Fistful of Vengeance Review

What bothers me most about Netflix's "Fistful of Vengeance" isn't that it's based on their show "Wu Assassins," it's that it didn't tell me that. I don't necessarily have a problem with film adaptions, but when the viewer is thrown into the plot without any idea who anyone is or why they're doing what they're doing, it creates an unfair viewing experience. Maybe had I been notified to read-up on the franchise before pressing the play button, I'd have a completely different opinion. Of course, they could have just made a film that didn't require any homework.

This left me with one of two options: A) suspend my viewing and start with the one season of "Wu Assassins," or B) just ignore logic and observe lots of very violent vignettes vaguely strung together by moronic dialogue. Actually I'm sure if it's moronic, I just didn't understand what they were ever talking about. In case you haven't figured by now, I chose B.

Eventually, you start to make sense of what's happening (even if you don't understand the why or how), so let's get the narrative out of the way: Kai Jin (Iko Uwais), a Wu Assassin, Lu Xin Lee (Lewis Tan, in full "Ryan Reynolds" mode) not a Wu Assassin, and Tommy Wah (Lawrence Kao), also not a Wu Assassin, try to track down who killed the latter's sister Jenny. It's of course a whole lot more complicated, involving an evil god, double-crossing billionaires, double-crossing acquaintances, double-crossing baddies, and a whole lot of hand-gestures.

OK I'll be serious here and tell you what you need to know; William Pan (Jason Tobin) and Ku An Qi (Rhatha Phongam) are bad, trying to resurrect Pangu of Chinese mythology who will wipe out the world as we know it. At least that's what I remember- it was mentioned so early in the runtime when I was still trying to figure out who was who.

They can't just kill Kai of course, because of plot. "Take them to me," or something like that, yells Ku at one point to her troops, who have managed to trap our heroes in a van; they're completely surrounded. "Don't fire," hollers one nameless henchman to another, so the enemies use gas tanks to blow the vehicle sideways, and then toss bottles of booze so it catches fire. Sigh, good help is so hard to come by these days.

Because the film doesn't play by the rules and respect the viewer's time, what we're left is a lot of combat without purpose outside of primal entertainment. Fortunately director Roel Reiné handles these myriad of fights with finesse, cleanly shot where you can easily tell the location of the good guys relative to the bad guys. Shame its score is full of awful hip hop and rap- each scene sounds like I walked into a high school prom.

"But Mr. Critic," you interject, "what exactly is a Wu Assassin?" Great question reader, but I'm afraid it doesn't really mean much. They have "special abilities," which I observed as the ability to sort of push the space directly in front of their hands. They can block punches or use it to supercharge their punches, or in one moment, stop themselves from falling to their doom. The problem is that this "power" is completely underwhelming; the non-Wu Assassin protagonists frequently hold their own against the Wu Assassin antagonists, so what's the point? I guess it looks good in ads.

It doesn't help that it's so poorly explained. Why wouldn't these extraordinary eliminators use this ability with every blow they inflict? Maybe it's that they just get tired. What about stopping a bullet? I guess not, because Kai always ducks from gunfire, so, then, why do so many henchmen insist on fighting hand-to-hand? Not that the ones with guns live much longer, but I dunno, I thought it was a good question.

I wish I could have put blinders onto the world of reason and simply gone along for the ride, but I couldn't. It's settles on genre clichés instead of transcending them. Take a scene when where our heroes happen to find an unlocked Mercedes with the keys inside (in just the nick of time of course). What happens next? They drive down a parking garage while being pursued on foot. They didn't have the audacity to have someone quip "must be my luc-key day" or something.

I'm giving "Fistful of Vengeance" two stars because I didn't hate it. I could end this review right now, but lemme get in one final random waffle. It's a bit of an odd one, a single point in the film where I had to rewind just to make sure I understood it. A sex scene, between characters I will not name in respect of spoilers, it should have been titillating and exciting as you saw exposed breasts. But then it cuts, and she has her top back on. It cuts again and we see the guy biting it off. It cuts again, and her breasts are covered! I shouldn't be forced to apply continuity to a sex scene, but here we are.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Review

A good chainsaw never dies, it only needs gas. For "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," the ninth film in the franchise, that means more gore, plenty of callbacks and social media influencers. Does it work? If you just want to see people get chopped up, then yeah, it'll do.

But just how do you make a sequel to one of the most influential horror movies of all time? Why, you take 2018's "Halloween" approach of course! That includes this film's answer to Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode, with Sally (now played by Olwen Fouéré), returning from the 1974 original. She's been waiting for "him" to return (heard that one before?), a woman worn down by the weight of being the sole survivor (and her trusty shotgun, although I don't know how much one weighs).

Seemingly ignoring the sequels and taking place decades after the first, if you can trust the internet, the young people ripe for the slicing and dicing include Melody and Dante, played by Sarah Yarkin and Jacob Latimore respectively, who plan on selling pieces of a ghost town in Texas (where else?). Her sister Lilia (Elsie Fisher) comes along for the ride but doesn't want to be there, and filling out our initial quadrilogy of protagonists is his would-be fiancée (Nell Hudson). A smart reader can figure out why, in a slasher film, I didn't list her name or describe her much. Ooooh, the spoilers.

They arrive in a poorly veiled Telsa and immediately make no friends with the locals, including their gun-toting carpenter Richter (Moe Dunford) and Mrs. Mc (Alice Krige), owner of the local orphanage who swears she still owns the property. That's trouble when you're trying to auction off the town to the now arrived bus of young rich kids, and even more so when you realize just who the only orphan under her care is. Nevertheless, chaos ensues.

What am I supposed to critique here? Do the characters get killed "real good?" It serves no purpose but to keep an antiquated series relevant by showing us, well, characters getting killed "real good." Lots of gore and guts are shown, the deaths viscous and visceral. It didn't shock me but it didn't put me in a good mood. Maybe that's the whole point to these pictures, I wouldn't know. Bad movie critic move here, but I confess, I've never seen any of the previous eight films. And after this 2022 entry, I'm not sure I want to.

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is an ugly way to spend eighty one minutes of your life. It's like one of those "true crime" documentaries on steroids, with any semblance to what actually inspired it buried so deep in gallons of blood that it exists purely to gross out audiences.

That doesn't mean it's devoid of skill; it's professionally made (even and especially the onscreen deaths), with some exceptionally well shot moments of a seemingly endless field. The southern sun burning into the camera with a sort of haze in the distance. A sole road dots it, with no incoming traffic. It makes you really feel as if it's taking place miles and miles away from anything close to modern civilization. It's a stark contrast to the dark, rainy scenes of the desolate village of decaying buildings.

Wait, does that mean I admire it? Hell no! It remains a "dumb horror movie," the kind where if a line of dialogue mentions a corkscrew, it'll come up later (no doubt in a moment of peril) and no less than four (four!!!) characters seemingly die only to suddenly get up! I'm generally fine with dumb flicks, but I do not have a tolerance for ones that try to act smarter than they really are. Racial tensions involving a confederate flag are brought up for no reason other than to fill out a couple of scenes, but the most egregious example is with Lila, who barely lived through previous public shooting. Early on we see her pick up a gun, only to understandably panic with the flashbacks of what ever horrors she endured. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how later we're supposed to believe that she's totally fine handling a shotgun to blast at the titular maniac! Fight gun violence with guns!? What sense does that make!!??

Another moment of stupidity comes when Sally, loaded weapon in hand, confronts Leatherface in the orphanage; he slumps on a bed, chainsaw down but still within arms reach, and she starts yelling! "Do you remember me" or something like that, and she doesn't fire! She couldn't miss if she tried! But she wants, no, needs him to remember her, but he isn't paying her any attention. What, does she think, there are TWO Texas chainsaw massacres and she's just talking to the wrong one?! Now there's a plot.

Blacklight Review

My favorite part of any action movie is the black SUV: you know, the one that stalks our a would-be protagonist's significantly smaller car, picking up the obvious bad-guy from location to location, and is always so shiny. And in the new movie "Blacklight," the second I spotted that ebony sports utility vehicle, my expectations were set in stone- this is a Liam Neeson film.

Its plot is a bit more complicated than what you'd might expect from this generation's Charles Bronson. I mean sure, his family is in jeopardy and soon goes missing, but it leans far more into the political intrigue of it all than I was anticipating. It felt like a modern-day take on the kind of film you'd see in the 1970's, with everyone's favorite Irishman playing government operative Travis Block, who winds up in a web of lies that "come right from the top of the FBI(!)." That is, of course, if you believe defector Dusty (Taylor John Smith), who's grown a conscience, and an up-and-coming online reporter Mira (Emmy Raver-Lampman), who's looking for her big story.

Travis is also "the best of the best," because naturally he is, but he also suffers from obsessive-compulsion disorder, and his main motivation for the narrative here is, in a rare moment of acting his age (I mean the man's nearly seventy), is wanting to retire to spend more time with his granddaughter Natalie (Gabriella Sengos). She's picking up on her granddaddy's delusions, and there's a cute throwaway gag where he gifts her a stun gun for her birthday. It's a shame there aren't more of these cockeyed bits.

All the major beats from any other picture cut from the same cloth are present in slow-burning 108 minute runtime, just organized a bit differently. The moment where our hero realizes the truth comes sooner than I thought, the disappearance of his kin occurs much later than the trailers would have you believe, but it's all stock script beats. It fits comfortably into the Liam Neeson mold, mildly refreshing the usual mold of his works while remaining firmly in his wheelhouse. Fans should enjoy what they see, even if they've seen it before.

The main car chase is fortunately far more entertaining than the one from "Honest Thief," the last time he teamed up with director Mark Williams, involving a garbage truck which of course dumps trash bags into the pursuing automobile. The action is pleasant, but one or two more big moments could have livened up the overall muted tone.

None of this probably matters, because the biggest selling point is leading man Liam Neeson. I'm giving "Blacklight" two and a half stars because it's an effective Liam Neeson movie. He retains a commanding screen presence, owning whatever frame he's in; he's too good for the movies he's starring in! 'Tis the curse of being Liam Neeson I guess.

Jackass Forever Review

Who is the audience for "Jackass Forever," the fourth theatrical film in a franchise where people get hit in the groin, blown out of a cannon, bit by several animals like spiders and snakes, as well as various other stunts played purely for the sick joy by the groups lucky onlookers. "Lucky" as in, they are not the ones going to get hurt.

The best part was the opening, a riff on classic "Godzilla" movies, only its only part of a man in a rubber suit. You can guess what part that is. The rest of the acts range from half-clever wordplay to things only the drunkest, dumbest fratboys would do. Only they have a reported ten million dollar budget to realize their soused ambitions.

Fans of the series have a lot to like here, where the "sets" are indistinguishable from previous pictures save only by the grey hairs on the veteran cast and the quality of the cameras used in filming. What am I supposed to say here? This time the kick to the nuts was better than the last one? Please, I have my dignity.

I squirmed anytime someone took a knock to the privates, and looked away from the screen whenever vomit was on display. But at about halfway through, I think I noticed the appeal of these "Jackass" films: comradery. There is an overwhelming sense that everyone involved is really a family by now, from actors like Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O (and yes, even, uh, the guy known as "Poopies"), from the director, cameramen, everyone. Got a stun gun to the neck? Expect a hug once you pick yourself up. Even the meanest things they do to each other are done out of love. (Just in time for Valentine's day too.)

What's perhaps more interesting was the drama releasing "Forever," where former Jackass Bam Margera was dropped due to substance abuse and somehow more. Then a quick Google search shows PETA's investigation into alleged animal abuse. I dunno, I thought the people were most abused.

I'm beating around the bush and giving "Jackass Forever" two and a half stars, because it sets its sights low and hits its target dead-on. Shame, the target was potty humor.

Home Team Review

Did you know that during the Super Bowl, there is only about twelve or so minutes of actual gameplay? You can guess what makes up the rest of the "event" during the remaining three to four hours.

Trivia aside and just in time for 2022's big February football game is Netflix's "Home Team," a comedic retelling of Sean Payton's suspension for putting bounties on opposing teams last decade. What a meat-headed decision it is to make light of a controversy about intentionally injuring people. All for a sport, what a dumb sport.

Maybe I'm missing the point, perhaps I brought my own personal prejudice against football onto the couch when I pressed "play." Or, maybe oh just maybe, I have a point. But who am I? Nobody; I'm a man who just wasted his Saturday afternoon regretting his Netflix subscription.

Anyway, Kevin James plays Payton, who decides that "hey, if I can't coach in the NFL, I might as well coach little league to reconnect with my son and ex-wife." (They're played by Tait Blum and Jackie Sandler respectively.) It is an awful message, an ugly act of would-be good publicity that glosses over why he's divorced and a bad father and instead just cuts right to them having fun. Oh sure, there's some stilted drama about "taking the game too seriously," but come on! Anyone who has ever seen a sports film about young kids will know every scene the flick has to offer, save for an extended vomit bit who's inclusion does nothing but remind you that Adam Sandler's company "Happy Madison" produced it.

Look, Kevin James is a relatively gifted actor, but he's got nothing to do except stand around while children either play football poorly or play it well. The script by Chris Titone and Keith Blum lacks any emotional stake in the main narrative, wrapping up the "father-son" issues simply by having the father and son share screen time. At one point, his son says he's only there because he was suspended from the NFL. He has a point you know, a point forgotten by the time the disgraced coach is reinstated by the end-credits. 

"Home Team" portrays Sean Payton as a really crummy human- it's the best joke here yet I'm not sure the film's in on the joke.

Other examples of crap writing is a supposed running gag about his baby mama's new lover Jamie, played by Rob Schneider, a stereotypical hippie who makes his own soaps, practices meditation, that sort of thing, but there's no punchline. His presence is supposed to be the punchline, and it's that kind of lazy filmmaking that shows how little effort was put here, you know, into what should have been a more serious look into the impact of a man who was involved in literally paying professional football players to hurt other players. What the hell is this!?

Hotel Transylvania: Transformania Review

It's not a good sign when your lead actor doesn't return to the series. It's not a good sign when that actor happens to be Adam Sandler. And it's not a good sign when it's an animated film! But that's what happened with "Hotel Transylvania: Transformaina," the fourth film in the franchise about Dracula (Brian Hull taking over for the SNL alum), his hotel and his growing family. Even Genndy Tartakovsky, director of the former three entries, declines directorial duties in favor of producer and screenplay credit. Whatever potential turmoil behind the scenes is more interesting than any of the drama onscreen.

Fortunately, this third sequel is about as amusing as the rest (well, I skipped on the second sequel, but I digress). It's manic, colorful, and doesn't overstay its welcome thanks to a zippy eighty seven minute runtime. It doesn't have a point, but with Covid ruling over the world like it's 2020 again, beggars for fresh content can't complain.

The plot this time around involves Drac's retirement, but his plans to hand over the key (literally, a big shiny key) to his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez) and her human husband Johnny (Andy Samberg) are stalled when he begins to fear that his annoying son-in-law may radically change his monster safe haven. So in order to create a reason for this entry to exist, he makes up a tax law that prohibits creature-person property transfer, to which Johnny responds by turning into a monster via a magic ray gun Van Helsing (Jim Gaffigan) happens to have (and who happens to live in the basement).

Uh oh, still not enough story for a movie. Drac then tries to return Johnny back into human form, but accidently turns himself into a paunchy, balding bag of mortal flesh. OK OK, we're getting somewhere with something that resembles an actual conflict for a feature film. But egad(!), the crystal powering the metamorphosis hand-cannon cracks, and now it's up to the two male characters to travel to the South American jungle to replace it. And before Mavis finds out! Spoiler alert, she finds out.

Look, this is a kids movie, not a particularly good kids movie, but it's not a bad one either. The script, as basic as it is, isn't overstuffed with a myriad of side stories, focusing instead on a pleasant, if heavy handed, tale about accepting each other, and to my great surprise, there is hardly any generic pop songs plaguing the soundtrack.

I've seen worse excuses for children's entertainment in theaters, ones where I actually paid money to see it, which is probably the best/worst recommendation I have ever given.

The Matrix Resurrections Review

The word "resurrection" is perhaps the most overused movie subtitle, given to long gestating sequels to long-ago films, and although it is more accurately "resurrections," "The Matrix" finally returns. Was it worth it? I'm the wrong guy to ask, since, gasp, I have never seen the original trilogy. Does that make my review invalid? Of course not, unless you're talking to fanboys, and even that doesn't matter, they'd see it anyway.

Being part of "The Matrix" will no doubt bring in box-office dollars and subscribers to HBO Max where it is also playing, but the nearly two and a half hour long adventure didn't benefit me from its namesake history. It sets the preceding flicks as a video game called "The Matrix," where Tom Anderson (Keanu Reeves) is a "world famous designer" but after a failed suicide attempt, is popping pills, you can guess the color, at the prescription of his therapist, played by Neil Patrick Harris. Tom, also known as Neo, does indeed return to the Matrix, but lemme just stop right there- I could go deeper into the plot, but that would expose potential spoilers like character's true motivations and I'm just not that kind of critic. I'm also not the kind of critic who gets paid but hey, who asked?

"Resurrections" does a decent job at filling in some of the blanks a first-timer to the series might wonder, as Tom/Neo also needs a refresher on how it all works. I didn't know who Tiffany/Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) was, but then the film told me plainly. It's a narrative as elegant as Mr. Reeves general performance (which consists of him looking dazed and drunk most of the time), but it functions to remind the general audience of what happened, what, like twenty or so years ago.

Technology has come a long ways since "bullet time" revolutionized action movies, and as an action movie, "The Matrix Resurrections" fails. There isn't any "new" gimmick like bullet time to hold our attention, so what we get rather rudimentary hand-to-hand fights. We get a couple actually, but its all things we've seen before, just a basic "punch" here and a "kick" there. You know you're in trouble when one of the longest fight sequences takes place in a decrepit warehouse. Oh, someone got thrown into a decaying wall, how "exciting."

But in addition to the "action" genre, this is also science fiction, or at least that's what its Wikipedia page tells me. Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not sure how "scientific" anything onscreen really is, but it did make sense, even to a non-scientist dummy like me, so it has that going for it. What it doesn't succeed at is world-building: outside of the Matrix, it looks like any random city in America. And once we get inside, it becomes a mess of murky colors and indiscriminate shapes that are supposed to be machines, ships, or places. There wasn't a moment that went by that I found myself in awe, instead the visuals reminded me about how good "Star Wars" is at just that.

Perhaps I was supposed to wonder at the logic it jumps through, and I will admit, it did have me guessing pretty consistently (Like, why do the blue and red pills look like "gel-caps" in flashback scenes but now look like capsules?) But it feels artificially complicated, an opaque delivery of what boils down to two rescue missions, first Neo and then Trinity, so what's the point? Is the mythology a warning about the "metaverse" tech companies today preach about? I'd rather watch "Ready Player One." I don't mind to be asked questions a film doesn't have answers to, but "Matrix 4" barely has questions, and it's heritage's once technical prowess is in desperate need of a firmware update.