Bugonia + The Running Man

 

Bugonia

Score:  B

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Aidan Delbis

Running time: 118 minutes

Rated R

Bugonia is the latest from the unique director Yorgos Lanthimos, a typically odd but very well made and engaging film that has one significant downfall (IMO).  The main story is pretty straightforward in that cousins Teddy (Plemons) and Don (Delbis) kidnap a major pharmaceutical CEO, Michelle (Stone), as they are convinced that she is at the center of a dangerous conspiracy.  The movie is intriguingly made to convey tones of both very ordinary life - bees buzzing around flowers, the cousins eating dinner together, CEO Michelle doing her daily routine - as well as foreboding, consequential stakes - a score that is mostly quiet but keeps breaking into bombastic orchestral swells, tense exchanges between captors and hostage, glimpses of the cousins' "research".  This incongruity keeps you off balance, in a good way, and along with a snappy yet patient pacing, builds and maintains significant interest in the fictional mystery.  The story also serves to highlight real-world themes in meaningful yet non-preachy ways.  Teddy, a genius, has clearly been sucked into the online abyss of conspiracy theories and is utterly convinced of his conclusions.  His intensity and rage is understandably heightened, though, by the very real health effects that Michelle's company had on his family, whose financial means are modest at best.  Michelle, on the other hand, certainly does not deserve captivity, even though she pushes her company's research ruthlessly and cares little for others, including her own employees.  So the film provides a nuanced perspective on modern issues, but this does not overwhelm the central dramatic elements, which are carried out marvelously by the actors, particularly Stone and Plemons.  **WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!**  What brings the movie down quite a bit for me is the bizarre final act: Teddy was right about his bonkers theories and at the end, literally every human simply dies (Earth is otherwise untouched).  This ending seems to spit on the great work that had been done all the way up to that point which is quite unfortunate.  Still, I admire Lanthimos, the actors, and the whole crew's efforts.

***

The Running Man

Score:  C

Directed by Edgar Wright

Starring Glen Powell, Josh Brolin, et al

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated R

The Running Man is a remake, likely chosen to resurface today due to obvious parallels with the modern world, but comes off as ham-handed and only mildly diverting.  Glen Powell plays the lead, Ben, a regular joe in a world of poverty who seizes an opportunity to join a sadistic show in which he must survive a "game" of hide-and-seek for one month to win a jackpot.  Powell is clearly Hollywood's main hope to be the next big movie star but the problem is - IMO - he just doesn't have the charismatic alchemy, the raw talent of previous stars (Cruise, Hanks, Clooney, Redford, etc.).  Certainly he's better than duds like Tatum or Wahlberg, but not special enough to make a good film great, or a poor one watchable.  Of course, he's not helped by a poor script here that makes it impossible for him to create a stable, consistent, believable (or even sympathetic) hero.  The movie also falls prey to the danger of trying to create a fake media company and show.  As the kids say, these attempts usually come off very cringe to me, ending any suspension of disbelief I might otherwise maintain.  Sure, Brolin and Domingo are very talented and fun actors, but they are wasted here in their roles.  All of the other supporting characters are lazily written (and sometimes poorly acted) tropes, particularly latecomer Amelia, shoehorned in right when the movie really comes off the tracks.  Yes, there are plenty of legitimate societal problems that this movie tries to highlight, from some (keyword there!) elements of the media to economic inequality.  But this movie does not artfully or effectively illustrate any of them.  If you're really desperate for an action movie in the theater, sure, you'll find some scenes to enjoy here.  Otherwise, skip.

***

My November movie theater trips were not as successful as I hoped, unfortunately, so the fall movie season has taken a downward turn after the awesome One Battle After Another and very solid Good Fortune.  I have significantly divergent takeaways from these latest two films, though.  I am determined to continue watching movies made by great directors like Lanthimos, as that's where the most interesting creativity is consistently coming from in Hollywood these days - even if they don't always fully live up to the high expectations.  The Running Man, on the other hand, illustrates a continuing degradation of at least one track of the action/blockbuster genre - and a severe decline in my interest in even trying them.  I still enjoy the action/adventure genre overall (and especially subgenres like superheroes), but I am getting pickier.  I don't have a lot of movies I'm looking forward to in the next few months, as it seems kids' movies (well, Zootopia 2 might be worth trying) and the next Avatar sequel (I thought the original was overrated and haven't even seen the second) dominate for the next month or so.  But in a pleasant surprise, my local theater is playing the new Knives Out movie next week (I thought this was only on Netflix, so what's going on?!?!  Hopefully this is a growing trend!!!) - so I'll be back again soon.

