Film Review: Spider-Man - Brand New Day

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

It has been 10 years since we first encountered Tom Holland's Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Over the years we have watched him grow up from a "Spider-Boy" into the Spider-Man.  And this movie builds on all of that good will and familiarity to give us one of the most enjoyable Spider-Man movies.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day takes place after the events of Spider-Man: No Way Home.  To save the multiverse, everyone forgot who Peter Parker (Holland) was.  This includes his love MJ (Zendaya) and his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon).  Over the course of about five years, Peter avoids his loneliness by throwing himself into crime-fighting.  As a result he is externally loved by the people, but inside his emptiness is eating him up.  But then Peter finds himself fighting a mysterious enemy who has to power to mentally posses innocent people.  This antagonist is attacking a government organization called "Damage Control" led by Bill Metzger (Tramell Tillman), whose job it is to clean up post-superpower destruction.  The antagonist draws deeply into Peter's life just as he begins going through some complicated and violent mutations.  To help with this, he seeks out the help of Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), who has learned to suppress his Hulk mutation.  But the strain of trying to catch the antagonist and the pressure to protect those he loves may be overwhelming for him.

Now with this fantastical premise, it may sound out for me to say that I love how this story is more grounded.  What I mean by that is this is not a reality-shattering crisis like No Way Home, Avengers: Endgame, or even Thunderbolts.  People are in danger and lives are at stake, but it is localized to New York City.  Despite all of the super-powers involved, the movie does not lean on some existential threat for dramatic weight.  Instead, it has to be much more character driven: the movie pulls us in because we care about the characters.  I genuinely feel for Peter as he sits on the outside looking in.  There is a scene where he wanders into a party hosted by Ned and MJ where he has to pretend to be a stranger.  The "so-close-yet-so-far" feel of the scene breaks your heart.

These MCU Spider-Man movies have a new director in Destin Daniel Cretton.  And he is a very welcome shot in the arm to this series.  The best part of his previous MCU film, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings," was the pratical fight choreography.  You can tell whenever possible he would have the actors do live stunt fights rather than use CGI characters.  There is a something more tangible and dynamic about this.  It gives a extra visceral punch and thrill to the scenes.  That isn't to say he doesn't use the special effects effectively.  Even the simple swinging scenes are enjoyable to watch.  Very early on in the film, I told my wife that we would have to come back and see it in 3D because his use of depth and height would be something to see.  The scenes with the Hulk are the most intense since probably Age of Ultron.  But Crettton brings visual personality and depth to even the quiet scenes.  This movie has better use of shadows and physical environments than any of the previous Spider-Man movies so that the movie feels more dramatically and emotionally grounded.  Even the effect of the mental possession is done primarily as an in-camera stunt rather than special effects.

The performances are some of the best of series.  Holland clearly still has a passion for this character.  He plays the part with such pathos and intensity, really letting us feel how Peter is almost trapped by his own goodness.  He's in a prison he would not break out of even if he could.  He lets you feel how Peter is buring the candle at both ends and his outbursts of rage are scary to see.  The movie also works so well because Holland has fantastic chemistry with the entire cast.

This is never more apparent than in his scenes with Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle/The Punisher.  Their good cop/bad cop repartee gives us some of the best lines of the entire film.  They foil off of each other perfectly where their disdain for each other is matched only by their unspoken affection.  Bernthal has been amazing as Frank in everything he's done and he sparks off of Holland in just the right way so that you can't wait for them to share the screen again.  Holland's chemistry with Zendaya on Batalon has not lost a beat and in fact is helped by this last decade of groundwork that has been laid.  Batalon is still affably nerdy and when there is something horribly comfortable and familiar when he geeks out with Holland.  And you can see the subtle grown in Zendaya from teen to young adult.  There is a little more self-possession and self-confidence.  Even Ruffalo, who I've felt has been phoning in his Banner performances for the past few years, brings subtle intensity.  This is probably his best MCU performance his debut in Avengers.  

I also have to mention Sadie Sink.  I won't say who she is playing until the spoiler section below, but her performance needs to ground much of the last half of the film.  She has to play someone who projects power and intimidation while also letting us in to see her vulnerability.  She showed that she was one of the best actresses on Stranger Things, but this shows that she has the potential to be a leading woman in a franchise.

The movie is long, but it never feels over-stuffed.  I never felt the length because I wanted to spend more time with these characters.  The story has enough enjoyable twists and turns without feeling like it is trying too hard to subvert expectations.  Instead, it simply won't let Peter get away with easy answers.  And his mistakes have consequences that he has to own up to.

Thematically, I love how this movie deals with very human struggles.  Ultimately, this movie is about human connection.  No matter how altruistic Peter is, he will lose himself and his humanity without some kind of community.  I'm reminded of the wisdom of Our Lord in that He creates His Church because He knows that humans cannot flourish unless they are in community.  I also like how the film tackles self-repression and change.  As Peter starts mutating, he works very hard to suppress his new powers.  When they start manifesting, he does everything he can to put them away and keep things the way they are.  But the movie tackles the truth that repression just makes the change stronger and will fracture us inside.  The goal is not to suppress our "darker side" but to integrate our shadow towards positive ends.  And the movie wrestles with the question of whether people are good or evil and whether they can be trusted.  This is where Peter's greatest super-power is on display: his compassion.  Because of who he is, Peter as the power no only to save lives, but to redeem hearts.

I do have a few critiques of the movie.  The first is that in every scene of Frank Castle in public, he should be swarmed by cops.  Frank is mass murderer who is wanted by the police, but the movie treats him like he is just another vigilante.  My other two critiques require spoilers so be warned:

SPOILERS AHEAD

The second critique is that one of the main bad guys is so obviously a bad guy that when the twist is revealed it has no satisfaction.  I don't know if it was because how this person was set up or the obviously aloof performance, but I remember thinking very clearly that they were not subtle enough in this person's introduction.

The third critique has to do with Sink's character.  We find out half-way through the film that she is Jean Grey who we can presume will be part of the upcoming MCU X-Men movies.  And while I think that this is actually an inspired and out-of-the-box choice for an antagonist, the movie may have accidentally burned their bridges with this character.  The movie wants you to movie from antagonism to sympathy for her and Sink does most of the heavily lifting here.  But the problem is that she crosses so many lines when she is the main villain.  Mind-possessing people is such a horrible violation, like Kilgrave (David Tennant) in the MCU Jessica Jones series.  And while it shown to be a scary power, it's moral consequence is mostly ignored.  But there is one particular moment where she possesses someone and lets him get hit by a car.  I hate to sound Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, but I really hope they address this sometime in continuity and make clear that this guy lived, otherwise Jean is an outright murderer.  And she would worse than Frank Castle who only kills the guilty, she would be a murderer of innocents.

END SPOILERS

But above all, I left the movie moved and entertained.  The inner comic book geek in me thrilled at the strange cocktail of Marvel elements.  There is one moment where Spidey is dragging the Punisher away from the Hulk while Frank empties out his gun and screaming.  That shot brought me such simply delight that I turned to my wife and said, "I just got my money's worth from this movie."

Spider-Man: Brand New Day has everything that you could want in a Spider-Man film.  It has action, heart, and that special thing that makes Spider-Man stand out from all other heroes: no matter what specatcular adventure he is in, Peter Parker is and always will be one of us.

And after watching Brand New Day,  you won't be able to wait for the next adventure of Spider-Man.

Film Review: The Odyssey

  

Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Mature

Vulgarity Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey was assailed with controversy before it opened.  There was a lot of buzz about what this would ultimately be.  And if you read reviews, they are all over the place.  I've read some that say it is an absolute masterpiece.  I've read others that say that it is a travesty and desecration of Homer's original.  As with all art, you will bring your own subjective perspective to the judgment of this film.  All I can do is give you my honest assessment and analysis.

And I think this film is excellent.

It isn't perfect.  It has some flaws that are not deal-breakers, but they are real and act as spell-breakers to the enchantment of the story.

As with most Christopher Nolan films, the movie is told in a fragmented timeline.  Odysseus (Matt Damon), the king of Ithaca has been missing for many years, having not returned from the Trojan War.  Several suitors, including the noxious Antinous (Robert Pattinson), abuse the hospitality of Queen Penelope (Anne Hathaway) while waiting for her to choose a husband.  They plot to supplant her young son Telemachus (Tom Holland), who eventually seeks out Menelaus (Jon Bernthal) for news of his father.  Meanwhile, Odysseus is lost in a daze on an island with Calypso (Charlize Theron) who slowly revives his memory about the fall of Troy and the many trials he has endured in order to get home.

Nolan has brought to the screen a bold and epic vision that seeks to be as spectacular as it is deep.  Nolan also wrote the screenplay and has attempted to adapt this ancient classic for a modern audience.  His attempt to do this is a mixed bag and where the movie stumbles the most.

The biggest problem is the distraction caused by the modern style.  He made the choice for the cast to do American accents and to use modern American diction.  Telemachus says things like, "My dad is coming home."  When listening to the dialogue it is like hearing Mozart through an untuned instrument.  Perhaps this is an unfair critique, but it is similar to the feeling I get when hearing Shakespeare with an American accent.  I've only heard three American actors who speak Shakespearean lines without feeling off to me (Charlton Heston, Denzel Washington, and strangely Billy Crystal).  For everyone else, it is jarring and pushes me back to the real world rather than drawing me in.  It is the same with The Odyssey.  

What helped me with this was to think of this production like live theater.  There is an artificiality to live theater that the audience accepts.  We are not under the illusions that the sets are really towns and castles.  We invest our imagination into a theatrical production in a different way than when we suspend disbelief in a movie.  But if we use the theatrical imagination and apply it to this movie, it helps not only with the language but other incongruities.  A lot of people online made hay about Lupita Nyong'o being cast as Helen of Troy.  But I found Bernthal's Menelaus more distracting as he played him very much like a weary Frank Castle from modern New York than an ancient Greek monarch.  But when I embraced the movie in the way I was able to enjoy the movie more.  However, the irony was not lost on me regarding this.  Nolan goes out of his way to make everything feel as tangibly real as possible, filming on real location and using as little CGI as possible.  But in order to allow the spell to work, you have to create an artificiality in your mind that Nolan avoids everywhere else.

Another controversy is that it takes the original story and it focuses on more modern virtues and issues than are found in Homer's story.  At the heart of the movie, Odysseus deals with the guilt of his part in the destruction of Troy and is struggling between his desire to come home and his sense of unworthiness to do so.  This has nothing to do with the original.  As far as I remember, Homer's Odysseus feels no guilt about Troy.  In fact, he speaks plainly about how on the way home he and his men raided villages, killed all the innocent men, took the women, and plundered the supplies.  This is not presented with any guilt or angst.  It was just what Odysseus did.  

I have no real problem with Nolan changing this.  I would have trouble with engaging with a story Odysseus blithely leading a marauding band of mudering rapists along the coasts without any moral quandary.  To be sure, there are scenes where Odysseus and his crew plunder innocent villages, but even though it is done in the context of necessity, Nolan lets the immorality of this play out in the characters.  However there are a few times when this adaptation to modern sensibilities goes a little out of balance and it feels like he wants to make a commentary about social-political topics of today.

Having said all of this, Nolan has created a truly epic film.  By the end of the movie, you feel like you have gone on a journey.  Not enough films today feel that way.  He takes you to dangerous and enchanting landscapes, that are all the more dangerous because of their enchantments.  But more than anything, he takes you on Odysseus' journey of inner discover.  Each horrific encounter reveals something about his character, both good and bad, that moves him forward.  We see his wrath in the scene with the Cyclops (Bill Irwin), his greed to hear the siren song, and his defiance against the gods in the face of prophecy.  But we also see his courage, his cleverness, his guilt, and eventually his faith.  By the time he gets to the end of his journey, he has suffered much inwardly and outwardly that the resolution comes to a satisfying payoff.

At the thematic heart of the movie is something called "Zeus' Law."  It is basically the Judeo/Christian "Golden Rule" where you show hospitality to strangers.  The suitors abuse this hospitality by feasting off of Penelope's wealth for years.  Odysseus and his men abuse this when the raid villages in their journey.  But this main focus of this is Odysseus' Trojan Horse.  I will not get into all of the details, but Nolan is meditating on the social fabric/social contract of a society.  Once the foundational understanding of human relationships is lost, then nothing can hold.  As a theology teacher, one of my main focuses for the year is reminding my students that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God.  Holding to this principle sets the foundation of all human rights, our civil laws, and our interpersonal relationships.  In today's society, the further we move away from that principle the more we fall into darkness.  Nolan is making a similar point in The Odyssey.  Once we break what is sacred to the world, the world begins to fall apart.  

The movie also wrestles with big ideas like fate vs. free will, pragmatism vs. principle, control vs. faith.  One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Athena (Zendaya) asks Odysseus "When you see your men die, do see chance or consequence?"  This gets at the heart of the ancient Greek dilema of fate.  Odysseus defies the gods because they say that his men are doomed to die, so he does his best to save them.  But they don't listen and engage in the activity that incurs the wrath of the gods.  So is it the gods fault because they put them in the situation where they sinned or is it the consequence of their sinfulness.  The ancient Greeks did not have a strong understanding of free will, but we moderns do.  Part of the journey for Odysseus is coming to accept that his choices were his own and he cannot blame them on anyone else.  In accepting responsibility, he has to place himself under the gods as an act of faith.

In terms of the visuals, Nolan does such an amazing job.  As mentioned before, his desire to film at real, atmospheric locations brings a tangibility to the movie.  He takes you into the chaos of war, the grandeur of sailing, and the awe of nature.  His use of light and shadow are particularly powerful in the cave of the Cyclops.  The scene with Circe (Samantha Morton) is literally horrifying.  Most of Nolan's movies have an emotional stoicism, but here it fits harmoniously with the harsh life of Ancient Greece.  The entire sequence of the sacking of Troy is both exhilarating and devastating.  You feel the sweaty desperation of the ben hiding in the horse, the rising tide of violence in the blood, and then the horror at the devestation unleashed.

Damon is great as Odysseus.  He has to carry the weight of the film.  And his presence is felt even when he is not on screen.  He lets you feel the weight he carries without ever being too showy, but bears with appropriate restraint.  Hathaway matches this energy with her Penelope with her love mixed with resentment at his absence.  I've heard some people not like Holland's performance, but he played the roll of the callow youth who has to grow into a man.  As jarring as Berthnal's sensibility is, his performance and Nyong'o bring charisma and talent to the screen.  I loved John Leguizamo's irascible Eumaeus who struggles to hold onto hope as his world slips away from him.  Himesh Patel also does a good job as Eurylochus, the staunch sidekick who slowly loses faith in his leader.  The two performances that I did not enjoy were Pattinson and Eliot Page.  I've read a number of reviews that praised Pattinson for his smarmy, slimy performance.  But his performance has the same problem as Page's: they lack believability.  Neither disappear into their roles being intentionally mannered and artificial.

Since seeing the movie, not only have the visuals been sticking with me, but I have been thinking about it quite a bit.  It is rare that a movie is both this stunning and this provocative.  

But I would expect nothing less of an Odyssey from Christopher Nolan.

Film Review: Toy Story 5

 

Sexuality/Nudity No Objection

Violence No Objection

Vulgarity No Objection

Anti-Catholic Philosophy No Objection

Most people agree that Toy Story 3 was the perfect ending to the series and they are not wrong.  This latest entry in the series cannot top that fantastic conclusion. 

But it is better than Toy Story 4.

Toy Story 5 is once again centered on the toys living with Bonnie (Scarlett Spears).  Her main toy is Jessie (Joan Cusack) in the same way that Woody (Tom Hanks) was with Andy.  However, with more and more children becoming engrossed in technology, she has few playmates and friends.  So Bonnie's parents (Jay Hernandez and Lori Alan) buy here Lilypad (Greta Lee), a tablet so that she can connect with others her age.  But as she begins to fall down that rabbit hole, Lily conflicts with Jessie and the other toys.  Through a series of plot contrivances, Jessie gets separated from Bonnie and it is up to Woody and Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) to mount a rescue.

Oh, and there is an army of Buzz Lightyears that crash on a desert island trying to make their way to star command.

The first thing that you should know about this movie is that it is Jessie's movie.  Woody and Buzz are supporting characters to her character arc.  In the context of this point in the series, it makes sense.  Bonnie being a girl would naturally gravitate to Jessie as her main toy.  It is interesting that the writers/directors Andrew Stanton and McKenna Harris acknowledge that there are some natural differences between boys and girls reflected in the way they play.  Like Andy, Bonnie has heroes and villains and danger.  But unlike Andy, Bonnie's scenarios take place and weddings, balls, and honeymoons.  Also, Jessie would understand the feminine perspective of Bonnie's lonliness in a way that Woody and Buzz would not.  And in this way, the movie explores the lonilness of girls that I don't think it could with the original trilogy.

Another sad thing is that most of the original supporting characters are reduced to glorified cameos.  I know a number of the original voice actors have died, but it is still disappointing to not have them be a bigger part of the adventure.  We are introduced to some obsolete tech toys like Smarty Pants (Conan O'Brien), a toy that helps potty train kids.  And while they add some interesting dynamics, the others are missed.

The movie does two things very well.  The first is that it really gets the emotional beats right.  There is something very honest about Bonnie's pain and isolation.  I have seen this happen, where children who just want friends are too shy and isolated to feel like they fit in.  And often they either retreat further into themselves or they abandon who they are in order to fit in.  When Bonnie goes to a sleepover and proudly shows off Jessie, one of the girls asks in a tone dripping with disgust and judgment, "You still play with toys?"  And the look on Bonnie's face speaks volumes in a way that is crushing.  The emotional journey for Jessie is also powerful.  This movie helps resolve the trauma that we saw her endure when she was abandoned by her first owner, Emily.  Jessie has a kind of existential crisis regarding if her life has any meaning since she is doomed to be discarded at the end of her owner's childhood.

The second thing that the movie does really well is capture the change that technology, particularly screens, have brought to childhood.  The animation captures it like a spell is being cast on the children without being too over-the-top.  There is one moment towards the end where the toys run through a stranger's house but no on notices because everyone, including parents and children) are on some type of screen.  The constant dopamine hit creates a tangible addiction that you can see in Bonnie.  There is a fantastic scene shows Smarty Pants and the other tech toys the difference between being games and actually playing.  And that's what kids do: they vicariously give life to their toys.

The two big negatives that come through this tech are the killing of imagination and the problem of bullying.  Bonnie and another girl named Blaze (Mykal-Michelle Harris) have stronger imaginations because they are not constantly glued to the screen.  They are not passive receivers of entertainment.  They have to produce the entertainment to be lived out in their toys.  This may seem like a small thing, but playing with toys forces you to produce rather than receive; to make rather than consume.  Screens cause this imaginitave muscle to atrophy.  In regards to bullying, social media has made it unavoidable.  Before Bonnie gets Lilypad, she is isolated from others because she is missing out.  But once she is on social media, she is subject to mockery in a way that she is not expecting.  In one scene she is happily heading to a destination in the car when she sees girls in her social media group start dogpiling on her.  Her mom is completely baffled as to why Bonnie has had such a horrible mood swing, but it was because she was attacked out of nowhere by people who now have constant access to her via Lilypad.

But I have to give the movie credit in that it does not take a luddite view of technology.  While it heavily focuses on all of the dangers, Lily is not a villain the same way that Stinky Pete or Lotso were in previous films.  Lily genuinely wants what is best for Bonnie, and the movie is smart enough to realize that there is a place for technological advancements.  It just needs to be tempered with wisdom.  This wisdom is lacking in Bonnie's parents who simply unleash this world of tech onto Bonnie without any real guidance or supervision.  The message is clear: parents need to walk with their children regarding tech, not throw them into the deep end and let them drown.

The movie also also has some surprising things to say about natural law without meaning to.  In the Toy Story universe, toys are meant to be played with and to make a child happy.  For the most part, toys who reject this point of view are unhappy (again see Stinky Pete and Lotso).  The sadness in the toy comes from no longer playing with their child when they grow up.  But this joy cannot help but be present when real play occurs, as with Smarty Pants.  There is a wonderful scene where the army of Buzz Lightyears are marching through the woods and one of them is picked up by a family.  These Buzzes don't yet realize that they are toys and mount a rescue mission to rescue their fellow Buzz.  But later when they see their fellow Buzz being held and loved by a child, their eyes fill with awe and longing.  The "captured" Buzz sees them and smiles contendedly because he has found his happiness.

This captures so well the principles of natural law.  We are all made with an end or a purpose and our happiness consists in living in accord with that end.  This is true even if we are unaware of what our purpose is.  Smarty Pants and the Buzzes do not know what real play and childhood affection are.  But once they receive them, they are filled with happiness.  It is the same way with us human beings.  Even if we don't know God, we are made to be filled with the love of God and others.  When we find this, we find our happiness.

I was also pleasantly surprised that this movie showed traditional male/female romance as an important theme.  Buzz is in love with Jessie and wants to marry her.  Leaving aside the implications of how toys can make vows of fidelity, it presents this desire for lifelong married commitment as natural and beautiful.  This could be a reflection of how Bonnie plays with them, but it is refreshingly different from more recent Disney offerings.

And I should also say that the movie is a great deal of fun.  Message movies are usually not very good, so Stanton and McKenna understand that their first job is to make the movie fun.  While the story of the rogue Buzzes don't connect up to the main story for a while, they are some of the most enjoyable and entertaining sequences.  Watching Buzz and Woody bicker like old buddies has a familiar comfort to it, like (to paraphrase CS Lewis) putting on an old, comfortable pair of slippers.  The movie is also beautifully rendered with wonderful use of color and lighting.

This movie is a big improvement on Toy Story 4, which was a bit unfocused and didn't have a strong theme.  While the films in the original trilogy are still better, Toy Story 5 is a worth successor and worth your time.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to see my three favorite toys from my childhood who are sitting on a shelf in my family room and I am going to take a moment to recall all of the adventures we used to have when I was young.

Film Review: Supergirl (2026)

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

I think of the first three X-Men movies, the third one is the best.

I believe that Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is an underrated masterpiece.

I am letting you know this upfront because based on the response from critics and the box office, Supergirl is a bomb.

But I disagree.

I think Supergirl is a very good movie, one that I enjoyed despite its flaws.  So I acknowledge that I am in the vast minority when it comes to this film.  My first two statements were for you, dear reader, so that you have a barometer for my taste in super hero films.

I don't mean to be a contrarian.  I was prepared to dislike this movie, but I found it way more charming than most people.

Supergirl is a sequel spin off to last year's Superman.  Supergirl/Kara (Milly Alcock) is different than her cousin Superman (David Corenswet).  Unlike Superman who has no memory of life before Earth, Kara lived for several years after the destruction of Krypton in a floating city of Argo.  For reasons that are explained throughout the film, she is forced to flee with only her dog Krypto.  Because of this, she does not feel at home on Earth and engages in self-destructive behavior.  For her 23rd birthday, she travels to a planet with a red sun so that she can lose her powers and get drunk and party.  It is there that she meets Ruthye (Eve Ridley), whose parents were killed by the leader of a group called the Brigands named Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts).  Ruthye is seeking revenge against Krem.  Kara does not want to get involved, but unfortunately crosses paths with Krem who poisons Krypto.  So Kara only has three days to find Krem and get the antidote.  Along the way they encounter dangers like Lobo (Jason Momoa), who is basically "Space Wolverine,"and other perils along the way.

Many people have criticized Ana Nogueira's script, but it has no more contrivances than most super-hero fare.  The story does go out of its way to seem rebellious in a very immature way.  The opening shot has Krypto urinating on a picture of Superman.  Speaking of urine, the movie also shows Kara sitting on a toilet and peeing.  Things like this seem like super-cheap ways of trying to give Kara some edge.  The set up to how Ruthye's family gets killed is also fairly stupid, but not a deal-breaker.  

The biggest deficit of this movie is that the villain is incredibly boring and bland.  He is basically a generic Russian mobster from a John Wick film but an alien.  He has no real personality to speak of or character.  He is really just there to facilitate Kara's character arc.  This isn't necessarily a knock on Schoenaerts' performance, since he is given very little to work with here.  If the screenwriter thinks that the villain isn't that interesting, why should we.  Contrast that with Lobo, who is really not on screen very much, but steals every scene.  DC has an incredibly stable of cosmic villains to choose from and they chose probably the most boring choice of them all.

Having said that, the movie is good in spite of these flaws.  The success or failure really comes down to whether or not you connect to Kara.  This is a challenge in the beginning, because the movie does not explain to you why she behaves like an irresponsible jerk. The movie has to let that story unfold.  When she first meets Ruthye, she continually talks herself out of helping.  But when Ruthye gets accosted and robbed by the patrons of the bar, Kara cannot help herself by assist.  This, rather than her conflict with Krem, is her main struggle: against herself.  She wants to lose herself in the oblivion of pleasure and self-pity, but her more noble nature nags at her conscience.  This is a movie about going from recklessness to responsibility.

My brother-in-law upon seeing the trailers called this movie Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 4.  And there is some good insight here.  Director Craig Gillespie's approach to alien cultures is very similar to how James Gunn approached them in GOTG: every culture was an analog to human culture.  This is not an uncommon approach, but Gunn did it in a way where the exotic was looked at as mundane in context and Gillespie does the same.  This isn't bad, but it feels very familiar.

One of the strengths of the script is that it knows how to power-scale Kara.  A struggle that many writers have with Superman is that he is so powerful that they cannot find an adequate challenge.  The script for Supergirl is able to avoid this problem by placing Kara into situations (e.g. the planet with the red sun) that puts her and Ruthye in real peril.  While some have criticized these as easy contrivances, I thought that they made sense in context.

I have seen a little bit of Alcock in the series House of the Dragon, but I didn't see a lot that impressed me.  However, I really liked her performance as Kara.  While many viewers found her cockiness off-putting, I saw it as her armor.  She has created a wall of stone around her heart because she has been hurt too much in the past.  I thought that Alcock was able to play the part well of the reluctant anti-hero who slowly comes to true heroism.  You can see why she avoids the responsibility because if she makes the wrong call or isn't good enough, people die.  Alcock lets this weight slowly sink onto her shoulders and the pressure forms her into something more heroic.

Ridley is an excellent balance for Alcock.  She is overly serious and precocious to counteract the world-weary protagonist.  She plays the part of the scared, naive, but determined true-believer.  Her relationship with Kara was what I was hoping would be found between Kamala Kahn and Carol Danvers in The Marvels.  Ridley has to go through various stages of admiration and disappointment with Kara as the layers are slowly peeled back.  Momoa seems to be having a grand ole time chewing the scenery and throwing out snarky comments in every scene.  Corenswet has a small, but important role here acting as a foil to everything that Kara is and standing there for every Kara could be.  He brings that same earnest virtue he did in his own movie.

I thought that Gillespie did a good job of making the action sequences interesting and exciting.  As I mentioned earlier, they script makes sure to put Kara in real peril and because of this the stakes are higher.  I found the scenes where she and/or Lobo let loose on the bad guys to be incredibly enjoyable sequences.  

There is some controversy about the ending, which I will not spoil here.  Kara makes a choice that many could say contradicts the entire heroic theme of the movie.  And I think there is room for debate.  In fact, I think that was the point.  Kara is placed in a situation the choice is not so much whether the action is right or wrong or whether you can take on someone else's sin for them.  It obvious answer to this question from a Catholic perspective is "no."  But the movie does a good job of placing you in Kara's shoes and making you at least see the dilemma that she is in.  I think the movie is fairly ambivalent regarding the morality of that choice and leaves it open to interpretation for the audience.

Last year's Superman was about an ideal hero trying to survive in a fallen world.  

Supergirl is about a fallen hero trying to strive back to the ideal.

I think both films have a lot to offer.

Film Review: Disclosure Day

 

Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

I have said it before and I will say it again: Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of all time.  

But that doesn't mean that every movie he makes is good.

And that is the case with Disclosure Day.

The movie centers around two main characters.  The movie begins with Daniel Kellner (Josh O'Connor), a computer specialist who has stolen something valuable from a shady organization led by Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), who has kidnapped Daniel's girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson).  This leads to a chase through the country where Daniel constantly calls his leader Hugo (Colman Domingo) for instructions to stay one step ahead.  Meanwhile, TV weatherwoman Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) is having breakfast with her boyfriend Jackson (Wyatt Russell) when a cardinal flies into their apartment.  After that, she begins to display clairvoiant powers and is also pursued by Scanlon's people.  Eventually the two stories converge as it leads to a world-changing event.

On paper, this sounds like the makings of a fascinating film.  But the movie just falls short.  It wants to explore big ideas, but it does it in such a shallow way that it doesn't work.

The action of the script makes almost no sense.  Characters say and do things that follow no real logical reasoning, but are done simply to move the story forward.  It feels almost like Spielberg wanted to talk about the big themes and the plot was a kind of afterthought, a nuisance that had to be dealt with in order to talk about his "big ideas."  But that is the core problem of the film.

Even as a devout Christian, I usually detest Christian movies.  It is not because I disagree with the themes or content.  The problem is that they aren't really movies; they are sermons dressed up like they are narratives.  It is absolutely true that your movie's theme is ultimately what your story is about.  But if you preach your theme rather than embed it into the plot, then you've compromised your art.  And that is exactly what Spielberg does here with Disclosure Day.  It is a Christian movie, except that you should replace Christ with aliens.

It is difficult to discuss the movie's shortcomings without getting into spoiler territory, but I will do my best to be as vague as possible.  But be warned:

SPOILERS AHEAD.

The movie is ultimately about the disclosure to the world that aliens exist.  Spielberg wants this movie to be a mediation on what this kind of revelation would do to the world.  But he builds the entire story to this revelation and he makes the reaction so incredibly uninteresting.

He wants to explore what would happen to people with religious faith if they found out that aliens were real.  We find out early on that Jane used to be a novice religious sister.  Now before I move on, I have to voice something which is a horrible pet peeve of mine.  It explicitly states in the movie that Daniel and Jane are engaging in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, and yet Jane is set up to be the main voice of the religious perspective.  It reminds me of the movie Contact, where the main Christian antagonist has sex with the protagonist and is lying in bed with her afterwards talking about his faith in God.  I find this so distasteful and a slap in the face to real-life Christians.  To be sure, we are all sinners and we all fall short.  My objection is not that movies like this depict believers committing sin.  My problem is that it depicts believers embracing sin as a fully integrated into their lives and then presenting that as the example of Christian living.  But I digress.

Anyway, Jane is supposed to be the voice of the Christian, but her theology is so shallow that it is almost laughable.  She says that disclosing the aliens would be horrible because it would telling people who believe in God that there are other "Supreme Beings."  Again, I don't mean to theologically nitpick, but what the hell does this even mean?  Even in the realm of science fiction, this isn't really an issue. I never saw an episode where Kirk felt the need to worship Spock.  Just because a species is technologically more advanced than we are, it does not therefore make them "Supreme Beings."  God is the Supreme Being because He is That Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived.  Not a single one of the aliens presented in this movie comes anywhere close to that.  What Christian would think this way outside of this script?  To be fair, her former superior Sister Maura (Elizabeth Marvel) has a more mature take on Christianity and aliens, but it feels too little too late.

Because of this, Jane is able to be swayed by the influence of Scanlon's mind control device.  From this point on, she is nothing but a problem and adds nothing really to the story.  Again, this parallel to Christian movies is strong: because she lacks faith in the aliens, she is subject to demonic influence.  In fact, the entire movie is like that.  Daniel constantly contacts Hugo begging to be given shelter and protection, but is repeatedly told that it isn't the right time.  In other words, he has to have faith that the aliens know what they are doing.  

Whenever the story writes itself into a corner, a miracle occurs.  That is not an exaggeration.  Margaret's new powers give her prophetic visions and then channels the dead loved ones of the villains to save the day.  In another example of the Christian illteracy of the story, when Margaret ends up with the alien-friendly group, one of them genuflects in front of her and does the sign of the cross.  She then shouts, "I will not be anyone's religion!"  Again, what Christian would worship the creature rather than the Creator?  And if the point is that the worshipper is not a Christian because they are believing in the aliens, then why do the SIGN OF THE CROSS?

If I wanted to be really mean to the movie, I could make a long list of all the contrivances and inanities in the plot, all the way down to the fact that Jane ends up saving the day by literally just walking past the bad guys and handing something to Margaret.  It's like the movie forgot that she was being chased by the very people that are surrounding Margaret to prevent her from disclosing the aliens.

There are only a few things that prevent this movie from devolving into a total disaster.  The first is that when Spielberg actually decides to entertain rather than lecture, the movie does well.  There is an incredibly chase scene involving a train that feels like vintage Spielberg.  There is also a moment where Margaret turns the good guys invisible that is filmed with tension, humor, and fun in the way Spielberg could do in his Indiana Jones movies.

The other things is that the performances are generally good.  O'Connor plays the in-over-his-head everyman very well.  Blunt does a good job of showing the internal revolution in her mind as it plays out in the world around her.  Firth is decent as the bad guy, but there isn't a lot for him to work with. The same thing is true of Domingo, who is there to be a calm center of faith in the film.  He feels like a Spielberg self-insert, who is literally directing the events of movie.

Also, Spielberg had the chance to do the funniest things in the world, but chose not to.  At the end of the movie, we finally have one of the aliens revealed.  At first he is obscured by a covering, but then we see him fully.  If that alien turned out to be ET, I would have laughed so hard and that would have been worth the price of admission.  But no, the alien is as generic as can be.  And the resolution of the struggle against the antagonist is so odd, it is like nothing I have ever seen in a movie.  I literally turned to my wife in the theater and said, "That's it?"

Steven Spielberg decided to de-emphasize storytelling in order to emphasize his theme.  Because he does this, he fails at both.

Film Review: Masters of the Universe (2026)

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

Have you ever had a friend who tries to tell the group a joke that he thinks is really funny, but the joke bombs?  And then to make up for it, that same friend keeps telling jokes, hoping one of them will land, but things get more and more awkward?

That is the biggest problem with Masters of the Universe

The movie is based on the famous cartoon and toyline.  Prince Adam (Nicholas Galitzine) has been sent to live in safety on Earth after the kingdom of his father Randor (James Purefoy) is conquered by the evil Skeletor (Jared Leto).  Adam has been living on Earth for a decade searching for the Sword of Power, which he lost on the journey.  Everyone thinks he is crazy.  But then his childhood friend Teela (Camila Mendes), daughter of the head of the King's Guard Duncan/Man-at-Arms (Idris Elba), comes to Earth to bring Adam back to Eternia.  All the while they are pursued by Skeletor's forces until Adam can release the power of the sword and become the hero of Eternia: He-Man.

As an action/adventure movie, Masters of the Universe is actually pretty good.  The fight scenes are fun to watch with big, bright, bold heroes versus villains.  While Eternia feels a little too filled with CGI, the production design on it is very good and nice to look at.  The story isn't trying to re-invent the wheel.  It is a by-the-numbers hero's journey.  And perhaps this is part of being a Gen-Xer, but I couldn't help but get excited when I recognized a character from my childhood come onto the big screen like they just stepped out of my memory.  I particularly like how they didn't really compromise the over-the-top style of the characters, but tried to incorporate as much of their wild appearances as possible.

The performances also generally good.  Galitzine is perfectly likeble as Adam and he becomes our POV character for the entire movie.  In the cartoon, He-Man is the actual person and Adam is a persona, but in the movie it is vice-versa.  Mendes has good chemistry with him and the two work off well against each other without her trying to overshadow or girlboss him.  Elba always brings charisma and gravitas to everything he does.  Even Leto does a good job as Skeletor, so much so that I would not have known that it was him if he wasn't credited (granted his face is all CGI, but the voice performance is unrecognizable).  The only performance that is off is Alison Brie as Evil-Lyn.  I take no pleasure in this, because Brie is a very talented comedic and dramatic actress.  But she plays Evil-Lyn like she's doing an SNL parody.  But that performance is not the big problem with the movie.

The big problem is the script.

The movie wants to be funnier than it is.

Masters of the Universe is filmed like an action/comedy.  To be clear, this is not like a typical Marvel movie where it is an action movie with a lot of humor.  No, this movie is filmed like an action movie that is also built for laughs like Dragnet or 21 Jump Street.  Nearly every single scene is written and directed with comedic intent.  Nearly every scene ends with a punchline.  I came to this realization in a scene where He-Man is awkwardly fighting Trap Jaw (Sam C. Wilson) on a bridge.  Every time He-Man got injured, it would cut to a reaction shot of Teela or Duncan winces for comedic effect as if to say "That's gotta hurt!"   In fact, in the entire film there may be only one or two scenes that allow actual heartfelt emotion to breathe, but then it quickly backs off the more serious tone.  

And that isn't to say that I am criticizing this movie because it chose to be comedic, like Masters of the Universe is some sacred story that cannot be mocked.  I am perfectly fine with this approach.  My problem is that the jokes are nearly as funny as they should be.

Humor is horribly subjective.  If the jokes land it can elevate the material.  I mentioned in my Mortal Kombat II review that every scene with Kano made me laugh out loud.  The humor of the film helped overcome most of its flaws to make me remember it fondly.  Masters of the Universe was a movie filled with jokes that only made me laugh a handful of time.  If the movie had less jokes or if the more of the jokes landed, this movie would score higher with me.  In fact, I think if you removed a lot of jokes, it would not only help the joke-to-laugh ratio, but it would cut down its 140 minute run time.  And this could be done easily.  There is one scene where the heroes are doing a cool slow motion walk through smoke set to Queen's "Princes of the Universe."  You could easily cut from this to the subsequent fight scene.  But the movie instead decided to insert a sight gag that went on too long without a strong payoff.

This isn't to say the script lacks cleverness.  One of the smartest thing the script does is explain the silly names of the heroes and villains as the young child Adam not knowing their real names and so coming up with nicknames like "Fisto" and "Ram Man."  

The movie also has some nice things to say about heroism, manhood, and violence.  Adam as a child feels like he is not able to live up to his father's expectations because he is not a strong warrior.  This lingers throughout the entire movie, so much so that He-Man becomes the fulfillment of this primal, boyish desire for strength.  But the movie explores this a little deeper.  This isn't an eschewing of traditional masculinity, but an examination of it.  Duncan at one points says to Adam, "When war breaks out, it's not the poets that step up.  It's the man with the muscle.  He's not doing it for glory. He's doing it so his children can see another morning.  That is a man, as far as I can tell.  He stands up when he is needed."  I thought that this was a fantastic encapsulation of the masculine genius.  As summed up in the movie Camelot: "Not 'might is right," but "might for right!'"  The culminates in the final confrontation with Skeletor where He-Man tries to find a non-violent solution, but understands that sometimes someone must stand fight until the end.

Despite the flaws, I enjoyed Masters of the Universe.  I only wish it didn't try so hard to be funny.  There is so much potential for this franchise going forward as long as they stop focusing on jokes and instead concentrate of sci-fi action.  It's in the latter where this movie has the power.

Film Review: Pressure

 

 

Sexuality/Nudity No Objection

Violence Mature

Vulgarity Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

This movie succeedes in taking something that is normally thought of as trivial into something fascinating and pivotal.

Pressure centers around the D-Day invasion.  James Stagg (Andrew Scott) is a British officer who is also the top meteorologist in his field.  He has been recommended to General Dwight Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) to advise about the weather for the planned D-Day invasion.  The window to invade is very narrow and if Stagg makes the wrong call it could mean the death of thousands at best or the loss of the war at worst.  To make things more difficult, one of his fellow meteorologists Irving Krick (Chris Messina) continually conflicts with Stagg's methods and predictions.  This leaves Eisenhower the unenviable task of deciding whom to listen to: does he go with his hopes or his fears?  As the deadline approaches the pressure (pun intended) mounts.

What this movie does so well is that it takes something as mundane as the weather and makes it absolutely fascinating.  The movie addresses this when Eisenhower's assistant (and implied mistress) Kay Summersby (Kerry Condon) says to Stagg that the weather is boring, he replies, "How can the weather be boring? It feeds us. The weather can destroy us. It controls our daily life. I don't think that's boring."  It is incumbent on the movie to make us care, not just tell us to care.  Movies like The Devil Wears Prada take something uninteresting to me like fashion and make me fascinated by it.  Movies like The Bikeriders tell me that I should care about a motorcycle club, but never really give me a reason why.  Pressure is more like the former than the latter.  Through Stagg, we are brought into the intricacies and complexities of meteorology in a way that doesn't feel condescending but also is understandable.

The story originated as a stage play and it has that confined feeling to it.  Almost the entire movie takes place in the Allied Command Center.  The movie is a drama about human beings being pushed to make an impossible decision on something as unpredictable as the weather.  There are no certaintites except that the wrong choice is disaster.  At one point someone asks Stagg if he is certain about his prediction and his says firmly that he is not because nature is not completely predictable.  

One of the things that makes this movie so interesting is that there are no villains in this movie.  While Krick disagrees with Stagg, he does so because he thinks he is right and wants what is best for the war.  He is just as confident and good-willed as Stagg.  General Montgomery (Damian Lewis) pushes Stagg to be less pessimistic in his predictions, but the general does so because he truly believes that delay would be disaster for the war.  While characters are hampered by ego and pride, all of the people who are fighting in the room are doing so because they genuinely want the best result and are all on the same side.  This is part of what makes the tension so wonderfully terrible is this horrible feeling that Stagg could be wrong and everyone else could be right.  Could Stagg, in fact, be the secret antagonist?  This is the lingering question for Eisenhower and the audience.

The performances are good all around.  Scott plays Stagg very much like Benedict Cumberbatch did for Alan Turring in The Imitation Game: he is the aloof genius who rubs people the wrong way because he thinks being right is the only thing that matters.  Fraser plays Eisenhower as a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders.  Even though Stagg makes the prediction, it is ultimately Eisenhower's call.  Fraser plays him as a man who projects authority, even sometimes a bullying nature in public, but behind closed doors the doubts naw at him.  In those quiet moments, Fraser lets us see worry in his eyes.  Condon does a good job of trying to bring out the humanity in bother Stagg and Eisenhower in a way that is strong without losing her femininity.  Messina plays the Krick with a lot of bravado, but is able to add depths as the movie goes on.  Lewis plays Montgomery as fairly flat, but there isn't much for him to work with in the script so he does the best that he can.

Director Anthony Maras does a good job of taking this claustrophobic setting and making you feel the larger picture in the world.  There are occasional shots of the D-Day invasion and preparation, but ultimately, he needs you to feel the world outside without showing it to you much.  And he does this very well.  He understands that by focusing on the emotional tension of the characters that we can feel the how desperate the world situation is.

There is a small moment that could be seen as a slight dig at Christianity, but it is so subtle that I'm not sure that it counts.  There is a moment when most of the characters are praying in chapel on Sunday but Stagg only looks at them from the outside.  And since he is our point-of-view character, we see alienation from these outward displays of faith.  But like I said, it is so subtle that this could simply be in my mind as a viewer.  Also, the implication of the affair between the married Eisenhower and Summersby is subtle, but enough to make me uncomfortable in the fact that no one seems to have a problem with the morality of it.

Despite these small issues, the movie achieves its objective in drawing us in.  Stagg himself goes through an arc where he learns to rely on others and comes to respect those around him.  And in the same way, you as an audience member come to respect all of the men and women who worked so hard and chanced so much to stop the greatest war the world has seen.

Film Review: The Breadwinner

 

Sexuality/Nudity No Objection

Violence No Objection

Vulgarity No Objection

Anti-Catholic Philosophy No Objection

The simplest review for this movie is that if you like Nate Bargatzee's stand-up comedy, then you will enjoy this movie.  It is a safe, inoffensive, family-friendly remake of Mr. Mom.

The Breadwinner stars Bargatzee as Nate Willcox, a top salesman at a local Toyota dealership.  He is married to his homemaker wife Katie (Mandy Moore), who has invented a family-organizing device called the "Starminder," that she gets to pitch on the show Shark Tank.  During that appearance, she is able to get funding for her company if Nate agrees to take a break from his job to become a stay-at-home dad.  

Hilarity ensues.

As you can see, the premise is very simple, almost thread-bare.  It falls victim to the same plotting issues that movies by other stand-up comedians have.  Joy Koy's Easter Sunday, Bill Burr's Old Dads, and this movie basically try and shoe-horn the stand-up comedy bits into a unified plot.  The problem is that most stand-up sets are just a series of loosly related anecdotes with no real story arc.  Fans of Bargatzee's work will recognize some of his bits about horses sleeping and other little tidbits.  But the trick is to find a way to make it all work into a coherent story.  This is not always successful.

What holds the movie together is Bargatze's humor.  There are a lot of pieces-parts of this movie that work very well and had me laughing out.  Good comedy works because it touches on some truth.  And Bargatzee the silliness and strangeness of family life in modern America.  Anyone who has children who are in junior-high and grade school will find a lot relatability to the struggles of the characters.  

He is not a very seasoned actor.  He wisely only plays a version of his stage persona and does not try to push his acting range too much.  Because of this, you feel like you are hanging out with an old, funny friend.  There is a familiarity that exudes from Bargatze that makes the scenes flow together well.  Even if all the jokes don't land, Bargatze engenders good will from the audience.  And to be fair to him, a lot of the jokes land well, especially in the first act.  The bit when they are on Shark Tank is one of the best parts of the movie because it uses all the tropes of the show to maximize the jokes.  But as with a lot of comedies, the third act drags a bit.

Moore is perfect in her role as Katie.  She is clearly smarter and more capable than Nate, but there is no sense of resentment or superiority in her.  She loves her family and loves being a mom, but she pursues this business more for the good of the family than herself.  Moore is able to project both the strength of the character's mind and heart.  Most of the rest of the cast plays the comedy very broadly, which is fine.  SNL veterans Colin Jost and Will Forte play their characters like they are sketch characters.  Kumail Nanjiani and Zach Cherry play co-workers of Nate's who play things cartoonishly simple.  The child actors who play Nate's three daughters do very well for their ages.  

One of Bargatze's biggest strengths as a comedian applies to this movie in that it is incredibly family-friendly.  This is a movie that is rare in that it something that the entire family can sit down and watch without any worry about inappropriate language or content.  Thematically, the movie has a strong beating heart.  Nate is a lovable louse who tries to take short-cuts to parenting.  But there is a wonderful moment after things blow up in his face when he says, "I thought everyone could get what they wanted," to which someone replies, "I think you mean you thought you could get everything that you wanted."  The movie confronts the struggle with selfishness that parents face.  But the movie is clear that there are no short-cuts.  When it comes to the love of a parent, it must be complete and total, thinking only for the good of the others. 

So if you want a movie that the whole family can gather together and enjoy with some decent laughs a good message, I would recommend The Breadwinner.

Film Review: Star Wars - The Mandalorian and Grogu

 

Sexuality/Nudity No Objection

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

Even before this movie came out, people were declaring it to be a failure and a bomb.  Star Wars has become such a cultural flashpoint in the pop culture community that anything that happens with this franchise tends to provoke extreme reactions.  But the real question is this:

Is the movie any good?

The answer is: yes.

Is the movie as great as the pre-Disney Star Wars films.

No.

But if you take the movie as a simple, fun adventure, then you will have a good time.

The movie takes place after the events of The Mandalorian season 3.  Din Djarin (Pedro Pascal, Brendan Wayne, and Lateef Crowder) is raising the "baby Yoda" Grogu.  They go on bounty hunting missions together (like the manga Lone Wolf and Cub), taking down remnants of the Empire.  New Republic Colonel Ward (Sigourney Weaver) tasks him to work with the criminal Hutts to recover Jabba's son Rotta (Jeremy Allen White) so that they can gain important intel on a high ranking Imperial hold out.  But as they enter into the hunt, all is not as it seems.

To say more would remove the twists and the turns that this story has to offer, which are quite enjoyable.

Let me begin with the movie's deficits.  The movie has the opposite problem of shows like Obi-Wan Kenobi, where they took a movie script and expanded it into a series so that it felt thin.  For Mandalorian and Grogu, I couldn't shake the feeling that this was original a series of television scripts condensed into one 2-hour film.  As a result it feels like you have five stories instead of one.  This requires some short cuts and contrivances, like one of the villains blurting out his evil plan to Din for no particular reason other than to get the plot going more quickly.

The second is that the story does not feel consequential enough for a feature film.  Like a typical James Bond film, this feels like another adventure in a series of stories that won't make a difference in the character's overall development.  The season 2 finale of the show felt like it had much more weight to it with the return of Luke, the revealing of Din's face to Grogu, and the farewell.  While the movie has heart, it doesn't reach those earlier levels.

And this is a small thing, but if you notice I listed 3 people playing Din.  All three got top credit for this movie.  I agree that all of them deserved it, but because of this, I could not shake the idea that Pascal was not in most of the scenes, but it was only his voice.  This reality would sometimes shatter the illusion that the movie was trying to create.

Having said all of that, I enjoyed this movie a great deal.

The movie feels like an 80's movie in the best sense of the word.  Yes, there is a lot of CGI, but there is a fun sense of adventure to the story.  This is particularly the case when director Jon Favreau uses old school puppetry or stop-motion animation.  You can tell he has a particular love for this era of movies and it shows in the best possible way.  Favreau knows how to film a scene with exciting spectacle and pacing.  It recaptures some of the thrills I had going to the movies when I was younger.  The early scenes of Din taking out his prey were reminiscent of the early days of the TV show where he felt a lot like "The Man With No Name."

Some may accuse this of nostalgia-baiting.  Generally speaking, I don't care as long as I am entertained.  There is a gladiator fight scene that pulled me in and I couldn't figure out why until I realized that the creatures in the areana were the ones from the "chess" game that C-3PO and Chewbacca played on the Millennium Falcon in the original Star Wars.  Little nods like that made me smile.

I also enjoyed the fact the title of the movie reflects the content.  This isn't just a movie about Din taking care of Grogu.  This is both of their stories.  There are large swaths of this film where Grogu is the main character moving the story forward.  Favreau and co-writers Dave Filoni and Noah Kloor are trying to say something about the relationships of parents with children.  At one point Din says "The old protect the young and the young protect the old.  This is the way." Some people may see it as ridiculous that Din bring Grogu  to these dangerous situations.  But the he is a father teaching his son to become a man.  Grogu may be too young, but that doesn't matter.  Sometimes the world is dangerous and it cannot wait for you to grow up.  And we see this in Grogu.

The movie also has something to say about bad parenting.  Rotta is desperate to get out of his father's shadow.  But there are those who see this desperation and take advantage of it.  Rotta mistakes the cheering of crowds for actual love and validation.  There is a look of horrible, crushing defeat when he hears them turn on him.  I don't know if this was meant to be an allegory for young people seeking attention on social media, but it does tap into that truth about desperately wanting to find your own identity and how that path is filled with its own pitfalls and dangers.  It is only in the bonds of love, family, and true friendship that we really find out who we are.  

In terms of tone, it goes from very light to serious fairly quickly.  If you find Grogu and characters like Babu Frik to be funny and adorable, you will connect to those emotional tethers very quickly.  But if those puppet characters do not make you feel anything, then a lot of the story's heart will fall flat.  I personally found the Grogu scenes to be both funny and tender.  They do an excellent job of conveying his fear, courage, and vulnerability without him having to say a word.  

Film Review: Mortal Kombat II

  

Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Mature

Vulgarity Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

Sometimes a movie doesn't try to me more than it is and that is okay.

And sometimes a movie sequel takes audience feedback and uses it to improve.  And that's even better.

This is the case with Mortal Kombat II.

The previous film in the franchise came out during the weird post-COVID era when movies were being platformed on streaming and in theaters.  For that reason, I never got a real handle on how popular that movie was.  In my original review I remember thinking that the final act was too gory and that they made a massive mistake in ruining their best character, Kano (Josh Lawson).  Many other people found the main character Cole (Lewis Tan) a bit generic, but I had not problem with him.

To my great surprise, the sequel is an improvement on the first.

This time the movie centers on two characters.  The first is Johnny Cage (Karl Urban), a washed-up 1990's action star full of regret and cynicism.  But for some reason, he has been chosen to participate in the final Mortal Kombat for the fate of earth realm against the forces of Shao Kahn (Martyn Ford).  He wants nothing to do with all of this mystical violence, but is reluctantly drawn into the fray.  The other main character is Kitana (Adeline Rudolph), whose father was killed by Shao Kahn in the previous Mortal Kombat and now so now has become's Kahn's adopted heir.  However, she secretly works as a double agent for Raiden (Tadanobu Asano) to help the heroes of Earth survive.  So Cole, Johnny Cage, Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee), Jax Briggs (Mehcad Brooks), and Liu Kang (Ludi Lin) must face off against Kahn's forces, including Kitana, her bodyguard Jade (Tati Gabrielle), and some resurected characters from the first film.

Like I said, this movie doesn't try to be more than it is.  It isn't trying to be a deep meditation on heroism and violence.  It just wants to offer you a good time.  

And a good time is what I had.

The main reason for this was because of Johnny Cage and (the resurrected) Kano.  Urban is fantastic in everything he does and this is no exception.  There is a weariness to him that boarders on exacerbation.  He is not ready, not prepared, and is constantly overwhelmed by the craziness around him.  I like that they made Cage and older person in this movie.  It taps into that feeling that we get as we age where the world we knew sort of passes us by and the modern world is strange and unfamiliar.  I feel this way whenever my students try to explain the latest TikTok trend and my old brain cannot comprehend.  The movie actually plays into this early where Johnny is sitting alone at his table at a comic con while social media influencers are mobbed by fans.  It doesn't make sense to him and it doesn't make sense to me.  Because of this, he delivers some great one liners and gives the movie a nice touch of cynical humor at everything.  But he is not a one-note comic relief.  Part of his journey it to rediscover his self-worth and heroism that is buried under all of that wasted potential.  There is an actual heart beating in this character that you root for to come out and win the day.

But the real scene-stealer is Kano.  Every time he comes onto the screen Lawson knocks it out of the park.  He plays his character with such an odd enthusiasm that is both evil and innocent.  I laughed more at his scenes than I do in most theatrical comedies.  When he is resurrected, it is asked why isn't a mind-controlled zombie like the others.  Quan Chi (Damon Herriman), the necromancer, says that Kano had so little soul in his life that there was nothing there to control.  Hearing this, Kano beams with pride and shouts, "Loophole!"  In the hands of another actor, almost all of this would have fallen flat.  But Lawson knocks it out of the park with every line.  I'm not kidding when I saw he is at the top of my list of Best Supporting Actor this year.  Comedic performances are almost always overlooked but Lawson carries every scene.

The other performances are decent, straightforward, and earnest, but most don't really stand out.  This is unfortunate because the other half of the emotional engine of this movie is Rudolph's Kitana, and she isn't able to get you as invested as Urban.  She isn't even able to get to the level of charisma of the original Liu Kang (Robin Shou) from the very first Mortal Kombat, who had a similar roll to fill in that story: the earnest chosen one. Hiroyuki Sandada returns as Hanzo/Scorpion, and he brings some much-needed gravitas to the nearly cartoonish entertainment.  CJ Bloomfield also has a surprisingly good turn as the monstrous Baraka whose fight with Johnny Cage is a highlight of the film.

Director Simon McQuoid should be commended for taking what he did in the first film and improving on it.  The fight sequences are generally better and world-building is better than the original.  The script by Jeremy Slater delivers a more straightforward story than the first, but he has a few twists and turns that I did not see coming.  I remember at one character death, my wife sitting next to me actually gasped in shock.  In a traditionally by-the-numbers sequel like this, that isn't an easy thing to do.  But Slater seems to get the characters and gives them each a moment to shine.

Like the original, the movie is a bit too gory, but it did not bother me as much in this film as in the last.  The vulgarity is through the roof, especially with Cage and Kano, but it is done with great comedic effect.  As I said before the movie's biggest problem is that it divides the weight of the narrative between Johnny and Kitana, but only one really succeeds in doing the heavy lifting.

If the violence and vulgarity are things that offend you, I would avoid this movie.  But even so, there are some good messages about heroism and redemption.  As milquetoast as most of the other heroes are, there is something admirable about their heroism.  Cole tells Johnny early on that he is stepping up to fight even though he knows he may never see his family again.  Johnny has to slowly learn this lesson over the course of the movie through failure after failure.  But in the end, he discovers that the most important part of being a hero is simply standing up to the danger.  I know that sounds overly simple and cheesy, but for this movie it works.

The movie is primed to become a trilogy.  I don't know if that is in the cards.  But with the characters that we have established in this movie, and if the series continues to improve, I am definitely in for another round of Mortal Kombat.