Category Archives: Dramas

THE LOST KING (2022) – Tale of Woman’s Quest to Find Richard III’s Grave Quietly Satisfies

0
Posted on by

THE LOST KING (2022) is a quiet yet satisfying movie that shouldn’t go unnoticed.

Filmed in 2022, it just got its U.S. release this weekend. Directed by Stephen Frears, who directed THE QUEEN (2006) and way back when, DANGEROUS LIASONS (1988), THE LOST KING is based on the true story of one woman’s obsession with finding the grave of Richard III.

It’s 2012 and Philippa Langley (Sally Hawkins) is not in a happy place in her life. She is separated from her husband John (Steve Coogan) who has moved out, which makes taking care of their two boys all the more difficult. Work is not going well, as she watches much younger coworkers with very little experience get promotions instead of her. And she suffers from a chronic condition which keeps her exhausted all the time.

One day, while watching the play Richard III with her son, she is struck by one of the lines in the play where Richard says because his deformity, a hunched back, is so hated, he will push back with even more hate. This line doesn’t ring true to her, as she doesn’t believe someone would spew hate because of their disability, and she questions the accuracy of Shakespeare’s interpretation of the usurper king. She joins the local Richard III society and begins reading up on the king, and when she learns that his grave was never found, she becomes inspired to find it. The rest of the movie follows her quest to find Richard’s grave and chronicles all the adversity she has to get through to accomplish this task, being both an amateur and a woman.

Along the way, she starts seeing Richard III (Harry Lloyd) appear to her, and while she knows this is just an apparition from her own mind, she can’t help but feel that it’s something more, that the spirit of Richard himself is driving her forward to find his grave. And so, she persists, not only for Richard, but for herself, as she discovers that this process has energized her, and she feels more alive than she has in quite a long time.

THE LOST KING never really takes off or puts everything it has all together, but it’s a movie that is full of lots of little moments and points, and when summed up, it ends up being a decently satisfying movie with important things to say about the empowerment of women and also how history is not always accurately recorded.

Sally Hawkins is perfect as Philippa Langley. Hawkins, who was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for her work in THE SHAPE OF WATER (2017), captures Langley’s drive and determination as she powers through her own disability, her chronic fatigue disease. My favorite part of her performance is she never allows Langley to deviate from her soft-spoken roots, and so while she perseveres to the point where she is the person who gets ahead of the professionals and leads the way to the improbable discovery of Richard III’s grave, she doesn’t let things get to her head. She remains a good person throughout.

That’s not to say that Langley didn’t have a big chip on her shoulder. She did. As she says in the movie, she doesn’t like the way some people seem to enjoy going out of their way to make people feel inferior. Langley faced push back from start to finish, from men taking issue with her use of the word “feelings,” when she would offer that as reasoning behind her thoughts for how she planned to proceed, to later when the University refused to give her credit for the discovery. In fact, this push back continues today, as the University of Leicester took issue with the interpretation of events as depicted in the movie, claiming that the film gives too much credit to Langley. Well, the movie is about her after all, and as stated at the beginning of the film, it’s her story.

The scenes where Langley pushes back against men who claim to know more than her are fun to watch. The screenplay by Steve Coogan, who also plays Langley’s husband John in the movie, Philippa Langley, and Jeff Pope, does a wonderful job carving out Langley’s character, and since Langley herself is one of the screenwriters here, I guess that’s to be expected! And it also does a nice job with the story of Richard III, how Langley believes he was wrongly recorded in history as a villain and usurper, because the new king wanted history recorded this way after Richard’s death, and since Richard wasn’t alive to refute things, history stood. It was important for Langley for Richard’s burial to acknowledge that he was the rightful king and not just a usurper, and this was important to her, at least as depicted in the movie, because that’s what irked her, the way people struck down those they thought were inferior or wouldn’t fight back. Or in Richard’s case couldn’t fight back because he was dead.

The screenplay also does a nice job with Langley’s family dynamic. I rarely like the plot point where the events in a movie bring an estranged couple back together again, but here it works. A lot of it has to do with Steve Coogan’s performance, but more of it is the writing itself. Coogan plays John Langley as a man who has grown tired of his wife because of her troubles, and while he has moved out and is seeing another woman, he still returns to Philippa’s home and helps her cook meals for the boys. At first, he dismisses her newfound passion, as it sounds crazy to him, but as he reads about Richard III and sees Philippa becoming empowered and happy, he changes his tune and supports her.

There’s a scene where their youngest son witnesses Philippa talking to Richard III, but of course he only sees her talking to herself. So, he tells his dad that mommy is talking to herself, and John replies, “We all do.” It’s one of the best lines in the movie and a key moment that tells the audience that John is now there for his ex-wife. And later the scene where he makes his boys stop playing video games so he can tell them the good news of what their mom just discovered, and Philippa hears her boys cheering her over the phone is priceless.

Coogan is an enjoyable actor who has been around for a long time. I enjoyed him a few years back when he played Stan Laurel in STAN & OLLIE (2018), which incidentally was written by fellow THE LOST KING screenwriter Jeff Pope.

Mark Addy is also memorable as archeologist Richard Buckley, who at first quickly dismisses Philippa’s request to dig in the city, but when the university cuts his funding, he changes his tune and accepts her offer. The two butt heads throughout, but when the university refuses to give her credit, it’s Buckley who takes offense and speaks up on her behalf.

James Fleet enjoys some fine moments as John Ashdown-Hill, a researcher and professor who offers Philippa support. And while Harry Lloyd isn’t asked to do much beyond smile, look handsome, and say a few words as Richard III, he does it all with royal style.

Director Stephen Frears effectively navigates through a subdued yet interesting story that never holds its high notes for very long. So, while THE LOST KING won’t blow you away, it will hold your interest for its quiet one hour and forty-eight-minute running time.

And that’s because it has two intriguing stories to tell, the one about Richard III, and the other about Philippa Langley and her efforts to both help a historical figure get the recognition she believed he deserved, and to help herself find some meaning and purpose in her life.