* By Focus Features - http://www.impawards.com/2025/bugonia.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80887446

** By Paramount Pictures - https://www.movieposters.com/products/running-man-mpw-149867, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80330198

Good Fortune

Score:  B/B+

Directed by Aziz Ansari

Starring Aziz Ansari, Keanu Reeves, Seth Rogen, Keke Palmer

Running time: 97 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Good Fortune is a very solid and entertaining comedy, a genre that is becoming rare in theaters these days.  Aziz Ansari, in his directing debut, is the creative force behind it all, and he shows that he can be a strong leader in the industry if given the chance.  It's not all as smooth as you might hope, but the three well-chosen leads bring their talents to an old premise (life switcheroo) that is reinvigorated by a very appropriate combination with today's economic turbulence.  Definitely see it if you're a fan of the actors involved, or simply want an amusing and thought-provoking outing.

Arj (Ansari) is struggling.  With dreams of becoming a filmmaker, he is stuck barely keeping himself afloat with part-time, frustrating jobs.  In a stroke of luck, he has been watched by a guardian angel, Gabriel (Reeves), who takes pity on him and in a flash, completely changes his life circumstances.  Arj is not the only one affected by Gabriel's intervention, however, and not everyone is as happy about the new situation.  The difference between Arj and Gabriel's ultimate goals quickly becomes clear, yet they must figure out a way to work with each other in order to restore balance - for everyone.

Good Fortune is an intriguing and entertaining debut film for comedian Aziz Ansari, one that shows a lot of potential in his creativity but also some of the rougher edges of a newcomer.  The basic premise, in which two main characters' lives are switched and they learn more about themselves and others by doing so, is not new, but Ansari has clever takes on it and uses it for some effective modern social commentary.  The cast is also almost ideal for the roles, though not particularly a showcase for anyone's talents.  Ansari's Arj is a kind of version of his Parks & Rec role, striving yet frequently frustrated, but also knows how to have a good time when he gets the chance.  Rogen, as an asshole tech investor, is also a nitwit and benefits from the actor's jolly charm to be more sympathetic than expected.  And Reeves is a major nitwit, playing up the actor's half-serious reputation; this is the only hammed-up part in the movie, although Gabriel gets a handful of poignant moments, too.  Unfortunately, Keke Palmer's tremendous talents are mostly wasted here (see her true abilities in One of Them Days) - she's forced to be way too much of the "straight" woman, and you can almost feel her itching to break out of it.

The life-switching premise is very interesting, if at times a bit too on-the-nose, in its combination with today's radically unequal economic system.  Good Fortune is particularly good at showing the struggle of today's "hustle" economy; it's like watching someone run as fast as they can on a treadmill but still get pulled backwards, inexorably.  Not that there aren't small moments of pleasure or at least breaks, especially in commiserating with those around you (Palmer's Elena).  The movie also pokes fun effectively at the lifestyle of the rich and careless (a sauna-ice plunge cycle is especially funny).  Seeing the roles get reversed is satisfying, and Ansari is wise to be upfront in showing how much his Arj loves it, while Rogen's Jeff is furious - particularly after Gabriel reveals his trick.  The structure of this is all good, with plenty of strong moments.  But the film also suffers from some uneven or jarring pacing issues.  As noted above, the social commentary can often be a little too direct, particularly in the dialogue - as if Ansari wasn't sure if the audience was getting it by just watching.  It also has plenty of chuckle-humor, but few belly laughs or bravura scenes.  So, the execution doesn't quite (or consistently) match the potential of Ansari's ideas here, but it's still well worth a watch.

***

I immediately knew that I wanted to see Good Fortune after first seeing the trailer, as I really like Aziz Ansari - from his role on Parks & Rec to his Netflix show to some of his standup.  The neat premise, along with strong co-stars in Reeves and Rogen, were icing on the cake.  While Ansari's skills as a filmmaker need some further developing - not surprising for anyone new to it - the movie did turn out to be both very enjoyable and thought-provoking, a not-too-common combination to find on screen.  Along with Tim Robinson's Friendship from May, I am hopeful that Hollywood will both continue to give top talent like Ansari and Robinson the chance to bring their unique perspectives and ideas to film (not just acting but also writing/directing) - and also make sure it gets into theaters.  I'm not sure what is up next for me in theaters, but as we get deeper into the fall there will hopefully be more and more (non-horror) things to watch.  Stay tuned!

