Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: Once & Always Review

Netflix's "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers; Once & Always" is less a movie and more a TV special, clocking in at less than sixty minutes, and has some of the worst acting, special effects, costumes, sets, dialogue and fighting this side of a 70's Godzilla film, and it is glorious. Just watching nameless grunts fall down before they're hit just tickles that little part inside of you that's just begging to come out to play, a faint light to let yourself go and just have fun, ignorant of all the horrible things this world is becoming. Perhaps it'll only work on those of a certain age, but I'm happy I fall into that camp.

I especially liked how as soon as the Rangers don their famous spandex, all the paunch on the vintage actors immediately disappears. Either stunt-people are doing all the heavy lifting, or I need to find myself one of those suits.

Staring much of the original cast from the 1993 show, just called Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, this "movie' assumes you either religiously watch the show, have fabulous memory of the show, or can just go-with-the-flow, with so many callbacks, cameos and characters that really don't amount to much outside of "ooh I remember that!" What does concern the plot is that blue Ranger Billy (David Yost), in his attempt to resurrect Zordon accidentally brings back the teams' mortal enemy Rita (voiced by Barbara Goodson) in the form of "Robo Rita." After "go go'ing," a cheesy fight breaks out and right when Rita thinks she's gonna kill Billy, yellow Ranger Trini sacrifices herself, Rita escapes and the group, well, regroups.

Billy and black Ranger Zack (Walter Emanuel Jones), now need to contemplate how to tell her daughter Minh (Charlie Kersh) about her mom; do they expose their secret Power Ranger identities? I'd be more curious to know how they explained it to the authorities, but oh well.

They do end up spilling the beans to her, who swears revenge like anyone would, but I digress. On the anniversary of Trini's passing, all the Rangers go to pay their respect but, uh-oh, Rita's back! She ends up capturing a few Rangers to power her "time travel machine" that'll allow her to go back in time and fill her younger self in with all the knowledge she has now. She'll also knockout the Rangers before they're Rangers as well, but I mean that just goes without saying. What is worth saying, or rather, asking, is that whatever info Rita has now wouldn't exist if she told Rita then, since that would have changed the future. Does that make any sense? Eh, forget I bothered.

Look, I could go on (and golly I do hope I got the Ranger names, actors and colors right), but does any of this even really matter? Both of the film and my critique? Fans will no doubt adore every nostalgic-soaked moment, but everyone and anyone should be able to a fleeting reprieve from all the crap of today with about an hour of cinematic empty calories. If this ends up being a rating success, I halfway expect but truly hope that a full-blown series follows; this could easily become the streamer's next Cobra Kai.

It also helps that it is infinitely more watchable than the dreadful 2017 reboot, serving a purpose of bringing back fond memories rather than exploiting them. At least until the Once & Always Happy Meal toys and kid's (adults?) Halloween costumes show up.

Scream VI Review

The scariest horror movies are the ones where it could really happen to you. Sure, something jumping out at you yelling "boo" might make you leap from your chair, but that doesn't make it scary, which is what the latest in the long-running Scream franchise, "Scream VI," suffers from. Lead Sam (Melissa Barrera) says that the killings are only because of her (because of plot), and repeatedly asks for others to leave so that they're safe. How could that happen to me? For this seventh film to truly frighten me, I would have had to go through the same thing before, which, knocks on wood, hasn't happened. Does that make sense?

I guess that or it could have happen to a friend or something, but I like to think I have better taste than these folks.

Anyway, this is the first time in the series that I've actually watched one- oh sure, I'm aware of them and how they breathed life into the stagnant slasher genre, so I held absolutely no expectations outside to be entertained, and yeah, I was. The whole "whodunit" thing did keep me guessing and I didn't expect the killer, or killers, to be who it ended up being, so it has that going for it. Unfortunately, nothing really made much sense.

How many times, how many times do characters have phones in their hands while being stalked only to not call the police? I counted at least four times. "But," fans cry out, "they're on the phone with the famous Ghostface, how could they call the police?" To you silly people, they could not play phony movie games and call the damn cops. One of the characters Mindy, played by Jasmin Savoy Brown, has a long speech about how there are "rules" to slasher movies, but she clearly needs to watch a few more films, if she lived anyway, I ain't spoiling it.

Or what about how people are killed in public places- I don't care if you hold your hand over my mouth, I would, I would get someone else's attention.

Here's a other lapse in logic: if you smack the killer down, finish the job! Bash their brains into mush, don't go check on your friends wound or try running. Gosh this happens so many times here it'll be a "rule" in the inevitable "Scream 7."

See, Sam and her half-sister Tara (Jenna Ortega), are survivors of the last film (2022's "Scream," not to be confused with the same-named first entry back in 1996), now in college in NY.  Or at least Tara is in college, the film gets a bit murky there. Horror fans should immediately think of 1989's "Friday the 13th VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan," and sadly yes, it barely makes use of such a setting either. A few skyscrapers, a bodega and a subway, eh well probably passive bystanders, are about the only moments when the location is ever used. What's the point? I watched the credits, because the interweb told me there is a post-credits scene, and yeah, this was filmed in Canada. Why not just have it take place there? Why not really freshen up the franchise? (They missed a chance by not having The Statue of Liberty wear a mask, now that would be a twist.)

I'm not against scary movies, but by allowing the series to get bogged down in its own legacy it becomes what the late and legendary critic Roger Ebert would call a "dead teenager movie." Only their adults here, or at least old enough to smoke and drink freely.

I could go over the labyrinthine plot but any little detail could give away the reveal, so I won't, but what else am I to say? I did see it in theaters, which is how horror movie (and comedies) are best seen, but something funny happened: nobody, pardon the pun, screamed. Not once, I didn't even hear a faint gasp! I did hear plenty of coughing and sniffling, so the only thing a live audience provides is the chance of getting a cold, the flu or COVID; now that's scary.

Luther: The Fallen Sun Review

Netflix has done it again, and by that I mean released a movie that is really a continuation of a series but not advertised as such, at least not enough that I knew it was. They fooled me not once but twice, the first being last years mediocre "Fistful of Vengeance," but this time with "Luther: The Fallen Sun," they at least have Idris Elba, a terrific actor who command the screen right off of the wall.

He stars as the titular Luther, a "detective chief inspector," DCI for short, who at the start of the film is investigating the disappearance of a young man, only to quickly be tossed in prison for various unseen police crimes, or well, unseen by those who never watched the show Luther, ordered by the film's villain David, played by Andy Serkis. He's shown immediately to be bad and capable of pulling strings behind the scenes of the government, and his actions only get more slimy as the runtime continues.

This clearly ain't no "whodunit," having far more in common with those often tawdry 70's and 80's crime thrillers staring Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson or Burt Reynolds than perhaps I am comfortable watching. Those are a product of their time, and yeah, awful things happen all the time, but that doesn't mean I want to see it in action. When I watch something like, oh I dunno, 1983's "Sudden Impact," the fourth Dirty Harry movie, I am uncomfortable with the depiction of excessive use of force and sexual assault, but it's decades old and I can somehow accept the horrors onscreen because of its vintage; it's weird how one's moral compass works. But "Luther" is a product of today, and we should be a bit less exploitative, or at least, more sensitive of such appalling subject matter.

You want to see a young girl being suffocated by a plastic bag in front of her mom? Didn't think so, but you do, repeatedly. Oh sorry, probably should have put "spoiler" in front of that, but whatever.

David's plan is ultimately to livestream torture and execution, allowing sickos to be able to vote on on a torture method and then watch safely from a device of their choice. He uses digital blackmail to get victims and that's probably all I am at liberty to say without really exposing the plot. But when Luther escapes prison, he has to change course and try to rub him out of the picture while also staying on schedule. Oh, and the head of British police Odette Raine (Cynthia Erivo), wants both of them, a real thorn in both men's side.

Don't get me wrong, this is a great looking film, the cinematography by Larry Smith and direction from Jamie Payne are both spectacular, and the entire cast is terrific; Andy in particular taking an almost game-show host approach that really makes you hate him- something all thrillers need. But I simply cannot condone the level of violence on kids, women, and people of color by a white man and his merry band of other white men. Even if it wasn't the intention, the undertones of racism, sexism and probably other "isms" just got under my skin and made me feel icky. And if you're going to use such real-world problems, then at least have a point to the mayhem. There isn't one here.

Then there's the subject of police brutality, which the flick attempts to justify by having it used only on people "who deserved it." Yeah, that sounds great in 2023.

This is just schlock. Well-made schlock, but schlock nonetheless.

Marlowe Review

They don't make noirs like they used to, or rather, they hardly do at all, and what a shame that is. Antique cars roaring on neon-soaked roads wet with rain, elaborate costumes either in dull browns and greys or bright primaries, and everyone chain-smoking between sips of hard liquor. I mean boy howdy is there a lot of smoking, they even got star and ex-smoker Liam Neeson puffing in something like half his scenes; it's the kind where you feel the urge to inhale that sweet nicotine, if only to feel like a background extra.

But I digress and gosh I hope I don't start smoking.

"Marlowe" is of course an adaptation of the same-named literary private detective, originally by author Raymond Chandler, though I would be lying if I said I have ever read any of his work. Or any of the novels about Marlowe but by other others since his passing, but whatever, the plot is hardly the point of a picture like this. It's about the atmosphere, the tone and about seeing Liam Neeson finally get a role that is worthy of an actor of his caliber.

Oh sure, I enjoyed his films like "Honest Thief" about as much as the next fan of aging action heroes, but they hardly require much of him- he could play a potted plant and still command the screen.

Not that he has much to actually do here, but the script forces him to try to make sense of the nonsensical, which is a reprieve from his usual "dad with a gun" thing of late.

The actual plot is dense for no reason other to justify its place in the mystery/thriller genre, and as such any attempts to actually describe it would be useless: do any reader actually care what this is about? Don't they have the novels as reference? What about earlier Marlowe films? Sure this is the film version of a specific book, The Black-Eyed Blonde by Benjamin Black, but I didn't have the foggiest idea about the narrative except what the trailers try to explain. Marlowe is hired by Clare (Diane Kruger), daughter of former actress Dorothy (Jessica Lange) and a deceased oil mogul, to find her ex-lover Nico. The police say he's dead but she thinks otherwise, but why? Why does her mom care so much? Why was he found outside the club ran by Floyd Hanson (Danny Huston), and why is Lou Hendricks (Alan Cumming) looking for him as well?

So many questions, all asked to complicate things so that we the audience have to guess what's going to happen next. Sure it seems unnecessary but hey, I kept guessing incorrectly so I suppose that's something.

This leaves me in a bit of a conundrum: how many stars should I give it? Should I care that director Neil Jordan and writer William Monahan fail to do anything new with the genre? Does it matter that the dialogue sounds like a parody of actual noirs of the 40's? How about how the entire thing, the entire thing could have probably been solved had certain characters talked to each other instead of hiding secrets? I suppose not. It's not the greatest anything, but it's got Liam Neeson and a lot of other terrific talent all stealing the scenery from each other so that they can chew it. And I could watch them chew all day long.

Plane Review

I hate planes. I hate the airport, the takeoff, all of it, and whenever a movie depicts a crash or something, my body naturally tenses up. I ache knowing that there is a possibility that it could happen to me, which is about the only thing that could make flying more unpleasant. Gerard Butler's latest geezer-pleaser, the most plainly titled "Plane," contains not one but two emergency landings that I couldn't wait for the credits to roll so that I could go outside, take a deep breath and remind myself that I am not sitting in uncomfortable seats with my tray-table in the upright position.

Not to knock "Plane," which is in the grand tradition of xenophobic hostage action films like Chuck Norris' "The Delta Force," though this one is far less brazen with its tastelessness. I don't let that bother me however, as if Hollywood can depict US cities like New York as warzones filled with crime, then why not other counties? If we can make fun of ourselves, everywhere else is fair game. I'm not sure if that's the right attitude to have, but hey, that's showbusiness.

Anyway, Gerard plays Brodie Torrance, a pilot who, after an altercation with a seemingly drunk passenger, is now working at lesser airlines. It's New Years eve and he's hoping to fly to celebrate with his daughter once he finishes his trip. The flight is far from packed, which saves us the audience from having to remember so many faces, but it also allows the plot to have criminal Louis Gaspare (Mike Colter) along for the ride. None of that matters though, because they fly right into a storm and get struck by lighting, forcing them to land in Jolo. Now do I know if that region is really run by terrorists and generally "bad" people? Absolutely not, but if you bought a ticket for this kind of picture, then those are not the kind of questions you ask.

Brodie teams up with Louis to search the area to find help, leaving the passengers under the care of co-pilot Sam (Yoson An) and flight-attended Bonnie (Daniella Pineda). Violence ensues, people are captured, then escape, you know the drill. There is little variation done here with the formula but it executes its familiar narrative well, basing the mayhem in realism. Brodie isn't revealed to be some ex-military superhero, so anytime he engages with the enemy, he's left shaken at the few dead bodies he piles; even Louis, who is ex-military or something to that effect, isn't leaping from exploding buildings while tossing grenades behind him. It's all good stuff, and by grounding the action to more practical levels, we believe it.

We also get many scenes of the airline's headquarters as they navigate the politics of the accident, as Scarsdale (Tony Goldwyn) explains to Hampton (Paul Ben-Victor), CEO or president or whatever of the airline, when to make a press release and what to say in it. He also sends in an elite-team of mercenaries for a would-be rescue, but woah hold on there, that's approaching spoiler territory. This is where some of the more compelling material lies, alluding to a better script that's actually interested in the fallout that would happen in this situation, but all it actually amounts to are shots of a boardrooms full of panicked executives.

But that's OK; I'm fine with what ultimately is just a dumb action movie, because it is well shot, acted and paced.

Sick Review

I love a film that pulls a fast one on me, it is the sign of not only good filmmaking but more specifically good directing, good pacing and good acting, and Peacock's "Sick" is exactly that. It's a taut thriller, part slasher, part home-invasion, with some timely COVID pandemic flair who's climatic twist is equal parts clever and in bad-taste.

As the film opens, we see a young man struggling to find basic necessities at the local store, while getting stalking texts from a stranger. He's quickly killed, sorry if that's a spoiler, but I'm calling this scene out because it shows just how talented director John Hyams is at building suspense in a setting we're not familiar with and a character we know nothing of. It doesn't rely on the old trick of "ominous music" then scare, instead working over silence with close-ups and long-shots. The rest of the picture is no different and you sit there on your couch wishing his and everyone else's talents were involved in something not so tawdry.

Gideon Adlon plays Parker, a college student who heads out to her family's cabin in April 2020 with her friend Miri (Bethlehem Million) for quarantine. Parker's less serious about the whole coronavirus thing than Miri, having to be reminded to wear a mask, etc., but they nevertheless lounge by the lake and talk about boys. Being that I am not in school nor a girl, I can only imagine that this is what young women do, but I digress.

Nightfall hits and someone's at the house, hooded and driving a big pickup. Turns out it's Parker's non-exclusive boyfriend who's unhappy about a social media post where she's kissing another guy. He wants love but she just wants fun, or so I'm guessing, but it provides you with more backstory than your typical 80's slasher: no one here is just the generic "jock" or "nerd." They might not be fully-realized, but they're not caricatures either.

To go on further about the narrative would be a disservice, because all you need in a production like this is the plot to go along for the ride, but there is something slimy here. It's the use of the pandemic that really made me feel icky, as if it's too soon to be making light of a subject that is still killing people in the real world. It's not smart enough to be making a social statement, so it feels cheap and exploitative. 

I kept reminding myself that this is not only "just" a movie, but a horror movie. And not just any horror movie, but a slasher/home-invasion one. I should be able to make peace with its flagrant vulgarity, but my moral compass simply won't let me.

Emancipation Review

There is a lot of buzz about "Emancipation," most negative and almost all about lead Will Smith. Sure yeah, he's gotten himself into a bit of a controversy, but so has probably every other actor. What I'm getting at is, yeah, I know what he did, and no review of his subsequent project after the drama can escape it.

But as for the actual movie, it shows many powerful scenes in bloody detail about the horrors of slavery and racism during the Civil War, but it spoon-feeds these emotions timidly. Director Antione Fuqua and writer Bill Collage feel the need to show us again and again how the oppression won't break the enslaved, robbing us the audience of the rawness that this story should have. Smith's character, Peter, preaches about god to anyone who will listen, and his belief is shown to keep him alive and willing. I disagree- his belief that he is being done wrong and his will to survive should have been the reason, but alas, I am no filmmaker. An alleged god has nothing to do with racism even if the South would like to think otherwise. They were wrong, it is as simple as that.

Early on Peter is sold off, ripped from his wife (Charmaine Bingwa) and children, and forced to build railroads to transport cannons for the Confederate army. The camera lingers images of death and badness, and in these scenes we get are about as honest a look into the dark side of America as possible considering this is a commercial movie. There is a huge amount of gloss splashed atop a dirty camp, with incredible cinematography by Robert Richardson, but at the end of the day, this is still a dirty camp, one where there is probably more blood than water in that muddy Louisiana swamp.

In general this is a splendid looking film, with a desaturated, near black and white color scheme that I suppose represents how slavery wants quote black and white. Shame the film doesn't ever explore that.

Soon he escapes, and every other slave follows, scattered in all different directions. A few follow him but they soon separate so that they're more difficult to track. Their goal? Baton Rouge to join Lincoln's army, where they'd be freed men. But Fassel, a tracker played by Ben Foster, heads out into the deadly marshland to bring Peter back, or at least his disembodied head.

Foster plays the role with a casual disinterest, like a man who'd probably prefer a pipe of tobacco and nice glass of sweet tea to a life of policing racism. There's minimal development to his character but he plays a racist well, which is probably not something he really wants to hear.

But Peter's escape is hardly the end of "Emancipation," something the trailers give away: he does make it to the Union Army and joins them. The last thirty or so minutes are spent showing another form of brutality: the actual Civil War. I'm no historian and cannot claim any moment of the battle scene is accurate, or really anything else during its runtime, but they're about as riveting as any war movie I've seen.

And despite the two-star score, I recommend "Emancipation" on the importance of its subject and not by its execution. We shouldn't forget the stupid things we do as a country but we shouldn't glamorize them either, but I can't shake the feeling that all the money involved here couldn't be better spent on something other than a simplified action movie.