zingers were amusing, I never let out a big ol' belly laugh; and I mean, look at the cast! Awkwafina, John Cena, Simu Liu, these are funny performers, and the best this mean-spirited script can do is have them trade one or two witty barbs?

Trap Review

"Trap" gained some traction ahead of release by seemingly having a twist in its debut trailer. This is of course par for the course for writer/director M. Night Shyamalan, who is known for this sort of thing. In it, we watch Cooper (Josh Hartnett) as he takes his daughter Riley (Ariel Donoghue) to a concert. Concerned over all the security guards, cops, swat, etc., he asks souvenir clerk Jamie (Jonathan Langdon) what's up- turns out, the whole show is a trap for a serial killer known as "The Butcher." Oh I'm sorry that's not the twist- that's that Cooper is the killer.

It's a great premise, even if it doesn't make a ton of sense when you stop and think about it. For one, we see an FBI profiler (Hayley Mills) throughout, telling her men to screen every male at the venue upon exit. You're telling me that they're going to screen thousands of men as they leave? I question the logistics of that plan, but it gets sillier: at one point Cooper acquires a police radio and listens in to their conversations, which is wild to me that they'd speak so freely over the air, which a quick interwebs search tells me is open to the public in Pennsylvania where this film takes place, surely they know he's smart enough to get a hold of that. (They also aren't smart enough to notice their equipment missing, but whatever.)

More unbelievable things happen without getting into spoilers, such as how Cooper lurks around the stadium looking for an exit. At one point he triggers a contained oil explosion to burn a food worker, distracting the guards so he can scope out the roof. He's stopped, and lucks into knowing the password (thanks Jamie) and having the right keycard (thanks apron left by chance nearby), but apparently this is not suspicious enough, even with his lies. That'd be fine once, but another time he's seen "checking" the coffee while the swat team is briefed. He talks to everyone like he's their friend, which again, sure whatever. But later on, when the singer "Lady Raven" (writer/director's own daughter Saleka Shyamalan, in some classic Hollywood nepotism) picks an attendee to go up on stage with her, literally putting Cooper in everyone's eye. Somehow, all these men and women in uniform just somehow don't see or remember him. Or how they don't bother checking all the cameras everywhere to see if, oh I dunno, he's done anything unusual. What a funny convenience I'd say.

A lot has been said about Hartnett, with some calling this his "comeback" picture, but I walked away unimpressed. He's clearly trying too hard to be charming and then too hard to be creepy, without it feeling natural. He's serviceable I suppose, but since the whole film, warts and all, rests on his performance to convince us that it's all really happening, his shortcomings are all the more disappointing.

Then there's the ending, which leading up to the climatic reveal, I had made my own guesses. I was wrong, of course, but that's only because I was coming up with actual narrative switcheroos. Instead, we watch the film come to a conclusion by matter of chances so outlandish that I could almost hear the audience groan. But wait, the film keeps going, only for another incidental moment to happen. And then another, and I think one more after that. It is all so convoluted that it all fails to register as an actual twist, with things happening like an episode of Murder She Wrote, only without Mrs. Potts and one F-word dropped as allowed by its PG-13 rating.

My Spy: The Eternal City Review

"My Spy: The Eternal City" is about as good as a sequel to a 2020 Dave Bautista-led family action comedy about a nine year old kid wanting to become a spy could be. It's not going to set the cinematic world on fire or anything, but it's a decent way to spend a humid July Sunday evening.

Bautista returns as JJ, a CIA agent-turned-analyst who since becoming Sophie's (Chloe Coleman) guardian, prefers to spend his time behind a desk and making scones when his muffin's fail to rise in the oven. But his pal Bobbi (Kristen Schaal, back from the first one) thinks he's lost his edge since becoming a full-time parent, as does his boss David (Ken Jeong), who wants him back in the field. Oh the fictional woes of well-off movie characters, what ever is going to happen I wonder.

Of course he gets back into the action, and that's not a spoiler, but the way about it is as goofy as it is convoluted: Sophie's school choir group wins a chance to go to Italy to play at the Vatican, and if it ain't a coinkydink, David's son Collin (Taeho K) is not only her best friend, but also in the same choir group! JJ chaperones the trip, but not before a thumb drive is stolen containing locations to long-forgotten nuclear bombs hidden all across the world.

To go on could give something away, but the narrative here is as heavy as a diet soda, so whatever: Collin is kidnapped, to blackmail him into getting the plot-twist of a villain the codes to the explosives. Or did they already have the codes but need the locations? Ah, I can't remember, but it doesn't matter, the story is just an excuse for some silly slapstick, surprisingly convincing action, and all-around delightful performances.

All the major players, including some I'm not mentioning to save any feeble surprises here from being exposed, are well-cast and are clearly enjoying themselves, so we enjoy watching their hijinks. But then the plot gets in the way, because now an assassin is going to kill JJ, or the still-not-saying-who baddie has drugged JJ with some vague neurotoxin. To kill him, slowly, while no one is around. I wonder if he'll be saved or something. It's just too stuffed with trying to be an espionage flick that it interrupts the overall comedy of it all, it doesn't let things breath and ease into the wacky situations. Because the actual plot is ridiculous if it were played straight, so why bother in the first place?

By trying to be both a spy film and a comedy, it fails at doing either well, and despite being rarely funny, it is consistently amusing, and perhaps most refreshing of all, it has its heart in the right place. There's nothing especially good here, but there's also nothing bad- its charming cast and mostly-zippy dialogue grounds the picture to be about family, despite all the explosions, bullets and killings.

Twisters Review

It has been a long time since we've had a good disaster movie, and unfortunately the long-awaited stand-alone sequel to 1996's "Twister," annoyingly called "Twisters," is not one. It's as silly as one could want from a big-budget spectacle, but it's got problems so big you could fit a flying cow through it.

Of course, it's hard to go into this without thinking of the original, and it doesn't help that there is only so much plot you can shoe-horn into a movie about dangerous winds. Kate is our lead, played adequately by Daisy Edgar-Jones, who early on, with her boyfriend Jeb (Daryl McCormack) & team, we see trying out the idea of distributing sodium polyacrylate into tornadoes, which will soak up all the moisture; it's "the same thing used in pads" we're told. The film is clever enough to use a joke to explain movie-science, but doesn't bother with explaining what happens to the water-logged salt once it supposedly kills the twister. Does it drop to the ground? Get flung everywhere? Who cleans it up after? Questions, questions and more questions, and I should not be asking myself those in a disaster flick.

Anyway, the plan doesn't work and only her and pal Javi (Anthony Ramos) survive. We flash forward five years and the two haven't kept in touch, Kate working an office job and Javi forming the company "Storm Par," which uses military technology to scan tornadoes. He has all the latest technology and, gasp, investors. Problem is that they would need to get in real close to one, which is where Kate comes in. She agrees to work one week with him in Oklahoma, but uh-oh, wouldn't you know it, another team of storm-chasers is there, lead by Tyler (Glenn Powell). He wears a cowboy hat and speaks inconsistently with a southern accent, and runs a YouTube channel with his eclectic crew. They have names according to the credits but it doesn't matter. They are exclusively defined by their role; like Lily (Sasha Lane) who flies a drone, and Boone (Brandon Perea) who films his show (and yes, I had to look them up), so to me they were nothing more than "drone girl" and "camera guy," respectively. Such fleshed-out characterization.

This is a crippling problem, since for maybe the first hour we just get scene after scene of people driving towards big storms, and Tyler's team spend almost all their screen-time yelping and hollering as they do stupid tricks like setting off fireworks inside a twister. It's obnoxious and grating, so you feel like you paid to watch a free YouTube video at a theater.

Now you might be wondering, how do you set off fireworks in a tornado? Wouldn't that require driving into one? Several characters, several times, explicitly say not to be in a vehicle during one. Ah but you see, Tyler's truck is specially rigged to anchor into the ground, keeping him safe. Why other vehicles are sometimes safe and others sometimes not, however? I'm no meteorologist, or filmmaker, but it seems the film can't follow it's own logic.

So the dualing groups really don't have much to dual about, one is funded by rich people and the other subscribers, so since they're not competing for anything, there is absolutely zero tension. They cut each other off on roads leading to storms, because of the script tells them (and of course, there is only one road per twister). Eventually the narrative introduces morals to the story, with Kate prioritizing helping those post-twister and Javi wanting to collect his data instead, so soon she leaves for Glenn, because, I dunno, he's supposed to be charming. Yet the two have no chemistry, just two decent actors being paid to talk cute to each other. (It doesn't help that he looks way too old for her, much more so than their mild real-life age gap suggests.)

So what about the meat-and-potatoes of it all, the tornadoes themselves. I saw this on the biggest screen I could, but "Twisters" fails to showcase the wonder of tornadoes, the majesty of mother nature being a force of nature. Instead the action is chaotically filmed, the camera struggling to clearly show the actors and special effects, so it harshly bounces around. I suppose it was to create a sense of disorientation and unease, but what we got was just frustration. There's a lot of money on the screen, and it's a shame we never really get a good look at it.

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F Review

For such a belated fourthquel, "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" commits a cinema felon by adding a subtitle instead of a simple roman numeral like its predecessors. And while I can't forgive such flagrant grammar inconsistencies, I can forgive the film itself for being a pleasantly light-weight action comedy that has just enough thrills and laughs.

Eddie Murphy returns as Axel Foley, who despite some paunch hardly looks a day over fifty, despite being over sixty. He's the same old fast-talking Detroit detective who, after stopping some crooks at a local hockey game, goes to visit his estranged daughter Jane (Taylour Paige), a criminal defense attorney in, you guessed it, Beverly Hills. She hates him for prioritizing his work over his family, and not a story beat is beaten that hasn't been beaten to death in every other medium of entertainment. But it's fine, the two have chemistry, and it goes to show that with the right script (here credited to Will Beall, Tom Gormican & Kevin Etten) is still capable of being funny.

Anyway, Jane is working on a case to defend Enriquez (Damien Diaz), who claims to be framed for the death of an undercover cop. A cop who works for Grant, played by Kevin Bacon, and I'm not sure if it's the film or the actor himself, but the second you see him you know he's dirty. Of course the film comes out and says just as much soon after, so don't press that "play" button thinking there's any subtly here at all- Bacon's the kind of actor born who has the face of a slimy bent authority figure.

He's the kind of character that can only exist in movies like this, where their word is trusted by the entire department despite the fact that he or his goons are constantly planting evidence, kidnapping, arresting, breaking-and-entering without warrants, stealing, and oh yeah, killing, in the age where everyone in Beverly Hills and their pampered pooch have a phone capable of recording.

Oh don't get me wrong, Kevin is a fantastic actor, capable of range this belated little distraction doesn't deserve, but that doesn't mean he doesn't give it his all. Because he does, but man, he can do this in his sleep.

Judge Reinhold returns as Rosewood, as does Paul Reiser, Bronson Pinchot and John Ashton (as Jeffery, Serge and Taggart, respectively), and their participation is an extended cameo at best and just a plain old cameo at worst, but hey, part of me is happy to see someone like Reinhold still working in Hollywood. In actuality, Axel spends much of his time with Jane and Detective Abbot (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who's frizzy hair and relaxed, almost bored expression reminded me of disgraced and incarcerated actor Danny Masterson, which if unintentional is uncanny. He's working on the Enriquez case too, and previously dated Jane, which probably sounded like it'd provided suspense, but this featherweight actioner couldn't muster any dramatic or romantic tension if Eddie broke the fourth wall and said directly to the audience "this is dramatic and romantic tension."

But who cares, because director Mark Molloy keeps the familiar plot moving fast enough that you're never bored, but he fails to craft a single creative moment; your standard shootouts and chases punctuate the picture enough times to keep you from dozing off, but it never stimulates you. It never challenges your expectations, instead banking on warmed-over nostalgia and Murphy's comedic talents.

Bad Boys: Ride or Die Review

The fourth entry in the "Bad Boys" series, "Ride or Die," is more or less as fun as the previous film "Bad Boys For Life," and yes, I'm ignoring the silly subtitling. What it lacks in purpose is it more than makes up for it by being a breezy comedic action thriller- I laughed thrice out loud, twice was even at the same joke, and no, I'm not gonna spoil the punchlines.

It helps that my screening was in a relatively packed theater, a lively bunch who busted out giggling constantly. It's not that funny, but it does give good reason as to the whole point of theaters, streaming be damned!

Both Will Smith and Martin Lawrence return, as detectives Mike and Marcus respectively, and despite both pushing sixty, they handle the action scenes with both humor and conviction. It helps that the script by Chris Bremner and Will Beall, gives the actors an opportunity to suffer from the effects of aging; early on Marcus survives a heart attack at Mike's wedding to Christine (Melanie Liburd), and Mike suffers from panic attacks throughout the runtime. But don't worry, they still blow stuff up real good.

And that stuff being blown up succeeds at a technical level too: directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah return from the last picture, and they continue to find exciting ways to film the same old shootouts and car chases. Take one scene where our heroes, alongside Mike's illegitimate son Armando (Jacob Scipio), drive a stolen van after a hit is placed on them. The usual stuff right? But here, the Van catches on fire as it speeds down the streets, cops and gangs in pursuit. It might not make much sense (how does one see, for example), but in "Bad Boys: Ride or Die," questions like that only come up if you forget to leave your brain at the door. I left my brain at the door.

The detectives are working to unframe their late captain Howard (played by the very-much alive Joe Pantoliano), who was working to figure out who "from the top" was working with the cartel. But plotting in a film like this only exists to setup the next big action scene, culminating in a finale inside an abandoned alligator theme park. I always love it when movies involve these reptiles, though I do knock the picture for not having anyone use the line "see you later, alligator." I mean it was right there, come on!

What I can't get behind however brutality against women, where they exist either as a token character in a group (such as Vanessa Hudgens' Kelly) or as kidnap fodder (spoilers). Or, in one scene, unable to handle themselves, despite being a COP and having a GUN, against a man (spoilers, again). I'm not necessarily against cliches, but it's ones like this that are as easy and antiquated as they are wrong.

The narrative is filled with twists and turns but nothing comes as a surprise, and so the emotional core lies on the shoulders of Smith and Lawrence, who have some real nice moments of male bonding. I mean it happens betwixt barb after barb, but hey, boys will be boys.

Under Paris Review

I brought up in my "Sting" review earlier this year that 1975's "Jaws" will likely forever be the defacto giant shark film, and Netflix's latest giant shark film "Under Paris" does nothing to change that. It is a great movie experience even if it's not a great movie, filled with dumb dialogue, idiotic characters, cliches and gore- all the good stuff.

Hey, even a classy critic like me can let loose every once in a while!

We follow Sophia (Bérénice Bejo), your standard cinematic "shark expert," who we first meet right before an incident where her husband and the rest of her team were mauled by Lilith, a tagged mako shark they were tracking. This scene immediately sets the tone for the film, as people float feet underwater next to a bloody baby sperm whale carcass as a shark swims mere meters away. I felt like yelling "get out of the water," but I don't speak French.

Not to suggest that Hollywood (France, as is the case here) at all represents true shark behavior, but even a dummy like me knows better then to enter a predator's territory, let alone one where the beast's leftovers sit.

Still shaken after several years, Sophia is approached by Mika (Léa Léviant), who's been following her work and knows where Lilith is. Spoiler alert, there's a shark in Paris. Well technically it's the Seine, but I suppose "Under Seine" didn't have quite the same ring to it.

Mika leads a sorta hippy environmentalist underground organization with her girlfriend Ben (Nagisa Morimoto), and due to a recent car accident in the Seine where they found the car but not the driver, the couple are planning to go visit Lilith later that night. While underwater, Mika find the car, it's driver's side door covered in teeth marks. Totally nothing the police should have noticed. Nothing suspicious. Nothing to see here.

In truth the cops are shown to be pretty dumb overall, who once a homeless man's half-body is pulled from the water, instinctively dismiss the local shark-expert's claim that it's, you know, a shark. But they've got nothing on the mayor (Anne Marivin), who's role is effectively the same as the mayor in "Jaws:" her only concern isn't the safety of the people but instead the upcoming triathlon

Every line she delivers sounds like a political ad, but her best moment is when after shaking peoples hands, she turns around to apply hand sanitizer- and then she whips her paws dry on a guy's suit! Good stuff.

Anyway, Sophia eventually teams up with cop Adil (Nassim Lyes), but Miko goes her own path, using social media to get help with an effort to safely move Lilith to the ocean from the flooded catacombs. Things, of course, do not go as planned, and it becomes an absolute bloodbath. Here in lies "Under Paris'" strength, showing the stupidity of man: not just of those in charge but people overall, where background characters get trampled as the crowd panics for safety, while others are knocked out and drown. 

This would be horrific had it been played seriously, which it isn't, but mostly had it not immediately succeeded an absolute gem of a scene, where we find out Lilith has a daughter. Miko's in the water, deciding to pet the baby like a doggie. Even a dummy like me knows that shark's skins are like razors! Oh but it gets better, this would-be professional doesn't seem to think that mommy would mind some strange creature being so close to its kid. Miko should really watch more monster flicks, it's obvious the filmmakers have.

Darkness of Man Review

Jean-Claude Van Damme's "Darkness of Man" is the kind of gritty, low-rent crime thrillers they don't make anymore; where it's almost always nighttime, the sun only shining through the mostly closed blinds to awaken the alcoholic main character. Playing Russell Hatch, Van Damme drinks and smokes with class and swagger, trying to protect his ex-lover Esther's (Chika Kanamoto) kid Jayden (Emerson Min) from getting into the family business: drugs. Only the plot isn't that simple, involving the Russian mob, double-crosses, plot twists and some surprisingly gory kills, mostly at the hands of Russell. 

The narrative is labyrinthine not because it's well-written but quite the opposite- story beats are delivered awkwardly in English, Korean and Russian, characters often swapping between languages mid-scene. But it's biggest flaw is it's lack of purpose: this exists to make some money on the VOD market and to keep the Van Damme name relevant. Well, as relevant as a VOD film can keep you.

We meet Russell via a flashback, sitting impatiently at a diner, where he dismisses a waitress' inquiry on spiking his coffee, claiming he doesn't drink. Ha, his glazy eyes, five-a-clock shadow and suspiciously flask-shaped bump in his blazer pocket suggest otherwise. He's soon met by Esther, who begs him to protect her son. He agrees, though is narration disagrees, spouting doomy dialogue that probably sounds good in advertisements. They part ways, where she's soon killed, and him wounded, and well, here we are.

Living in an extended-stay motel, his neighbor Chris, an unrecognizable Spencer Breslin, sells drugs and generally acts as the film's comic relief. He's never funny really, but he's completely believable as a low-level pusher, and when he tells Russell that he uses a drone to pick up his merchandise, I totally bought it. (Sadly, we never seen it happen. Perhaps in the sequel?)

Jayden, a moody teenager who vapes and overall is not a great kid, thinks his mother was a druggie and overdosed, effectively abandoning him. Ah, kid, if only you saw the opening scene! He doesn't take kindly to Russell, referring as "his driver" to friends and teachers, but is soon approached by his uncle Dae Hyun (Peter Jae), to work with him in that forbidden family business. Remember when every cinematic villain involved vague drugs? Simpler times.

Van Damme, an actor with a screen-presence that is simultaneously distracting and interesting, remains convincing in the action scenes despite being in his sixties, my favorite being a fight filmed from within a minivan, while he takes down two thugs. (But my favorite moment is when we find out the muscles-from-Brussels has a little cat!)

Judging by all the production companies in the opening credits (I thought I counted no less than five, but the interwebs tells me it is "just" four), we can only surmise this didn't exactly cost a lot to make, but director/co-writer James Cullen Bressack keeps the action limited to just a few rainy streets, grungy back alleys and rundown buildings, and it works quite well. The (very) few larger scenes, such as a Cadillac Escalade flipping over, don't look cheesy or filled with cheap CGI; it's something that Cannon would have made in the late 80's, from economic directors like J. Lee Thompson or Joseph Zito, probably staring an aging Charles Bronson (or even a young Van Damme) as they slashed the budget with the cameras were still rolling. It's not necessarily good, but it is a skillfully made little thriller that in another time probably would have had a good trailer and awesome VHS box.

The Strangers: Chapter 1 Review

Director Renny Harlin has a career far more fascinating than pretty much any film he's actually directed, and boy has he directed a lot of films; he has four scheduled for this year alone, three of which form an independent trilogy in the cult franchise "The Strangers." It begins here with "The Strangers: Chapter 1," a name only confusing unless you forget that there's actually two previous flicks, and what ever subtlety the earlier entries had is completely lost this time around. Third time is not the charm, it seems.

It's not-quite-a-reboot-but-not-a-remake, at least officially, but the same exact beats are repeated, not just from 2008's "The Strangers" and 2018's "The Strangers: Prey At Night," but by dozens of other slasher films. Tell me if you've heard this before: a few out-of-towners (Madelaine Petsch as Maya and Froy Gutierrez as her long-time boyfriend Ryan) stop by a mysterious town for a bite to eat while driving cross country, their car mysteriously breaks down, and have to spend the night in said town while it's in the mysterious shop. It's a mysterious airbnb way out in the middle of the mysterious woods, fully furnished and yes, it even mysteriously has chickens! They actually have some of the best dialogue; I believe it went something like "cluck cluck..."

Ryan has asthma but forgets his inhaler in the broken down car, so he hops on the inexplicably functional and full-of-gas motorcycle, somehow finds his way back to town to get it. Meanwhile, Maya stays back in the cabin, and though Ryan returns safely, not before hell breaks loose when a group of strange strangers arrive, mask on face, and knife and ax in hand.

Harlin, for his part, does know how to stage a shot, where woods are enveloped in a heavy mist at all times (naturally), and exercises some surprising restraint with the gore. I'm fine with that, but the actions of the characters is so illogical and stupid that the would-be tension only exist because the script has them doing illogical and stupid things. You sit on your worn leather reclining chair waiting to be scared, waiting for the audience to yelp in terror, but instead everyone slowly dies of boredom.

But it is not just the story that's banal, but also the score; there are somehow two composers, Justin Burnett and Òscar Senén, and their contributions here consists almost entirely of droning beats and silence, usually right before a sudden loud noise accompanies something equally sudden appearing onscreen. It is all just cliche, so cliche in fact that I began to notice just how uninspired it was. I usually only notice a film's score when it's really good or really bad, but this is the first time in my life I noticed it just because of how bland it is.

The screenplay, written somehow by three people(!) (Alan R. Cohen & Alan Freedland and Amber Loutfi), steals not just the basic premise, not just the beginning, middle and ending, but also every single problem every single other film in the genre has. A perfect example is when, because plot, Maya and Ryan find a working car and try to escape. So far, so logical. But uh oh, these cloaked bad guys also have a working vehicle, and smash into theirs. You might have asked yourself, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY drive off? I don't have an answer, but then again, I doubt the screenwriters had one either. Anyway, Ryan is trapped, and has Maya leave him and run into the woods while he picks up his gun and begins blasting away. Only the hooded villain is able to quickly escape the blast by exiting their vehicle, leaving the keys inside. You can of course, surmise that neither of our heroes didn't think to, you know, drive away it in it. Someone get me a thesaurus, because I'm running out of ways to say "dumb."

It's as if all the characters exist in a vacuum and their only option is to react to any threat by running away, instead of using their heads.

Oh, you might be thinking, that's just one scene, that perhaps the entire film can't be filled with moronic moments that like, but you would be wrong. How wrong? Well.. characters not calling the police when they should; when they do make that belated call, the reception is bad; protagonists don't shoot antagonists when their shotgun is aimed square in their face; people split up (multiple times); everyone but the bad guys trips, falls or otherwise hurts themselves; hero has a chronic illness; hero forgets inhaler; hero later drops inhaler; heroine thinks someone is in the house, so she drinks; and when heroine still thinks someone is in the house, so she smokes weed. I hating writing that as much as I hated seeing the film itself.

The immature teenager in me wanted some violent bloodshed, hell I would have settled for gratuitous nudity, but no. Despite its R rating for, I dunno, some bad language and tame pools of blood, this is an exploitation picture without the exploitation. I wouldn't mind "The Strangers: Chapter 1" so much if it weren't so offensively dull. Usually you just want your work to be memorable, not memorably forgettable.