* By Source, Lionsgate - http://www.impawards.com/2025/good_fortune_ver9.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80076451

One Battle After Another

Score:  A/A+

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Chase Infiniti, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Teyana Taylor, et al

Running time: 162 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  One Battle After Another is as relentless as its title, a thrilling adventure that focuses on one small family in the midst of a grim American near future.  While survival is a constant struggle, though, it's really not about literal "battles".  DiCaprio shines as an in over his head father and sometime revolutionary, joined superbly by old hand Sean Penn as his nemesis and newcomer Chase Infiniti as his daughter.  So well-made in every way and keeps you riveted the whole time: a must-see hit.

Pat (DiCaprio) and Perfidia (Taylor) are a young couple in a revolutionary group.  Their attraction grows as they are mutually thrilled by the passion of their convictions and harrowing plots; however, a military commander, Lockjaw (Penn), becomes obsessed with hunting them down.  After a tragedy, events move years into the future, where Pat struggles to raise his daughter, Willa (Infiniti), by himself.  While much has changed in the intervening years, much has also remained the same, and the two suddenly find themselves in a desperate race for survival.

One Battle After Another is an outstanding movie, one of those lightning-in-a-bottle events where everything just clicks together almost perfectly for an entertaining, well-crafted, and artistic experience.  I should begin by saying that, while its alternate-America society is chillingly similar to today's world - dealing especially with inhumane treatment of immigrants - this is not the main focus of the movie.  Instead, the core of the movie, as in all the best, is about the characters.  Leonardo DiCaprio is as great as usual in the main role, a naive young revolutionary recruit turned grizzled - if kooky - veteran and father.  The focus early on for both Pat and the movie is the single-minded, idealistic and driven revolutionary mission, providing a thrilling rush.  But most of the rest of the movie - and Pat - turns to a more sober, realistic, and protective or defensive mindset - but it's just as thrilling, actually more so, because the personal stakes become the focus.  Infiniti is a revelation, giving an incredible performance as a terrified yet strong and determined (these words don't do it justice) adolescent girl.  Penn is equally stunning as the villainous and grotesque Lockjaw; foul and relentless yet with unmistakable humanity, he is the perfect foil for the movie.  And there are great supporting parts at every turn, starting with del Toro's canny yet quiet, hard-to-read resistance leader (with a great rapport with DiCaprio's Pat); Taylor, Regina Hall, and others as the family-like revolutionary group; and the members, including Tony Goldwyn, of an outwardly normal but deeply weird white supremacist group.  Thanks to the great acting work - and writing, directing, and other filmmaking elements - One Battle feels like an exhilarating epic even though it's far different from other "epics" with world-changing/ending yet hollow results.

Another reason that the movie feels like an epic is, well, the action.  Not action as in fighting - despite the title - but rather a constant struggle for survival.  It makes the two hour and forty-five minute running time go by in a flash.  Pat and Perfidia's first mission is thrilling, not because it's some gigantic plan but rather because you don't know what to expect.  When the movie jumps forward in time, it's essentially one long chase, although that chase changes directions several times and has well-timed breaks in the action.  Highlights include Pat and del Toro's Sergio bantering while fleeing a sanctuary city under assault, and one of the most unique and pulse-pounding car chases I've seen in a movie - but all of it is great, there are no letdown scenes.  Along with all of that action, and even while maintaining an overall serious and realistic tone, there is a tremendous amount of humor, too.  Pat is not exactly the world's most with-it hero, and his foibles come out in hilarious both physical and verbal gaffes and outbursts.  The white supremacist group is also mocked with its utterly ridiculous name and theme; I won't spoil the surprise.  But the movie also ribs the political left, mocking its rhetorical excesses.  There's occasional, more subtle, humor elsewhere, too.  The score by Jonny Greenwood is phenomenal, alternating between gigantic, all-encompassing sound to provide great atmosphere for the stakes of certain scenes, and then moving to much quieter, almost quirky (but very appropriate) styles and instrumentation in others (including tense action moments).  You can rattle off about every other filmmaking element of this movie and it's all superbly done - the writing, directing, and pacing foremost, as well as engrossing cinematography and more.  To cap it all off, it has an excellent ending, both to the final climactic action scene as well as to the poignant resolution.  Bravo!

***

When I first saw the trailer for One Battle After Another (in a theater preview before some other movie, of course), it seemed a bit eccentric but unique and probably fun; plus, DiCaprio has become among the very best modern actors (along with Christian Bale).  It turned out to be much more serious than I expected, though still with plenty of fun and sillier touches, and most importantly, incredibly good.  On its politics: IMHO, it handled this perfectly.  The movie was filmed during 2024, before all of the Trump administration's unprecedented detainment, deportation, and other immigration activities.  The movie's depictions of its own dire immigration situation is frighteningly similar to what has been occurring in real life in some ways and chillingly plausible for our near future in others ways.  The main characters are fighting against this, of course, but the movie is not at all preachy (and as I mentioned, it moves on to focus on the main characters' specific stories for most of the running time).  It's similar to The Order's portrayal of white supremacist/nationalist groups: show, don't tell, and let audiences judge for themselves.  This movie is a must-see for anyone as an artistic and entertaining triumph, but for those not currently under the MAGA spell (metaphorically speaking), it's even more meaningful.  What are you still reading this review for - go out and buy your ticket to see it tonight!!

* By source, Warner Bros. Pictures - https://www.cinematerial.com/movies/one-battle-after-another-i30144839/p/gx8enlln, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79721611

 

The Roses + The Toxic Avenger

 

The Roses

Score:  B

Directed by Jay Roach

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Olivia Colman, Andy Samberg, Kate McKinnon, et al

Running time: 105 minutes

Rated R

The Roses is an entertaining movie, thanks especially to great comedic performances from both the leads and the supporting cast, but the whole ends up less than the sum of its parts.  The basic plot of the movie is the inexorable - excruciating yet often hilarious - dissolution of a once-happy couple's marriage.  Since there isn't much else going on, the filmmakers wisely invert the chronology at the beginning.  It starts off with a very funny counseling session with Cumberbatch's Theo and Colman's Ivy, which has a surprising but appropriate ending, before rewinding to the beginning of their relationship, in much happier days.  The movie also tries to keep up the energy, mood, and pace by consistently going over the top (usually by a little, sometimes a lot) of realism.  This works at times, such as Theo's professional disaster and pretty much all of Sandberg and McKinnon's lines.  But it also can be unnecessary and/or jarring, like their children's extreme upbringing (any scenes with them are odd) and the ridiculous lengths to which Theo and Ivy eventually take their conflict.  Much of the dialogue is really good, and Cumberbatch and Colman are as sharp as you would hope for.  The movie also shows hints of subtler understandings of the more realistic tensions and conflicts in a modern relationship - I just wish that the entire movie had been built around a similarly modest story and action.  It can't seem to help but constantly top itself in the ugliness of the relationship battles, which becomes numbing in a similar way to the violent action in a shoot-em-up movie.  It's not a long movie, but it could/should have been even shorter.  Still, a fun, very watchable movie - I am just focused more on the negative because it had the potential to be much better.

The Toxic Avenger

Score:  C+

Directed by Macon Blair

Starring Peter Dinklage, Kevin Bacon, Jacob Tremblay, et al

Running time: 103 minutes

Rated R

The Toxic Avenger is an 80s throwback, an intermittently entertaining remake of a cult favorite that tries several different styles, not entirely successfully.  I saw the original Toxic Avenger years ago (although also years after its original release in 1984) and remember it vaguely as a bizarre but interesting movie.  Well, it got a reboot, and the surprise involvement of some significant star power in Dinklage, Bacon, and Lord of the Rings' Elijah Wood.  The premise is a pretty simple one: Dinklage's Winston, a lowly employee of a sinister chemical/pharmaceutical company, is transformed in an accident into a grotesque monster who becomes a hero by taking down the villains terrorizing his community.  The movie's strengths are its fun 1980s aesthetic and feel, and a frequently very silly, gentler style of humor (i.e., a doctor trying to give Winston an important diagnosis but being drowned out by construction noises; and a stereotypical yet clever forest-dwelling wacko scene).  If anything, the movie would have fared significantly better with much more of both those things.  Dinklage is also endearing as a struggling single dad, pre-transformation.  But the filmmakers play it too straight overall, despite the kind of dull, and definitely ridiculous, premise.  It's hard to tell if a lot of the dialogue is just poorly written, or intentionally cheesy (probably both).  And there is a good bit of over the top action and gore, with Toxie mauling baddies with a "magic mop" and brute strength.  It's gross but cartoonish; the most offensive thing about it is that it's not entertaining enough.  Not a complete failure, but this is not one worth watching, either.

***

As you can tell, I saw two very different movies in this late summer/early fall movie season!  Both were at least a little disappointing, but also offered a change of pace in style.  Ironically, critics gave a better score to The Roses, a remake of a European movie, than they did to The Upside (2019) and Downhill (2020), two other remakes of European originals that I thought were much, much better.  And I'm shocked by the 86% that critics gave to The Toxic Avengers remake, which is what nudged me to the theater to see it.  Oh well.  Looking ahead at the fall movie calendar, I'm not sure I see a lot to look forward to, but hopefully there will be some good surprises or I just get more information on the best to come.  If not, I'll just enjoy football season for awhile!

* By source IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79646366

** By source Legendary Pictures - http://www.impawards.com/2025/toxic_avenger_ver2_xlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74608794

The Naked Gun

 

Score:  A-/B+

Directed by Akiva Schaffer

Starring Liam Neeson, Pamela Anderson, Danny Huston, et al

Running time: 85 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Naked Gun is a comedy remake/reboot that's worth the time and fulfills its mission of making you laugh, (almost) constantly.  Liam Neeson is a great stand-in for Leslie Nielsen (no one can replace him), doing a great job with the deadpan and acting with passion but not overplaying it.  The writing is also high quality, with so many gags in both the foreground and background that I'm sure I missed plenty.  Definitely worth a trip to the movie theater, and bring friends!

The Naked Gun is a worthy remake/sequel of a comedy classic, bringing back a long-dormant slapstick style effectively through Liam Neeson.  I don't remember the original NG very well, but I've seen plenty of the late-great Leslie Nielsen's parody films (try Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Spy Hard, and Wrongfully Accused).  Neeson does a very good job imitating Nielsen's deadpan style, even if he can't match the original; he's fully committed.  Refreshingly, the movie really doesn't try to "modernize" the comedy.  Yes, it takes place in today's world and thus uses modern references like social media and electric vehicles, but the overtly ridiculous slapstick is essentially the same.  I don't want to spoil much of the fun, but some of the highlights to me were: a recurring gag around the ubiquity of cops drinking coffee; a revival of the classic backlit-shadows-behind-a-curtain showing deceptively naughty acts; a surreal(-ly hilarious) montage scene featuring a snowman come to life, then becoming a nightmare; and a perfect renaming of Los Angeles's basketball stadium.  The comedy is almost non-stop, although naturally some bits work better than others.  Anderson is well-cast as Neeson's romantic yet mysterious partner, and Huston is an appropriately stereotypical villain.  There's not much more to say: this is a movie with the singular goal of making you giggle.  And it does a very good job of that!

***

I wasn't sure about this resurrection of The Naked Gun; while I loved much of Nielsen's comedy, the trailer for this modern version seemed like it might be trying too hard and not able to capture the same magic - a problem plaguing other comedy remakes.  But after seeing that the critics liked it (89% on Rotten Tomatoes - and two of critics' least favorite things are comedies and remakes), I decided it was worth a try.  Fortunately, there is little to no sense of the strain that I feared, thanks largely to Neeson's committed and controlled performance and a clever script (quite a bit better than most modern comedies, to be honest).  Of course, like all comedies, this is best seen as a group where contagious laughter makes it all the funnier - so be sure to see it with friends, or at least on a packed weekend showing.  This movie renewed my faith in Hollywood at least a little in terms of its ability to not just cash in on a famous old property but actually do it justice.  Hopefully there will be more fun to come in the last month or so of the summer movie season!

* By Paramount Pictures - http://www.impawards.com/2025/naked_gun_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79622924

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

 

Score: A-

Directed by 

Starring Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Joseph Quinn, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Julia Garner

Running time: 114 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Fantastic Four: First Steps is another iteration of the family of Marvel superheroes, but this time they got it right.  Rather than feeling like a generic genre glob, the movie sets the action in a well-designed "retrofuturist" (not my word) version of the 1960s that feels unique.  Add on a good, solid cast led by Pascal and Kirby, plus a simpler-than-usual (but still compelling) story that tones down the fighting but keeps the excitement, and you have a very fun summer blockbuster - whether or not you're a Marvel movie nerd (*raises hand*). Highly recommended.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a strong, standalone entry for the Marvel superhero franchise, and a refreshing new start for this previously troubled group of superheroes.  One of Marvel's most popular comic book superhero teams, the Fantastic Four have had a rough experience at the movie theater with mediocre (at best) features in 2005 and 2007 and an all-time flop in 2015 (which I haven't even seen, due to it's 9% Rotten Tomatoes score).  Joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) was just the medicine this group needed (see: Spider-Man, etc.).  The Four have always seemed kind of generic to me, though I admit that I have not read any of the comics and only seen the 2005 and 2007 movies.  While you can say this to some extent about most superheroes, FF just felt to me like a generic hybrid of the genre with no particular signature tone or style.  Fortunately, First Steps immediately takes care of this problem by placing the heroes in an artificial yet strangely very specific-feeling alt-1960s environment (this Earth is from a different universe).  Everything from its TV culture to clothing style to technology is reminiscent of "our" 1960s, just with a slight twist on it.  This vivid, inviting setting is crucial to setting a firm foundation for the rest of the film.  

The characters, plot, and action are all suitable to this template as well, all within a running time that wisely wraps up in under two hours.  The plot is pretty damn straightforward: a God-like alien is going to destroy the Earth in a Death Star-like "boom" unless the Fantastic Four stop him.  The catch, though, is that the alien will spare Earth if the Four agree to sacrifice one of their own.  You don't need to know any characters or stories from a previous movie, and there is just a brief introduction - in 60s variety-TV style - to this alternate Earth at the beginning.  Pedro Pascal is a great choice to the anchor the family as Reed Richards, as he exudes a calm sense of control that permeates the movie.  His partner Sue, played by Vanessa Kirby, is just as - if not more - important, as she centers the focus on and care for family.  Yes, it's a little bit retro-early 60s gender norms here, but Kirby also does a great job of subtly showing that she is indeed the strongest member of the FF - not just in normal family terms but also as a superhero.  Ben (Quinn) and Johnny (Moss-Bachrach) are supporting characters but both are worthy members, providing comic relief as pseudo-brothers but integrated into the whole as well.  In a refreshing change, while there is plenty of exciting action, there isn't much typical superhero fighting.  There is a cool space chase in the first half, and the finale on Earth showcases the Four's super abilities.  But I liked that the movie is sparing in showing the Four's powers (well, Johnny flies a lot, but that's the exception).  The focus is more on, well, the family, and tackling a problem that requires using the head and heart more than sheer brawn.  The ending provides some emotional poignance, and the tone, from its zippy 60s aesthetic to the more epic moments, is enhanced by a nice score featuring choral work.  While I love the complex, interwoven Marvel movies, this was also a very nice change of pace in its relative simplicity and independence.

***

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a great summer blockbuster to catch, regardless of whether you have been following the other Marvel superhero movies.  It doesn't reach the highest tier of the genre, but it's a really well done movie, especially considering the Fantastic Four's history on screen and its inherent (to me) challenges.  In comparing it to this summer's Superman from DC, it's clear that Marvel is still simply the superior superhero movie studio.  Yes, Superman is fun, and I do recommend it.  But it is more difficult for me to see in it the clear creative vision and comprehensive quality of execution that Fantastic Four - and almost all other Marvel movies - exhibit.  Superman takes a little of this and a little of that that it notices from popular culture at large or, like other DC movies, tries to adapt/steal from Marvel, which is fine.  However, Marvel just showcased yet again its cohesive skill and standard of high quality - not by developing characters and stories step-by-step this time, but through a broader, more traditional blockbuster movie experience.  Just as effective as always, though.  Not sure what comes next for me - possibly The Naked Gun, since reviews are looking encouraging.  Go enjoy a movie or two at the theater!

* By source http://www.impawards.com/2025/fantastic_four_ver18.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77473850

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