On top of this, the movie has two wonderful performances by Sally Hawkins in the lead role as Philippa, and Steve Coogan in a supporting role as her husband John. The two actors lead a solid ensemble cast as they bring this notable story of one woman’s passionate quest to correct history to life.

As I said at the outset, THE LOST KING never quite fires on all cylinders. But it makes enough of its points and captures enough small moments to make it a worthwhile trip to the theater, especially if you enjoy stories about perseverance and determination and history.

I give it two and a half stars.

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN (2023) – Intense, Worthy Follow-Up to Superb LUTHER Television Series

0
Posted on by

As a fan of both the TV show LUTHER (2010-2019) and of Idris Elba, I was excited to watch LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN (2023), a new Netflix original movie and follow-up to the TV series.

I was not disappointed.

Sure, the movie isn’t perfect, but there is a lot to like about LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN, especially for Idris Elba fans.

The plot is pretty straightforward. When a young man disappears under mysterious circumstances, DCI John Luther (Idris Elba) promises the man’s mother that he will bring her son back to him, but serial killer David Robey (Andy Serkis, in a deliciously over-the-top performance) has other ideas. Robey is more than just a serial killer. He’s also a master of technology and uses this mastery to find compromising material on seemingly anyone he wants, as there is so much information available out there in the cloud. He uses this information to blackmail people into doing what he wants, in this case making sure that John Luther is taken off the streets, which isn’t difficult because Luther has always been a problematic detective, often taking the law into his own hands to solve crimes. This time with Robey pulling the strings, the law strikes back, and Luther is arrested and sent to prison.

But Robey being the showman that he is, doesn’t leave Luther alone and sends him a recording of the young man’s death to taunt the detective. Not a bright move, Mr. Serial Killer, because Luther decides that he has to break out of prison and track down this man on his own, which is exactly what he does.

The rest of the movie follows Luther as he not only tries to track down Robey but also has to evade the police who are aggressively hunting him down, led by DCI Odette Raine (Cynthia Erivo). Along the way, Luther turns to his old boss, the retired Martin Schenk (Dermot Crowley) for help. As Luther closes in on Robey, the depths of the serial killer’s plans become known and the stakes rise as Raine’s daughter is also kidnapped.

LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN gets off to somewhat of a rocky start, as the plot point of Luther going to prison is sloppily and quickly told with very little detail provided. Robey tells his police contact he wants Luther taken care of, and the next thing you know the detective is in prison. I also thought this was largely a wasted plot point. Andy Serkis creates such a despicable character in David Robey, that a straight story pitting Luther against him would have worked for me just fine. I know having Luther break out of prison adds the additional story element of Luther also evading the police, but this didn’t really add all that much to the story. The most interesting part of the plot is having Luther take on Robey.

Plus, Luther’s escape from prison is also quickly handled. And neither of these plot points, Luther going to prison and then easily escaping, are all that believable.

However, once Luther is out of prison, the film takes off and just gets better and better. It’s anchored by two solid performances, by Idris Elba and Andy Serkis, and it has a very exciting story.

What’s fun about Idris Elba’s performance as John Luther, both in the TV series and here in this movie, is that he plays Luther as a guy who has no qualms about breaking the law to get the job done, but he is not a ruffian. He’s a sincere, soft-spoken man who is able to reach people and earn their trust. Of course, his strength, and the center of his brilliance as a detective, is he possesses the ability to see people, to read them, to know their intentions. But when it comes to hunting down criminals, he’s ruthless. It’s an interesting dynamic for a character, and Elba nails it.

Elba is also still very convincing as a tough guy cop who can fight and take down multiple threats at a time.

Andy Serkis has a field day as serial killer David Robey. It’s an over-the-top performance, the type where he makes Robey love what he is doing, and he takes great delight in hurting people. It ends up being an immensely disturbing performance, one where you will be rooting for Luther to hunt down and stop this guy. Serkis, who’s most famous for his motion capture roles, from Gollum in THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies, and Caesar in the PLANET OF THE APES reboots, has also been in a ton of other movies and seems to show up everywhere these days, from the STAR WARS TV show ANDOR (2022) to playing Alfred in THE BATMAN (2022). He’s been in the STAR WARS movies and in the Marvel superhero films, but seldom has he played a character as abhorrent as David Robey. In addition to Idris Elba’s performance, Serkis’ work here is also a major reason to see this movie.

Cynthia Erivo is also very good as DCI Odette Raine, who finds herself tasked with the double whammy of having to track down both Luther and Robey, and in Luther’s case, knowing that by stopping him she may be losing her best chance to catch Robey.

I liked Dermot Crowley when he played Martin Schenk on the show, and he is just as good here in the movie, enjoying a lot of memorable scenes. He makes no secret to either side about what he is doing. Luther knows that Schenk is also helping Raine, and Raine knows that Schenk is also helping Luther. It’s a really interesting dynamic that these three characters share in this movie, and Crowley has fun playing this sly, wise, and ultimately very important character. Crowley is a veteran character actor who has also been notable in such films as THE WONDER (2022) and THE DEATH OF STALIN (2017).

With the exception of the plot point of sending Luther to prison and then having him escape from prison, I really enjoyed the screenplay by Neil Cross, who created the LUTHER TV series. As I said, he makes Robey such a horrifying character that you just can’t wait for Luther to catch him, and he’s so formidable that you’re not even sure that will happen. There are some truly dark and horrifying scenes in LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN, from the way Robey taunts his victims’ families to a very unsettling sequence in Piccadilly Circus. It definitely earns its R rating. And it doesn’t rely on a lot of CGI blood and guts, which often look fake and detract from the horror. Instead, it relies on emotions and watching people react to the horrors, which is very effective.

There are also a couple of very exciting and intense chase sequences, some notable fight scenes, and lots of tension and drama. Director Jamie Payne handles all of it well.

And Robey’s master plan is quite disturbing and sadly, incredibly realistic. It’s not difficult to believe something like this really happening in this day and age of people’s access to technology and willingness to spend money to watch what Robey was offering. The ending also really works. It’s been a while since I’ve been on the edge of my seat as much as I was during the final reel of this one. Intense stuff!

I really enjoyed LUTHER: THE FALLEN SUN. It’s a worthy follow-up to the successful LUTHER TV show, and yet another showcase of the talents of Idris Elba, with fine supporting work by Andy Serkis as one very despicable villain.

I give it an enthusiastic three stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

THE STRAYS (2023) – Underwhelming Thriller’s Unusual Premise Only Takes It So Far

0
Posted on by

THE STRAYS (2023), a new thriller now available on Netflix, has as its greatest strength an unusual premise, one that held my interest for two thirds of the way through the movie, but where it ultimately goes with its plot is a major disappointment.

The story told in THE STRAYS can be separated into three parts.

In the first part, we meet Neve (Ashley Madekwe), a Black woman who is so overwhelmed by her family life, two young children and an abusive husband, that she just up and leaves. The story finds her years later with a new family, a white husband Ian (Justin Salinger) and two teenage children, Sebastian (Samuel Paul Small) and Mary (Maria Almeida). They are an affluent family, and so unlike her previous life, Neve is doing quite well, and she has a good job at the private school her children attend. Neve works hard to put her past behind her, including seemingly disowning her blackness, as she tries exceedingly hard to fit into the white culture found in her wealthy British neighborhood.

Life is good for Neve, until she spies two strangers watching her at various times in the day, and these same strangers also take an interest in her children. At this point, the film takes on a creepy vibe and begins to work more as a thriller than a drama. Once these strangers identify themselves, the film reveals their backstories, and it’s here where the vibe of the movie changes yet again, and honestly where it becomes most intriguing. Amid the revelations made about these two characters, the story is set to go to some very dark and sad places, and the potential is ripe for some serious drama.

Which brings us to the third part of the movie, and by far, the weakest part, because it’s here where THE STRAYS goes full blown thriller, which doesn’t really work. The movie offers a thought-provoking premise but then resolves everything in the final reel in the least thought-provoking way. On one level, it makes sense for these two characters to act this way, because they are acting out of raw emotion, but there were so many more impactful ways this story could have gone, so many other conversations and situations. But the film settles for the easiest way out.

And the ending is both predictable and a letdown. Because really, the conflict presented here is not really resolved.

THE STRAYS was written and directed by first-time director Nathaniel Martello-White, and what he is saying in this movie almost works. The undercurrent in this story is the disowning of one’s race and culture, as Neve buries her past and focuses only on fitting into the new white culture she has married into. The story also examines the fallout such a choice has on the people left behind. I liked all of these aspects of the story, but the third act doesn’t handle the material satisfactorily, and settles for a straight-forward violent conclusion.

The acting is all fine. Ashely Madekwe is superb in the lead role as Neve. She captures the duality of the character, and she possesses the ability to turn facets of her personality on and off at will. She also gets one of the best lines in the movie, where she is explaining what she did, leaving her family behind, and she asks why she should be held accountable when it is something that men do all the time and society accepts it. And early on before leaving her first family, she laments that this wasn’t how she expected her life to go, that she worked hard and did all the right things, and she didn’t deserve this. She is told to be patient. Instead, she shakes her head and leaves. Madekwe gets many powerful scenes and handles them all well.

The first two thirds of THE STRAYS are compelling, but the final act is a letdown.

I give this underwhelming thriller two stars.

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

CREED III (2023) – Solid Yet Unsurprising Ninth Movie in the ROCKY Universe

0
Posted on by

I know. I’m a sucker for boxing movies.

Especially those in the ROCKY movie universe.

And so I enjoyed CREED III (2023), the third film in the CREED series, and the ninth film in the ROCKY universe, and not just because I’m a sucker for these movies. It’s a pretty darn good movie in its own right. That being said, it’s also the ninth movie in a series, and so one knock against the film is it is exceedingly predictable.

CREED III is the first movie in the ROCKY movie world not to feature Sylvester Stallone as Rocky, and the movie is strong enough to keep Rocky from being missed. But it does feature Michael B. Jordan once again in the lead role as Adonis Creed, the son of Apollo Creed, who was Rocky’s first opponent in the first ROCKY movie back in 1976. Apollo and Rocky eventually become best friends, but then Apollo was killed in the ring in ROCKY IV (1985) by Soviet fighter Ivan Drago. In CREED II (2018), Adonis defeats Drago’s son in a title match that was very personal for Adonis, as he was fighting for his deceased father.

Jordan has been excellent in all three CREED movies, and here he works behind the camera as well for the first time, as he makes his directorial debut with CREED III. And in what is probably the best part of the movie, he is joined in the cast by Jonathan Majors who plays Adonis’ childhood friend and now opponent, Damian Anderson. Jordan and Majors are two of the more dynamic actors working today, and their combined presence in this movie lifts it to a higher level.

In CREED III, Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) has retired from boxing, going out on top as heavyweight champion, his thinking being to step away from the sport to enjoy his life with his wife Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and their young daughter Amara (Mila Davis-Kent). Adonis also runs the local gym with his former trainer Stitch (Jacob “Stitch” Duran), where they train and represent the current champion Felix Chavez (Jose Benvidez). Life is good.

But things change when Adonis’ childhood best buddy Damian (Jonathan Majors) shows up at the gym, having just been released from prison, where he has spent the past eighteen years of his life. When they were kids, they both boxed, and Damian was the better of the two and as a teenager was already considered a boxer with high promise. But prison changed all that. While Adonis offers to help Damian any way he can, Damian makes it clear he wants only one thing: a shot at the title, a shot he says he was denied because of his prison sentence.

Adonis tells him that’s impossible, as he’s not even a pro, but Damian reminds him that one, Adonis himself got the title shot by unconventional means, and two, his own father Apollo, gave a nobody fighter named Rocky Balboa a title shot out of nowhere. Adonis can’t deny that this is true, and he begins to be open to the possibility. Making things even more complicated, and driving Adonis to help Damian, is the fact that he is plagued by tremendous guilt. He was there the night Damian was arrested, and he too, was involved. But only Damain got caught. And Adonis, wanting to forget that traumatic chapter in his life, never reached out to Damian.

When a freak accident injures Felix Chavez’s next opponent, Adonis suggests that he fight Damian instead. He tells Felix to do his job, and if he wipes the floor with the much older Damian, so be it. And he is also doing right by his friend, Damian, by giving him his much sought after title shot.

Of course, as expected, Damian shocks the boxing world and wins, and amid some more revelations, becomes somewhat less of an admirable person, publicly taunting and insulting Adonis, who realizes there is only one true way to shut his friend up and restore his own honor, which is to get back into the boxing ring and take on his former friend.

As stories go, as I said, the one told in CREED III is pretty predictable. There are no surprises. The screenplay by Keenan Coogler, Ryan Coogler, and Zach Baylin offers a by-the-numbers boxing story. You know who is going to win every time. But on the plus side, away from the boxing elements, the personal story of Adonis and Damian’s friendship is well-done and is the best part of the movie, and it’s well-acted by two phenomenal actors, Michael B. Jordan and Jonathan Majors. Adonis is burdened by heavy guilt, and rightly so. He ran away and let his friend get arrested. Other characters in the story continually tell Adonis that he’s not a bad person, that he can’t be held accountable for decisions made before he was an adult, which is true, but it’s a bitter pill for Adonis himself to swallow. He knows what he did, or in this case, didn’t do.

This part of the story works well, not only because it is well-written and well-acted, but because in this ninth movie in the ROCKY universe, it’s pretty darn refreshing! It’s new territory! But sadly, the boxing parts aren’t refreshing at all. The movie doesn’t make any bold decisions in that department. Which is too bad because the ROCKY series began with a bold choice. It’s easy to forget that in the first ROCKY, Rocky lost, and what he takes away from that title bout was that he stood toe to toe with the champion for fifteen rounds. But he lost.

Zach Baylin also wrote the screenplay for the much-heralded KING RICHARD (2021).

The other strength on display here are the two performances by Michael B. Jordan and Jonathan Majors. Jordan has been excellent as Adonis Creed in all three CREED movies, and he’s very good here yet again. Jordan is a fun actor to watch. He exudes sincerity, intensity, and authenticity.

We just saw Jonathan Majors as the villain Kang the Conqueror in ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA (2023), a role he’s set to reprise in the upcoming AVENGERS movies. Majors has also made impressions in the movies THE HARDER THEY FALL (2021) and DA 5 BLOODS (2020). He’s formidable here as Damian, and he and Jordan interact well together. They share many fine moments in the movie, and one of the best moments is their conversation after their title bout at the end of the movie.

Tessa Thompson plays Bianca Creed for the third time, and she’s fine once again, although the movie largely focuses on Adonis and Damian. Young Mila Davis-Kent is excellent as Adonis’ and Bianca’s deaf daughter, Amara.

As a director, Michael B. Jordan acquits himself well. The boxing sequences, as predictable as they are, are well done. In fact, he gets metaphorical during the final bout between Adonis and Damian, as at one point we see them fighting in a giant cage inside a cold empty nightmarish stadium. The imagery here works really well. Jordan also makes the wise decision to keep this one from being overlong, as it clocks in at just under two hours. These days when so many movies are unnecessarily pushing the three-hour mark, Jordan’s decision to keep this movie at a respectable length is a good one.

In terms of the three CREED movies, the first one CREED (2015) remains the best, but CREED III is better than CREED II (2018), and so CREED III ranks in the middle of the Adonis Creed trilogy.

Overall, CREED III is a very good movie featuring two strong performances by two very talented actors, Michael B. Jordan and Jonathan Majors and a decent storyline involving two childhood friends who square off against each other in the ring as adults. The only thing preventing this from being a knockout is its predictability.

Before you sit down to watch this one, you probably have a good idea as to who is going to win the fights in this movie.

And you’d be right.

I give CREED III a solid yet unsurprising three stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

JESUS REVOLUTION (2023) – Very Vanilla Take on Historical Religious Movement

0
Posted on by

JESUS REVOLUTION (2023) is based on the true movement in the early 1970s when hippies discovered Jesus Christ, which would make perfect sense, since hippies were all about peace and love, concepts which mirror Christ’s message.

The film obviously contains a heavy Christian slant, no doubt intended to be more inspirational than historical, but the truth is it has little to offer in the way of inspiration because the story simply preaches to the choir, and if you aren’t Christian, there’s nothing in this movie that is remarkable or telling. As such, it fails to portray this revolution as something that was real. The story and characters just go through the motions.

JESUS REVOLUTION gets off to a solid start, focusing on frustrated minister Chuck Smith (Kelsey Grammer) who laments that his church is mostly empty and struggling, and that he doesn’t understand the youths of today, who he sees as lost and disrespectful. He tells his teenage daughter Janette (Ally Ioannides) that he wishes God would send a hippie to his house so that he could understand them. And so, when Jannette meets a hippie named Lonnie (Jonathan Roumie) who speaks of Jesus, she brings him home to meet her father, who isn’t thrilled by having this stranger in his house.

But after a rough start, Chuck finds himself impressed with Lonnie, and he invites him and his friends to his church. Suddenly, more and more of Lonnie’s friends arrive, and after Lonnie preaches at the church, the building becomes packed with hippies, which causes a stir among some of Chuck’s more prominent parishioners. In a sermon, Chuck speaks of the open door at his church, which is both an invitation for everyone to come in, and also an exit, for those who no longer feel comfortable by the younger folks who have now become part of the community.

The story follows Lonnie’s rise in the church where he also becomes a healer, and this storyline early on works. However, the film also follows another young man searching for answers, Greg (Joel Courney), who along with his girlfriend Cathe (Anna Grace Barlow) join Chuck’s church. Greg and Cathe are two of the least interesting characters in the movie, and their stories, Greg’s dealings with his ailing mother and with Cathe’s overprotective father, are the weakest in the movie, yet as the film progresses, these storylines become the focus of the film. Which is no surprise, because the screenplay by director Jon Erwin and Jon Gunn is based on the book by the real-life Greg Laurie.

Lonnie, after an argument with Chuck, disappears for the latter half of the movie, which is too bad because he’s the one character who brings the most conflict with him. In one of the better conversations in the film, Chuck tells Lonnie that he mistakenly thinks that the movement can’t proceed without him, and he tells Lonnie that the movement is bigger than just one man.

But unfortunately, most of the rest of the movie is without conflict. The screenplay by Jon Erwin and Jon Gunn is largely superficial. For example, in the big baptism in the ocean sequence, we see characters baptized and immediately afterwards experience a religious epiphany, but no one in the movie says why or how. No character explains what just happened to them. We just see it, and we take their word for it that they are now saved.

The pacing to this one is also dreadfully slow. The movie runs for 120 minutes and feels longer. Director Jon Erwin seems to be content with telling this story without a sense of urgency or history. The characters remain superficial, the conflicts nonexistent.

Strangely, the Netflix horror TV mini-series MIDNIGHT MASS (2021) — a horror tale, mind you! — did a better job of capturing the religious beliefs of the characters in its story than anything shown here in JESUS REVOLUTION.

I enjoy watching Kelsey Grammer, as I’ve always been a fan of his hit show FRASIER (1993-2004) back in the day, and he was the main reason I went to see this movie, and as expected, he turns in a solid performance here as minister Chuck Smith. He gets some of the better scenes in the movie. There’s a notable conversation between Smith and his wife, when he’s worried about offending the big vocal donors in his church, where she tells him that truth is always quiet, and that it’s lies that are spoken out loudly, a sentiment which rings true. He says it’s complicated, and she reminds him that truth is simple. Truth usually is simple, but unfortunately, this movie doesn’t do a good job of speaking to truth.

Jonathan Roumie is quite good as Lonnie Frisbee, and Ally Ioannides has some nice moments as Chuck’s daughter Janette, but the rest of the cast is as bland as the overall story told in this one.

At the end of the day, JESUS REVOLUTION is a very vanilla take on a historical religious movement. There’s no dark side, no ugliness, no pain, and that certainly gets in the way of successfully trying to tell a story of light. Now, the plot has these moments, as we see the negative effects of drugs on some people, and we see Greg upset about his mom, but these interpretations are all so weak and bland, like a scoop of vanilla ice cream.

Also, whether intentional or not, JESUS REVOLUTION works against its own main message of religious inclusion in that there isn’t one person of color who is a major character in this movie. Not one.

Not the best decision for a movie that is supposedly about inclusion and the welcoming of all.

I give this one a bland two stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (2022) – Netflix German Original Relentless in Its Depiction of Brutalities of War

0
Posted on by

I finally caught up with ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (2022), a Netflix original which hails from Germany and is currently nominated for Best Picture.

It’s a worthy nomination. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is an excellent movie.

Released in October 2022, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is based on the book by Erich Maria Remarque, a novelist who based the book on his experiences as a German soldier in World War I. This is the third time Remarque’s novel has been filmed, the previous two were in 1930 and in 1979. This 2022 version is an all-German production, and you can watch it on Netflix in its original German language with English subtitles.

Directed by Edward Berger, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT tells a story of the horrors of war that transcends generations. While the horrors shown here are specific to World War I, the case can be made that the horrors of war remain consistent regardless of time or place.

Here the plot follows young German soldier Paul Baumer (Felix Kammerer) who is so excited to enlist and join the war effort that his wide-eyed expressions resemble a child opening gifts on Christmas morning. It doesn’t take long for Paul and his friends to realize that fighting in the trenches is anything but enjoyable and is an experience that has his friends shrieking that they want to go home once the battles start.

Director Edward Berger holds nothing back in the battle sequences. The ever-present mud is thick and relentless. When they’re not fighting, the soldiers are using their hands and helmets to dish out the cold water from the trenches. And when they are fighting, they are shot at, stabbed, hacked, and more. We see soldiers burned alive with flame throwers, trampled upon by tanks, and blown up by grenades. The action here is bloody, brutal, and relentless, and these sequences come in waves, at the film’s beginning, in the middle, and at the end.

Between battles, Paul bonds with some of his fellow soldiers, including Stan Katczinsky (Albrecht Schuch). We’re privy to conversations where they discuss their lives back home, and their fears that they will never return, which pretty much turns out to be true. The film also depicts the negotiations between German diplomats and the French for a ceasefire, as the Germans realize they are losing the war. They quickly learn that the French want total and unconditional surrender, and when the Germans protest to the conditions, claiming that they are too harsh, and the people will not like this peace, the French pretty much respond with a big fat “too bad.” And of course, it’s this approach that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, as he was able to take advantage of the despondent German population to build his nationalistic Nazi regime.

The German military also bristled at this peace, believing the diplomats were giving everything away, and they ordered soldiers to fight right up until the 11:00 armistice.

Director Edward Berger also co-wrote the screenplay with Lesley Paterson and Ian Stokell. The story told here describes in vivid detail the absolute horrors of trench warfare in World War I, and what war does to soldiers. Its message is also timeless, as here in 2023 the world continues to be at war in some place or other.

Not all of the movie works. It’s rather long, clocking in at two hours and twenty-eight minutes, and when the film isn’t showing in-your-face scenes of warfare, it’s less compelling.

The film will no doubt draw comparisons to another recent superior movie about World War I, 1917 (2019), by writer/director Sam Mendes. The two films are comparable, and in terms of quality and impact, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT certainly holds its own against 1917.

Overall, ALL QUIET ON WESTERN FRONT is a superb movie, one that delivers its message that war is hell, and that soldiers pay a high price for decisions made by generals and leaders not on the battlefield.

I give it three and a half stars.

—END—

—Ratings System—

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

If you enjoy my reviews and would like to read my latest horror novel, then feel free to check out DEMON AT THE DOOR at the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Demon-at-Door-Michael-Arruda/dp/1637898932

10 Worst Movies of 2022

0
Posted on by

It’s time now for a look back at the 10 worst movies I saw in 2022.

Here we go:

10. ORPHAN: FIRST KILL – this prequel to ORPHAN (2009), a horror movie I liked a lot, really isn’t all that bad; it’s just not all that good. It was fun to see Isabelle Fuhrman reprising the role of the dangerous “little girl” Esther, especially since Fuhrman’s no longer a “little girl” in real life, which meant the use of some forced perspective and a body double. This one has a brand-new plot twist, but overall, simply doesn’t work all that well. Two stars.

9. MONSTROUS – tepid horror movie starring Christina Ricci as a mom who flees with her seven-year-old son from an abusive husband. She moves into a new house and unfortunately, she has to deal with a supernatural presence there. Not awful by any means, but also simply not a lot going on here. Twist at end is predictable. Two stars.

8. THE BUBBLE – This comedy by writer/director Judd Apatow takes a fun concept— a group of actors stuck together at a hotel when their movie production shuts down because of a pandemic— and does little with it. More silly than funny, with just a few good laughs here and there. Two stars.

7. BLONDE – for me, the most disappointing movie from 2022. This Netflix film features an Oscar-nominated performance by one of my favorite actors, Ana de Armas, as Marilyn Monroe. Ana de Armas is indeed terrific, but the story is based on “imaginings” of Monroe’s life, as the screenplay is based on the novel by Joyce Carol Oates, and so events unfold here in Monroe’s life that simply didn’t happen. There’s a brutal scene, for example, showing JFK treating her horribly, yet it didn’t happen. I just found the story elements here head-scratchers. Andrew Dominik’s direction doesn’t help, as this nearly three-hour movie is clunky and uneven. Onr and a half stars.

6. WHITE NOISE – Weird, confusing movie with a script in which nobody seems to make sense when they talk. Funny premise and interesting cast led by Adam Driver and Greta Gerwig are wasted in this unfunny story about a family who for one third of the movie are faced with a seemingly apocalyptic event, but this “event” wraps up neat and tidy long before this one ends. And then the film goes on about something else. One and a half stars.

5. DAY SHIFT – pretty awful horror comedy starring Jamie Foxx as a modern day vampire hunter. Not funny, not scary, and action scenes don’t wow. Dave Franco plays one of the more pathetic characters I’ve seen in a movie in years. Pretty forgettable stuff. One and a half stars.

4.CHOOSE OR DIE – horror movie starring Asa Butterfield about an evil video game from the 1980s which can alter reality, and it uses this power to force its player to make horrific choices, to harm people around them or die themselves, hence the title, Choose or die. Sounds better than it is. Very little of what happens makes sense, and the horror scenes aren’t as scary as they should be. Most inspiring bit in the movie is the casting of Robert Englund as himself, as he provides the voice on the promos for the video game. Sadly, Englund doesn’t actually appear in the movie. One star.

3. VIOLENT NIGHT -David Harbour playing Santa Claus in a Santa Claus action/comedy. What’s not to like? Actually, a lot of things, mostly a story that features some of the most unlikable characters in a movie I’ve seen in years, and we’re supposed to care about these people when they find themselves held hostage by a baddie who goes by the name of Scrooge? A disgruntled Santa decides to save the day. While Harbour is very good, and John Leguizamo is even better as the villain, mostly because he plays things straight, the film ends up being a cross between HOME ALONE and DIE HARD, with very unfavorable results. One star.

2.BARBARIAN – some folks really liked this horror movie. I wasn’t one of them. It’s not an anthology film, but its one plot is divided into three segments. The first one starring Georgina Campbell and Bill Skarsgard is by far the best, and so the film gets off to a very scary start, but things change in the second segment starring Justin Long, as the entire tone of the film shifts to something much lighter and offbeat, and then for the third and final segment, which wraps everything up, things fall completely apart. You really have to suspend disbelief to buy into some of the plot points here. One star.

1. UNCHARTED – My pick for the worst movie of the year is the film I enjoyed the least. This silly action-adventure comedy pairs Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg as fellow treasure hunters seeking treasure. The script is ludicrous, the inane banter nonstop, and the plot, well everything these two knuckleheads do works, and so there’s no adversity or conflict, just banter, banter, and more banter. Have I said there was banter in this movie? One long snooze of a movie. Unless, of course, you like… banter. One star.

There you have it. My list of the 10 Worst Films from 2022. Overall, 2022 wasn’t really a bad year for movies. There were far more movies that I liked than I disliked this year,

Okay, let’s get back to 2023! See you at the movies!

As always, thanks for reading!

—Michael

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful

WOMEN TALKING (2022) – Important Drama Struggles to Make Emotional Impact

0
Posted on by

Sometimes a movie just doesn’t work as well as you expect it to.

WOMEN TALKING (2022) makes its points throughout, but it does so on an intellectual level. Emotionally, I wasn’t moved anywhere near as much as I thought I would be, and for a story about women struggling to escape abuse by men, the fact that I was not emotionally moved really surprised me.

Admittedly, I was distracted throughout the movie by its vague sense of time and place. This is a story about an isolated religious community, where the women aren’t educated— they can’t even read— and the setting looks like somewhere in the distant past. Yet, the movie takes place in 2010, in some unknown location in the United States. It takes place in 2010 because this story is loosely based on true events which occurred inside an isolated religious community in Bolivia in the early 2000s. Since the movie makes no attempt to talk about time or place, I felt distracted because I couldn’t wrap my head around this story taking place in 2010. I get it, that these communities ignore present day life, but it just made everything that happened here a bit… off. While the point of the movie is about the women’s struggles, I found myself wanting to know more about this community and how they had reached this point in their lives. The film doesn’t speak to this.

The plot of WOMEN TALKING is simple. In this community, women are being drugged and raped at night by some of the men there, and their complaints are dismissed as female imaginations. So, a group of women meet in a barn to discuss their options. As they see it, they have three choices: stay and do nothing, stay and fight, or leave. And that’s the movie. Because over the course of the next hour and 45 minutes, the women discuss, argue, and ultimately come to a decision.

These discussions bring up many important issues: the need for women to have a voice, the culture of men’s treatment of women, ongoing from generation to generation, and the violence that men inflict on women without penalty. I appreciated these arguments intellectually, but emotionally not so much, because the experience was similar to sitting in the audience listening to a panel of women discussing these issues. That’s all well and good, but movies can communicate in ways that panel discussions cannot. Movies can move people on a whole different level. And that’s where WOMEN TALKING didn’t succeed for me as well as it could have. In fact, I probably would have been moved more watching that panel discussion because I wouldn’t have been wondering what year this was or where these events were taking place.

Of course, I do realize that the possibility exists that I wasn’t moved as much because I’m a man, but I don’t think this is the reason. I certainly empathized with all of the female characters in this movie. I just wasn’t moved much by the movie as a whole.

WOMEN TALKING features a solid cast. Rooney Mara is captivating as Ona, the unmarried woman who is pregnant, who has an artistic and almost poetic view of the world. Ona is the most interesting character in the movie.

Claire Foy plays Salome, the feisty character who is ready to fight and kill anyone who harms her children.

The rest of the cast all do admirable jobs. But I can’t say the characterizations won me over either. We know very little about these characters other than what we learn from them through their discussion in the barn.

WOMEN TALKING was written and directed by Sarah Polley, the screenplay based on the book by Miriam Toews. The color scheme is muted for effect, and at times the cinematography almost looks black and white. This is for effect, of course, and it works, in that it speaks to the oppressed life these women faced. It also works on a symbolic level, that even today, women can feel like they’re living in the Dark Ages. On the other hand, it makes you think you are watching a story from a century or two ago, not in 2010, which sadly for me, just made for a distraction.

The subject matter of WOMEN TALKING is important. The fact that events like these happened in 2010 speaks to that.

Unfortunately, as a movie, WOMEN TALKING doesn’t take this important subject matter and turn it into an emphatic piece of cinema, which is too bad because its subject matter is something people need to hear about, think about, and act upon.

Sadly, I saw this in an empty theater. Not one other person was in attendance.

Which for me, begs the question: women are talking, but is anyone listening? I hope so.

I give WOMEN TALKING two and a half stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful

THE WHALE (2022) – Brendan Fraser Gives Oscar-Worthy Performance in Thought-Provoking Film

0
Posted on by

THE WHALE (2022) is a difficult movie to like.

This is by design.

The movie opens with massively obese English professor Charlie (Brendan Fraser) masturbating to gay porn. Not exactly an image designed to get folks feeling warm and comfy in their seats. In fact, later Charlie demands from another character, “Do you find me disgusting?” and the character’s answer is yes.

On its surface, THE WHALE is about a dying housebound man trying to spend the last week of his life getting to know his estranged teenage daughter. But beneath the surface, the main theme of this movie, which is hammered home a little bit too hard, is that people in spite of how much they say they hate, really do care about other people. As Charlie says, “people are amazing!”

The problem is that nearly every character in this movie is full of hate, which is the point, of course, as Charlie says, that even these people really care. But it makes for challenging viewing because there’s just so much ugliness abound. THE WHALE is a thought-provoking movie, the type of which I really enjoy, because I prefer movies that challenge its audience to think, but that being said, it was a challenge to sit through, and I have to admit, I didn’t quite enjoy it as much as I thought I would.

There’s also a strong connection to Herman Melville’s classic novel, Moby Dick, hence the title THE WHALE, which is also a reference to Charlie’s weight, and this connection becomes stronger as the movie moves towards its conclusion.

In THE WHALE, Brendan Fraser, who was just nominated for an Oscar for this performance, plays English professor Charlie who teachers online writing classes, and because he is so obese, he keeps his camera off during these computer sessions. As he teaches, he constantly pleads with his students that the most important thing they need to do in their writing is to keep it honest, which is great advice. Charlie is in really bad shape. He’s insanely obese, can’t stand up or move without the help of a walker and eats nonstop. His friend and caregiver, Liz (Hong Chau) tells him the bad news that unless he gets himself to a hospital immediately, he will die by week’s end. Charlie pushes back, saying he has no money, and no health insurance, and he refuses to put himself in debt just to seek medical attention, so he accepts the fact that he will die within days.

As such, he does something he’s not supposed to do, which is he reaches out to his estranged daughter Ellie (Sadie Sink) hoping to make amends. Ellie is a fiery force to be reckoned with, and Charlie learns that she is failing high school, she doesn’t want to graduate, she’s been suspended, and she’s full of hate towards him. Charlie offers to pay her to visit him this week, and to write her essays for her so she can pass her class. This piques her interest, and she agrees to come back to visit him under those conditions.

Meanwhile, a young preacher named Thomas (Ty Simpkins) begins visiting Charlie, believing that it’s his destiny to save the ailing teacher before he dies. When Ellie meets Thomas, she decides to have fun with him at his expense and engages in behavior which at first seems like she is out to ruin him, as she seems to do with everyone she meets, since she hates everybody, including her father. But Charlie doesn’t believe this about his daughter and in his final days tries to connect with her and teach her that she’s not a hateful person.

There’s a lot going on in THE WHALE, most of it as uncomfortable as watching a naked obese man take a shower. But it pushes its theme forward, that people really do care about other people, in spite of the hate spewing from their mouths, which is at the end of the day, a worthwhile and inspiring message to be sure.

Samuel D. Hunter wrote the screenplay, based on his play, and this film for the most part feels like a stage play. It primarily takes place inside Charlie’s home, and it’s very talky. In fact, it’s a little too talky. At times I thought I was watching a play, not a cinematic movie.

Director Darren Aronofsky, who also directed the controversial movie MOTHER (2017), a film I liked, NOAH (2014), and BLACK SWAN (2010) keeps things simple, and as I said, there’s not a lot of cinematic showmanship going on here from the director’s chair. Although the ending is neatly done, and very dramatic.

The best part of this one are the two main performances by Brendan Fraser and Sadie Sink.

I used to enjoy Brendan Fraser’s work back in the day, and while he’s been making movies and TV shows regularly, he hasn’t really done anything major in a very long time. He was memorable in a supporting role in Steven Soderbergh’s crime thriller NO SUDDEN MOVE (2021), but here in THE WHALE, he’s the lead, and he’s really, really good. Working under heavy prosthetic make-up to make him appear gigantic, Fraser delivers the one soft-spoken and sensitive performance in a movie filled with people who are anything but. He deserves his recently announced Oscar nod.

Sadie Sink is also tremendous as his troubled fiery daughter, Ellie. Sink, of course, is known for her role as Max on the hit Netflix TV show STRANGER THINGS (2016-present). Since she joined the show in its second season, she’s consistently been one of its best performers, and she had two of the best scenes in the series last season. In THE WHALE, Charlie keeps calling his daughter “amazing!” and really, the same can be said of Sadie Sink’s performance here. She’s lively, spiteful, funny, and completely unpredictable. I hope that Sink continues to get more movie roles, and that they become larger and more significant. She’s a promising talent.

Ty Simpkins plays the very white Wonder Bread preacher, and he gets bossed around and dominated by nearly every character in this film, especially by Ellie. Simpkins, as a child actor, played young Dalton who gets abducted by a demon in one of my favorite horror movies of the past twenty years, INSIDIOUS (2010). Simpkins also played the boy who Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark befriends in IRON MAN 3 (2013).

Hong Chau (also just nominated for an Oscar) is very good as Charlie’s friend and caretaker, Liz. Later in the movie we learn why she is so close to Charlie, as they are connected by another tragedy. This is the second straight strong performance by Chau, as we just saw her in THE MENU (2022), where she was outstanding as Elsa, the loyal right-hand person to Ralph Fiennes’s fanatical Chef Slowik.

And Samantha Morton is memorable as Charlie’s ex-wife and Ellie’s mom, Mary, another character who spews hate with her words and actually calls her daughter, “evil.” While Morton plays a somewhat coarse character here, the role is nowhere near as dark as the role she played on THE WALKING DEAD (2010-2022), where she played the murderous Alpha.

One thing the film doesn’t speak much on is obesity itself. This isn’t the point of the movie, and so Charlie eats tremendous portions of extremely unhealthy foods unchecked. Even Liz continually brings him fattening subs and sandwiches, with no discussion about healthier eating. But I think this is pretty much understood. For example, there’s a scene where Charlie is voraciously chowing down nonstop on two large pizzas, shoving slice after slice into his mouth, and I’m sitting there watching doing the same with a bucket of popcorn. I had to push the bucket away.

The connection to Moby Dick is an interesting one and stems from an essay which Charlie repeatedly reads throughout the movie. The writer of the essay is refreshingly honest in their understanding of the novel, which is one of the reasons Charlie keeps reading it, and one of its sentiments is that the writer feels sad for Ahab who believes wrongly that he can only be made happy by killing the whale, and also for the whale, who has done nothing wrong but is victimized by the obsessed Ahab. The writer then says that the long chapters in the novel which are just facts about whales were written because the author, Melville, was too sad to return to the story.

Like Ahab, people mistake what they need for happiness. Like the whale, people are victimized for no apparent reason. And like Melville, people often abandon things because they are too sad to continue.

Charlie sees all this in the essay, and he tries to get his daughter to see this as well, especially in terms of why he left her and her mother, and then stayed away, because the tragedies in his life made him too sad to continue.

While THE WHALE may not be easy viewing for most people, its thought-provoking story has a lot to offer its viewers. When asked by Charlie, “do you find me disgusting?” you have to be willing to answer no.

And mean it.

I give THE WHALE three stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful

MISSING (2023) – Computer Screen Gimmick Tale is Missing a Story

0
Posted on by

Can someone say contrived?

The people who made this movie obviously can’t. The plot here in MISSING (2023), a brand-new thriller about an 18-year-old girl searching for her missing mother, tells a story so convoluted it’s laughable. It’s one of those movies where when the final twist is revealed, and we learn what the villain’s plan actually was, you’ll scratch your head and ask, well, why didn’t he just do that in the first place? Why devise this complicated ruse just to do what he ultimately does?

Then again, the point of MISSING isn’t its story, but the way it tells its story, which features the gimmick of having the entire movie play out on a computer screen. If this idea floats your boat, you might love MISSING. Otherwise, you might be in for a very long night at the movies. This gimmick has been done before. For example, it was featured in the movie SEARCHING (2018), which evidently was made by the same folks who made MISSING, although it’s a different creative team, a different set of writers and directors. MISSING is being called a sequel to SEARCHING, but it really isn’t. It’s an entirely new story that has nothing to do with the first movie. I wasn’t that crazy about SEARCHING, and similarly, I wasn’t crazy about today’s movie, MISSING.

MISSING tells the story of 18-year-old June (Storm Reid) who doesn’t get along with her mother Grace (Nia Long) at all. Things have been tough between them for a while, and they are both scarred by the untimely death of June’s father about ten years earlier. When Grace leaves for a vacation with her new boyfriend Kevin (Ken Leung), she leaves June home alone, which is fine with June because it means party time with her friends, although she is miffed at her mom for asking her best friend Heather (Amy Landecker) to check in on her regularly.

When June goes to the airport to pick up her mom at week’s end, her mom doesn’t show up. June calls the hotel in Colombia where her mom was staying and learns that her mom and her boyfriend left the hotel, but without their luggage. Finding this strange, June calls the U.S. Embassy in Colombia for their help, and not being satisfied by their response, decides to investigate on her own, and she does it all sitting in front of her computer. What she learns, and the revelations and twists and turns in the plot that this movie has to offer all come out of the soap operas of old, meaning they’re completely ludicrous.

And that’s the worst part of MISSING, the story it tells. It is flat out ridiculous. