Jurassic World Rebirth + Superman

 

Jurassic World Rebirth

Score:  B

Directed by Gareth Edwards

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, et al

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated PG-13

The seventh movie in the dino-action Jurassic film franchise is a welcome return to the style of the original in some ways but it's just a start - and the humans still suck.  There have been two Jurassic trilogies so far, sort of; at least, the fourth through sixth entries felt that way, turning into almost an action-fantasy series involving plenty of "mutant" dinos and full of battles.  The plots also spread the dino population - once limited to a single island, in the original - all around the world.  Rebirth literally starts to undo this, with dinos dying off around the world, except for islands around the equator (where it all started) that have more suitable climates.  Sadly, what the movie does carry over from the latest entries is a cast of boring humans.  Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali are the new stars here - great actors who, while they're not bad by any means, are totally wasted in generic roles and at times painfully bad dialogue.  Their counterparts, evil pharmacist Krebs and wide-eyed paleontologist Dr. Loomis, are even worse as played by Rupert Friend and Jonathan Bailey.  A normal family, the Delgados, caught up in the adventure is moderately better - or at least more sympathetic - played by relative unknown actors, but they actually end up getting a bit too much (non-dino) screen time.

The plot is decent overall, considering this is the seventh Jurassic movie, and much of the action is more tense and interesting than any since the first few films.  Johansson (the protection), Friend, and Bailey's character are trying to get dino samples to be used to develop new heart disease medicines.  It feels like a pretty believable setup, along with reasons for the shadier characters to become dino snacks.  The Delgados join the main group briefly but spend most of the movie on their own, providing a nice way to split up and vary the scenes.  The first big dino scene takes place in the sea, where the element of surprise and clever hunting tactics make a return.  My favorite set piece is an adaptation of a scene from Michael Crichton's original novel, with the Delgados trying to escape a T-rex in a puny raft on a river.  It is perhaps the best dino scene in a Jurassic movie since 1997's The Lost World, keeping you on the edge of your seat yet at the same time in awe of the dino's majesty.  Rebirth does have more dino mutants in it, but at least they're not ridiculous super predators this time.  The finale adventure scene is just OK, but at least this one doesn't have yet another T-rex versus mutant battle; it remains (relatively) modest.

Superman

Score:  B+

Directed by James Gunn

Starring David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult, et al

Running time: 129 minutes

Rated PG-13

Superman is the latest take on the iconic superhero, one that has a lot of fun but doesn't really fully take off.  Since Christopher Reeve's original from the 1970s and 80s, the character has seen several reboots.  I liked 2006's Superman Returns quite a bit, but was a one-off.  Henry Cavill then took on the role in 2013's Man of Steel as DC/Warner sought to build a superhero universe to match Marvel's very lucrative version.  But DC quickly backed off its darker, more violent version, and the whole DC universe collapsed after a miserable Justice League (aka DC's Avengers) movie.  Well, DC is trying to make their own superhero universe again, and again starting it off with Supes.  Personally, I liked the tonal and visual style of Man of Steel, as a contrast to Marvel, even if it needed some work.  The new Superman is much more light-hearted and humorous - like Marvel - although it does toy with some social/political commentary, too.  How is the new Superman himself?  He's... fine, though I really have little praise or criticism overall.  I did enjoy his Clark Kent, particularly his banter with Brosnahan's Lois Lane, but there is sadly too little of that.  Nicholas Hoult was an excellent choice as the infamous Lex Luthor, as he's one of today's best actors, particularly when doing nastier characters.  I also enjoyed Skyler Gisondo's Jimmy Olson and Edi Gathegi's superhero Mister Terrific - they both provide great humor but also some of the movie's more effective pathos, too.

Much of the humor and action in Superman is well done and effective, but overall it tries to do a bit too much.  Perhaps my favorite element is the inclusion of Superman's dog, Krypto, who dashes in just a few minutes into the movie with a blizzard trailing him, and is prominent all the way through the final scene.  Partly, I simply love dogs, but the movie deploys Krypto almost perfectly.  He is super loyal, of course, but he is still a dog - not the brightest bulb, often either misunderstanding what Superman wants him to do or just making accidents.  Krypto is consistently hilarious, but he also provides a crucial emotional connection, too.  On the other hand, an intriguing setup with Superman stopping a foreign war and then getting dragged into the political fallout fails to live up to its promise.  It all gets quickly rolled into Luthor's schemes when it didn't have to be, and the leaders nor their continued conflicts move beyond generic plot fodder.  I was also a bit exasperated by there being other superheroes involved already - isn't Superman himself enough?!?  I did enjoy Mister Terrific, but otherwise it's just too much - both the powers they represent (sometimes seemingly as much or more so than Supes himself) and the drag of superfluous characters.  Most of the action is enjoyable, though, if nothing that stands out within the genre.  It's nice that Superman isn't invincible here, even when Kryptonite isn't around, giving the action more tension and higher stakes.

***

July started off with some of the summer's biggest blockbusters, and while neither is destined to become a classic, they are both fully entertaining movies.  Jurassic World Rebirth gives some hope for the franchise, much needed after the dismal failure of 2022's JW Dominion.  I hope that future filmmakers will steer it even further back to the original - more adventure, less action.  Dinosaurs are awesome and frightening creatures, as Jurassic Park proved beyond doubt in 1993; keep lowering the stakes and the battle spectacles, and return to good old survival thriller.  Superman, while modestly better in direct one-to-one comparison with JW Rebirth, actually makes me more skeptical about its franchise's direction.  It just seems like DC is once again trying to copy Marvel, both in tone and with the introduction of more and more superheroes.  What they don't seem to realize is that Marvel has patiently built its roster of characters over many years and developed them very well; and each film, while very broadly similar, also has its own feel and even genre.  Here's an idea: forget about having any connections at all among your movies, DC.  Just focus on making great standalone movies.  If you want your own Avengers, then make it - but don't dilute all your other movies with Marvel gazing.  Other than Fantastic Four, I'm not sure what else is in store for me at the movie theater this summer - we'll see!

* By source

https://www.movieposters.com/products/jurassic-world-rebirth-mpw-148567, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77746776

** By source 

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77337619

Elio + Materialists

 

         

Mini-Reviews:  Elio & Materialists

Elio

Score:  B

Directed by Sharafian, Shi, & Molina

Starring Yonas Kibreab, Zoe Saldana, Remy Edgerly, et al

Running time: 98 minutes

Rated PG

Elio is Pixar’s latest movie, an original that is entertaining but doesn’t live up to the studio’s high standards.  The movie centers on an orphaned boy who wishes to be literally abducted by aliens and take him away from the world where he feels like a stranger - when a benevolent group of extraterrestrials complies.  Not all is well, however, as a warring alien race threatens to destroy Elio’s abductors, but the adventure turns unexpectedly when Elio befriends the heir of the warring aliens’ leader.  Elio premise is certainly creative, in the Pixar tradition, and it also focuses on two of the studio’s key themes: a genuine exploration of a real life situation (alienation of orphaned children) via the surreal (ACTUAL aliens), and how friendships can form despite significant individual differences and powerfully affect big events.  Despite all of this, I just didn’t feel as transported or impressed as I typically do by Pixar movies.  It’s hard to give examples of exactly why, but I just often felt like it was somewhat rote, hitting the expected cues for a Pixar movie.  Maybe it’s that a lot of the creative choices were made because it made sense for the plot (and, again, Pixar tone) rather than a single, unified vision.  On that last part, note that there are three directors credited for the movie (who also came up with the story), and three other screenplay writers.  Elio is perfectly fine, there are no glaring problems (to me) - it just doesn’t add up to Pixar’s usual magic.

Materialists

Score:  A-

Directed by Celine Song

Starring Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal

Running time: 117 minutes

Rated R

An update on the rom-com genre, Materialists succeeds both in developing a compelling trio of characters and in astutely observing modern dating dynamics.  Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a New York match-maker who is pursued by two very different men played by Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans.  Both the main characters and their relationships must be strong and believable for this kind of movie to succeed, no matter its other strengths - and fortunately, it does both.  Johnson (and the script) doesn’t make Lucy into the most unique or charismatic character, but Lucy does feel genuine and cohesive.  Her key talent is in identifying (through both instinct and practice) what “marketable” attributes men and women offer for dating, and which prospective partners are most interested in those traits.  Effectively, Lucy is a dating algorithm in human form, scoring candidates’ wealth, physical build/attractiveness, and (usually well behind the first two) personality and charisma.  Materialists highlights how technology enables us to “filter” our potential mates by innumerable factors - and in doing so, traps us in a game that’s impossible to “win”.  The script is often rather direct about these things, but while I would have preferred a bit more subtlety, it’s still strongly written.  Pascal’s Harry is what Lucy refers to as a unicorn: a top score in virtually all aspects.  But the movie doesn’t just portray him as an empty vessel of superficially-impressive traits; he genuinely is attracted to Lucy as a human and is a reasonable (in fact, kind of normal) person.  Evans’s John, on the other hand, fails miserably in the wealth department, which Lucy has considered her non-negotiable; however, they are also exes who know each other extremely well, a quality whose high value is subtly demonstrated.  The plot has a pretty familiar arc overall, although it’s adapted well to the particular elements of these characters and themes.  The final third or so is also handled differently than I expected, though, and it provides some satisfying resolution while allowing some threads to remain open.  Oh, and there is also some pretty good “com” in this rom-com, mostly from Lucy’s discussions with her clients and their quite blunt preferences for/experiences with their dates (Lucy’s restraint from eyebrow-raising or eye-rolling is quite impressive!).  

***

These last two movies are not of the usual genres that I see in theaters - let alone in the summer! - but they were a nice change of pace.  If anything, I would have expected my reactions to them to be reversed, but that’s why you have to see the movie before making judgment.  For Elio, my feeling can be distilled almost to “meh” - already, my memories of it are somewhat faded/blurred.  I fear that Pixar may be losing its magic touch, as last year’s Inside Out sequel (the original was amazing, and my #1 movie of 2015) was similarly “meh”.  I thought Elemental was really good (and underrated), but before that, the last truly great Pixar movie was 2017’s Coco.  Meanwhile, Materialists has a good Rotten Tomatoes score (81%) but has been mostly ignored by audiences, with just a $11 million opening weekend and $27 million altogether.  Movies with star power and stories like this used to be big hits, but those days sadly seem to be over.  They are not as visually spectacular, must-see-on-the-big-screen events as Star Wars, Jurassic Park, or superhero movies, but I am disappointed that fewer regular dramas like Materialists get released in theaters (and seen when they’re there).  So give this one a shot!  And if you have a family and are desperate to get the kids out of the house, Elio is a fine choice, too.

* By Source, http://www.impawards.com/2025/elio_ver5.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80220262

Mission Impossible 8 + John Wick: Ballerina

 

       

Mini-Reviews: Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning + Ballerina (from world of John Wick)

Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning

Score:  A-/B+

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie

Starring Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Esai Morales, et al

Running time: 170 minutes

Rated PG-13

The final (probably?) movie in the Mission Impossible series, begun almost thirty years ago, goes out on a high note stunt-wise but is otherwise a bit shaky.  Whereas in most Missions, all we really know going in is that Ethan Hunt (Cruise) will lead a crack team of agents on a thrilling adventure to avert disaster, we already know a lot about what's likely to happen here, since it's the conclusion to Dead Reckoning's (2023) cliffhanger.  We also know, from the title, that this is probably the last one.  This leads to two elements that are mixed, at best.  First, there is little mystery as to the bad guy's (er, AI's) plot, or even what it's all leading to.  Not knowing those things in previous MIs was one of my favorite elements, so it felt strange and disappointing to know way more than usual about it.  Second, the film pays plenty of homage to Hunt/Cruise, especially in the beginning (including a montage from past movies), and the character interactions are unusually emotional, even sentimental.  At times, and to a certain degree, this is warranted, but I think it goes overboard.  It results in the movie being far too long, the beginning is very clunky and out of character for the franchise, and it's occasionally cringey.

Still, I give the movie fairly high marks despite all that because the stunts are as tremendous as ever.  There are two different extended, insanely gripping, well-choreographed/shot, and entertaining sequences.  One is underwater in a sunken submarine; despite no villains or dialogue, it is amazing.  Poor Hunt has to get past one obstacle after another, and you can deeply feel the danger and difficulty of his situation throughout.  The sets are awesome and the fairly minimal CGI is seamless; the you feel like you're underwater with Cruise, and his final escape is sweet release.  The second is quite a bit different, other than involving a vehicle: this time, Hunt is in midair hanging from and climbing between two vintage biplanes.  This is all real stunt work, done by Cruise himself.  I couldn't help but laugh a few times at the sheer ludicrousness of the action but you've never seen anything like it before.  These two stunts sequences are worth the price of admission alone, and demand a trip to the theater.  The parts in between you can put up with, and maybe say a fond farewell to this tireless group of actors, crew, and filmmakers who have entertained us for the last few decades.

Ballerina (from the World of John Wick)

Score:  B+

Directed by Len Wiseman

Starring Ana de Armas, Ian McShane, Keanu Reeves et al

Running time: 125 minutes

Rated R

This is the rare spin-off movie that is really good, both appropriate to the original John Wick's tone and world but also adding something new and not just a retread.  John Wick (2014) started an excellent new action franchise that stands way above most others in the genre thanks to its intriguing, detailed world building and, of course, the inventive, pulse-pounding, extremely well-choreographed battles.  Ana de Armas is a great choice for a new character in this world, with her experience in other action movies.  She is very convincing in the action scenes and, to my eyes, is about the ultimate femme fatale, quite gorgeous despite not being presented as such intentionally, and equally deadly.  Her character, Eve, doesn't get quite as effective a story as Wick, but it works well enough.  And as opposed to the new MI, the first third of the film is perhaps the best part, featuring an excellent sequence of training scenes that helps distinguish Eve from Wick and others like them.  The Wick world elements are seamlessly incorporated and expanded here, from use of the assassins' dens in the civilized guise of Continental hotels to the crime families with historical yet tense truces.  The action scenes are superbly done, pretty much on par with the other Wick movies, and Eve gets her own fighting style, separate from Wick's.  Like his, though, the fights are not simply effortless mowing down of bad guys: Eve takes plenty of licks, too, and it feels all the more impressive that she keeps on ticking and taking out the astonished baddies.  The only significant disappointment to me, in fact, was too much involvement from Reeves's Wick in the final part of the movie.  A small (dialogue-based) scene with him at the beginning is fine and appropriate, but it's as if the filmmakers (more likely, the studio) believed they had to include their big star more to satisfy the audience.  It's still a fun finale - especially with the flamethrowers, even if it's a bit overplayed - but it leans too much to the body count side, to my taste, whereas smaller scale, more intimate/intense fights would have better suited Eve.  Still, this is a great success both on its own as an individual action movie, and as a continuation of John Wick's tremendous movie franchise.

***

I was very pleased to get to see new entries of two of my favorite action/adventure franchises in Mission Impossible and John Wick this summer.  MI, bitter sweetly, is probably now (and should be) concluded - Tom Cruise is the franchise, his face and more importantly his astounding stunts that I doubt will ever be repeated.  That's fine - but I certainly hope that ambitious actors and filmmakers in Hollywood will come up with something new to take its place.  Something like Keanu Reeves's John Wick movies, which are my favorite new action franchise since, well, MI.  Reeves's own role is also probably now over - but in this case, the franchise is well-suited to new characters, as Ana de Armas definitely proved in Ballerina.  I would recommend going to see both of these movies in theaters - I encourage seeing all movies in theaters, but especially movies like these (and extra especially MI).  You'll get a bit more enjoyment out of each if you've seen the previous movies in their respective series.  But both are great by themselves, too (warning for Ballerina, though: it is quite a bit more violent than MI).  Until next time!

* By source http://www.impawards.com/2025/mission_impossible__the_final_reckoning_ver2_xxlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78335261

* By source 

Friendship

 

Score:  B

Directed by Andrew DeYoung

Starring Tim Robinson, Paul Rudd, Kate Mara

Running time: 97 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  In his first starring movie role, Tim Robinson brings his unique, jarring brand of humor to Hollywood, teamed with the more comfort-food familiarity of Paul Rudd.  As the title suggests, the movie focuses on the importance and deceptive difficulty of friendship in modern life.  Those who are familiar with Robinson’s sketches will be prepared for (though perhaps not predict) the surreal comical surprises as the main relationship goes off the rails.  Not for everyone’s tastes but if you know what you’re getting into or just want to try something new, go see this.

Craig (Robinson) is feeling down in life, ready to pull up stakes and start fresh.  One day by chance, however, he receives a package delivered to him in error.  When he walks it over to the correct home, Craig meets Austin (Rudd) who unexpectedly becomes an interesting new friend.  Craig, married with a son, is an introvert by nature, but Austin shows him the many simple pleasures of bonding.  However, no relationship, no matter how magical, is perfect, and Craig’s insecurities begin to come to the surface.  The way he handles the ups and downs of this friendship will have major ramifications for his entire life.

Friendship is at times pretty amusing and subtly insightful, but Robinson’s odd humor is a tricky fit in a full length film, and it ends up feeling somewhat scattered.  Robinson, if you haven’t seen him, has a unique blend of deadpan absurdity: he has a fun mini-sketch show on Netflix, if you want to get a taste. Friendship is an attempt to adapt this style from individual sketch scenes to the extended tone and themes of a full-length drama.  The narrative concept and several scenes and moments throughout the film are successful, but the overall cohesion and feel come up a bit short.  I liked the very simple premise: a lonely man whose life is slowly falling apart meets a neighbor and develops an unexpected friendship, helping him to bounce back.  It’s interesting how Craig then becomes obsessed and insecure, his flaws (and loosening inhibitions) hurting the friendship and leading to a downward spiral (Robinson is great as a put-upon every man which also leads to hilariously over-the-top scenes, such as a suddenly escalated confrontation at a party, and a marketing pitch to a politician gone awry).  Little moments can be quite funny or at least clever: delicately carrying a full mug of tea (I can relate!), carting a drum set to his friend’s house - and a secret sewer adventure is definitely a highlight.  

Despite a clever setup and some good moments, though, the film’s non-comedy threads fray as it goes on, and Craig’s complete collapse when his friendship goes sideways transforms the movie from sly social commentary to something closer to parody.  No comedies expect you to laugh at every turn (at least, they shouldn’t) but more often than usual for the genre, the moments or scenes here that are intended purely for plot or showing the characters’ “normal” lives come off a bit awkwardly, particularly when contrasted with the sudden, bizarre comedic moments.  Admittedly, the filmmakers manage to meld the drama early on somewhat well, but it stands out more and more frequently.  The build-up of Craig and Austin’s friendship is done well, both its humor and relatability, and even the moment of breakdown when Craig meets Austin’s larger friend group (though it starts to get weirder here).  Events turn more extreme as Craig’s desperation rises, and also fairly fragmented and inconsistent, plot-wise; while there are some good moments of humor from this, the story around it starts to fall apart.  Still, all in all, it’s a worthy attempt at a new kind of comedy with plenty of entertainment and some thought-provoking concepts surrounding modern, well, friendships.

***

Having seen and enjoyed Tim Robinson before, I was intrigued by the idea of his starring in a movie and so I’ve looked forward to Friendship for a little while now.  I’m not exactly disappointed by the results: sure, it could have been better, but it’s a perfectly solid effort and a nice change of pace.  I hope that we see Robinson in more movies.  Still, I’m mystified by some critics’ fawning over the movie, calling it (as seen in the movie’s marketing) the funniest movie they’ve seen in years or ever.  Slow down.  It provided some good variety for me at the movie theater this summer - since most of what I will see is probably going to be blockbuster action stuff.  I certainly don’t recommend this for everyone, but if you have a taste for modern humor, especially if you’re already familiar with (and fond of) Tim Robinson, you should give this a try.

* By source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Friendship_poster.jpg#/media/File:Friendship_poster.jpg

Thunderbolts*

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Jake Schreier

Starring Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, Lewis Pullman, Julia Louis Dreyfus, et al

Running time: 126 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Thunderbolts* brings several minor Marvel characters into the spotlight for an Avengers-like team-up... only these guys are even less happy to do so, or even to fight for "good" in the first place.  The movie earns a place among Marvel's best entries, with a strong script, bevy of interesting characters (but not too many), and joyful humor.  This is another Marvel movie that turns away from simple, direct good guy-bad guy conflicts, too - a positive development.  Highly recommended for all, but especially superhero fans, of course.

Yelena (Pugh) is struggling to move on.  She was once a deadly assassin, or "Black Widow", trained as a young girl; while she escaped that life, soon after, her sister Widow, Natasha (Johansson) was killed.  So Yelena is putting her skills to use (somewhat) less lethally as a gun-for-hire for CIA director de Fontaine (Dreyfus), who has many projects of dubious origin on the side.  Yelena is not the only lost soul with special skills whom de Fontaine has recruited, however, and as she gets closer to some dirty secrets, Yelena finds herself hunted as much as the hunter.  With no Avengers available to save the day, however, Yelena must decide for whom - and what - she really wants to fight.

Thunderbolts* is one of the best Marvel superhero movies in recent years, notably returning to the franchise's trademark humor and fun, relatable characters rather than relying on spectacle.  The conceit is reminiscent of DC's Suicide Squad, which featured former villains forced to work together to save the day.  Thunderbolts instead uses "anti-heroes" - neither fully good nor bad, but all written off as defective or failed - and their teamwork is more organic and fitful.  Manipulating them is de Fontaine (Dreyfus), who is a clever mirror image of Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury; her motives are much more ambiguous and changing with circumstances.  There are few new characters, but all were formerly bit players and are more developed here and fit together well; it's nice to take a short break from the "stars".  

Yelena is the lead and Pugh is excellent.  Her expressions and tone can be numb, calloused (with a dry wit) due to her history - but she also flashes moments of compassion and tenderness that she has tried to suppress, and reluctantly takes on some leadership.  Stan as Winter Soldier is the most Avengers-adjacent and definitely gives a fun vibe as the "old hand" here; he steps back from the spotlight, though, instead making for a steady but quiet force for good.  It's great to see Russell as Walker/U.S. Agent (needs a better name?!?) again, and he gets a bit more back story.  His attitude is a great fit in Marvel land but it's also distinct.  Harbour's Red Guardian (Yelena's father) is basically here for comic relief, but he does a fantastic job of it, with his thick accent and larger-than-life presence.  Dreyfus is awesome and hilarious, of course, as de Fontaine, another perfect Marvel casting.  Introduced in previous stories, she gets a significant role here, singlehandedly fueling a Marvel present and (hopefully) future with compelling intrigue.  Pullman is also great casting as new guy "Bob"; his eyes are incredibly expressive, going from innocent and lost to joyful to crazed, etc.; he can fit in with a crowd or take center stage with ease.  

Thunderbolts' banter and odd-fellows relations are broadly similar to Avengers, but they also bring their own dynamic to that formula.  The essential ingredient of humor is definitely carried over, with fun one-liners and squabbles:  the writing is back to the level of the good old days, thanks to a Marvel veteran and TV comedian duo.  Genuine connections between the very different characters are also back.  There are no forced BFF vibes - rather, the characters are simply forced to count on each other and gradually, grudgingly appreciate their common backgrounds to develop a bit of affection or at least respect. Hopefully this "B-team" will get plenty more screen time in the future!

Thunderbolts* also has a fun, serviceable story with some good action scenes, though the overall world it builds is most interesting element.The main plot eventually comes around to introducing a new super-person:  not exactly new idea, but it's handled well (gently poking fun at the idea itself and allowing for a taste of spectacle, etc.).  It's briskly paced, too: no wasted time, only a handful of boring cliches.The action is good and varied, and surprisingly modest for a marquee superhero movie.  Yelena gets to show off her martial arts skills, especially in early skirmishes, and there's a well-choreographed "friendly fire" fight amongst the heroes (a la Avengers).  A cool chase scene with humor and a neat Terminator callback rounds it out.  And instead of a big melee to end the movie, we get a save-the-civilians scene (again, a la Avengers) and a sci-fi-like sequence in which the heroes confront their pasts and literally must get past them to defeat their own darker selves to save the day.  Overall, Thunderbolts presents an interesting setup in which there are no more "superheroes" as traditionally thought of, though government and society is clamoring for them.  The machinations of trying to create those superheroes - the why and the how - are the focus, and the ways that can either hurt or help the world.  Marvel is back in top form!

***

I had been looking forward to Thunderbolts* for some time, and was glad that it met my expectations.  Hell, even the critics, who have seemed sick of anything from Marvel for the last five years, give it 88% on Rotten Tomatoes!  To me, it's ultimately a great combination of the general things that make Marvel movies so fun - the humor, good characters, and interesting plot/action - with a fresh perspective, focusing on lesser-known (and highly flawed) heroes in a more complex world.  So the summer movie season is off to a great start!  There are a few other movies in May I'm looking forward to, and hopefully there will again be some surprises along the way, too.  Until next time!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2025/thunderbolts_ver10.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76191780

Sinners

 

Score:  A-/B+

Directed by Ryan Coogler

Starring Michael B. Jordan, Miles Caton, Wunmi Mosaku, Hailee Steinfeld, Delroy Lindo, et al

Running time: 138 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short: Sinners is a period drama/horror picture, the brain child of writer and director Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther).  His talent is on full display in illustrating an enterprising duo (both played by Michael B. Jordan) pushing through the challenges of Depression-Era Mississippi to open a bar.  Things get much more intriguing as they get closer to their dream, through both phenomenal music and nighttime terrors.  The dots don't all connect as perfectly as you might hope, but it's still an original, entertaining and well-made movie.  Highly recommended.

Twin brothers Smoke and Stack (Jordan) have returned to the Mississippi Delta in 1932, having tired of their lives in Chicago and craving a triumphant return home.  They decide to open a new bar with the last of their money, and their plan to strike gold is to employ the best musicians in the area: blues pianist Delta Slim (Lindo) and singer (Pearline), and a secret introduction, their young cousin and guitar prodigy Sammie (Caton).  The twins assemble a strong staff around them and celebrate with a packed-house opening night.  However, the joyful music attracts more menacing neighbors, and the innocent party soon takes on more deadly stakes.

Sinners is an enjoyable genre mashup, both period drama and horror, that features impressive music and visuals.  I had even less idea of what to expect from this than most movies; all I knew was that it was partly a horror movie, which I usually avoid, but I was drawn in by director Coogler and its high critics scores.  The movie ends up focusing primarily on the drama and relationships of developing the new bar, with the horror coming in relatively late.  I most enjoyed the dramatic parts, of course, although it was a bit frustrating not being able to tell where it was all going (a sense that was not helped by characters' hard-to-understand Southern accents).  The horror element is interesting at first, too, especially when it's tied directly to the drama, but it builds to a disappointingly standard action climax.  Lifting up all parts of the movie - featuring an especially excellent dream/hallucination-like scene near the middle - are the music and the visuals.  Great blues music is played by Delta Slim, Pearline, and Sammie.  We get samples of it as they are forming the bar, then fully unleashed on opening night.  Even the bad guys also have some pleasant music, though they use a very different musical style.  The cinematography and  visuals are also great, though more subtle for the most part (except, again, for the standout middle scene and as the horror ramps up).

The acting in Sinners is very strong overall, with a rich cast of a variety of characters.  Jordan has a lot of charisma and screen presence as always, although his persona - which is identical (to me) between the twins - is basically his standard tough/cool guy.  Caton's Sammie is the more interesting character to me, with good acting, great musical performance, and a more complex, conflicted personality - music isn't the only thing in his background.  All of the supporting characters are good, and I especially liked Lindo's Delta Slim and a Chinese couple with a small but distinctive role.  It was interesting to watch the details and difficulties of setting up the bar, with not only racism but the Depression to deal with; the twins are strong and savvy, but it's still not easy to recruit their talent, secure supplies, and land a location.  While watching I had a growing sense that Sinners was akin to Get Out, in producing a clever metaphor for the racial challenges of the time and place.  Instead, Sinners is more straightforward with its presentation of racial struggle.  While there is an interesting mystical element, it is tied more to the music; I feel it could have also tied in more strongly (and artistically) with race, too, if the action/gore was held in check and instead further develop character relations.  Although maybe I just missed it - I intentionally did not read anyone else's review yet!  But even if I did, I still found it to be a very good, well-made and entertaining movie.

***

Sinners is yet another original (aka, not a sequel or part of an existing franchise) that I've seen this year, which is an encouraging trend.  Especially when it's made by a proven filmmaker like Ryan Coogler, I jump at the chance to see these in the theater.  I admit that I didn't like it quite as much as what the stupendous reviews on Rotten Tomatoes suggest (98% from critics and 97% from audiences!).  That could be due partly to my aversion to horror, partly to my comparing it to Get Out.  But really, it's nitpicking.  I'm glad to see that it is doing well at the box office, hopefully encouraging studios to make more movies like it (not the specific topic/genre, but 1) creative original ideas, and 2) led by talented filmmakers).  With April almost over, that means it's almost time for summer movie season.  That surely means more sequels and franchise fare, but I'm mostly OK with that: particularly with a Marvel-version of Suicide Squad, a new Pixar, the final Mission Impossible, and a rebooted Jurassic Park.  Until next time!

* By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77948449

Warfare

Score:  A-

Directed by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland

Starring Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis, D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, et al

Running time: 95 minutes 

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Warfare is among the most unique and striking war movies I've seen, as well as one of the best.  It is a realistic-as-possible recreation of a small scale battle for survival fought by a Navy SEAL platoon during the Iraq War.  While it lacks the ra-ra triumphalism of many war movies, it is incredibly tense and gripping as you watch this very intimate and real fight for survival, and it shows the SEALs' courage and sacrifice vividly.  Highly recommended.

A re-enactment from the Iraq War, the events of Warfare take place in November 2006, depicting a platoon's experiences during one mission of the Battle of Ramadi.  A team of Navy SEALs is stationed in an Iraqi family's home in order to provide cover and surveillance for other military units.  However, the enemy discovers them and they themselves become the target of a large, harrowing attack.  Warfare shows the full battle, with all its moments of terror, bloodshed, courage, and heroism.

Warfare is a gripping, well-made war movie that focuses on a sense of authenticity in depicting a small piece of a larger battle in the Iraq War.  The main director is Mendoza, who was himself part of the SEAL team (played in the movie by Woon-A-Tai).  His skill and unique perspective on the military and the battle itself combined with Garland's extensive film experience allow for both a very authentic experience as well as one that is very artistic and compelling, both visually and emotionally.  The plot and details are based entirely on the individual SEALs' memories; because of conflicting memories due to the trauma of battle, some interpretation/compromise was necessary.  That plot is tightly focused: other than brief scenes of the SEALs pumping themselves up at their base and a nighttime stealth entrance to the Iraqi neighborhood, it all takes place in virtually real-time - inside the commandeered home and just outside it.  While there is plenty of "action", it's not like even some of the most realistic-seeming other war movies: the SEALs are not superheroes, and you don't see them mow down bad guys like video game characters.  The SEALs are very skilled and well-trained, but they appear to shoot mostly to keep the enemy occupied or at bay.  Some gruesome injuries are suffered, but its filming is not overwhelming (and I'm squeamish).  The level of detail in the medical care for these injuries, and details to other functions like surveillance, communications, etc., are quite impressive and immersive.

Warfare is also a very well acted movie and benefits as well from great skill in filmmaking fundamentals from pacing to cinematography.  There are a few semi-recognizable actors (Poulter, James Gandolfini's son) but it's mostly no-names, which I think was a good choice.  They all do a very good job in a mix of more "casual" scenes (still on duty but show more personality shown-typical young male stuff as well as subtle tics, etc.) with the intensity of the action and being on alert/under duress.  We get only glimpses of each character, but it's still enough to make them distinctive and human, and make us fully concerned for their safety.  The tension in the movie just keeps ratcheting up, from the beginning to the end, although there are also smaller ups-and-downs in intensity - a little action, followed by quiet, etc. - making the 90 minute running time all the faster and more compact.  Warfare is a great tribute to the veterans of the Iraq War, it seems to me: the movie doesn't comment on the politics of the war, one way or the other, but focuses on the brotherhood of the SEALs - their courage and skill under fire, but even more so their unwavering devotion to each other, imperiling themselves to help their buddies without hesitation.  The overall message I take is that war is messy, chaotic, and extremely dangerous and destructive; we should take great care before waging war, and keep the individual troops as our priority when we do.

***

Warfare is a unique little gem of a movie that I'm glad that I got to see in theaters.  I'd say I was surprised by it, not knowing about it until I saw it in my theater's showtimes, but that seems to be the default these days (because of less/different marketing for movies than in the past, and my looking into upcoming movies less).  Combining a seasoned, versatile director in Alex Garland with a veteran of the battle itself (and developing filmmaker himself) in Ray Mendoza was a great idea and resulted in a compelling, watchable, and illuminating movie.  Hollywood, to its credit, does seem to be releasing more original movies this year - but unfortunately, audiences have not rewarded them with good box office results so far.  The runaway hit so far this year is... a (poorly-reviewed) video game-based movie.  Sigh.  C'mon, everyone, get out to the theaters!  I will definitely be going back again soon, for another original getting great reviews: Sinners.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2025/warfare_xxlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78619575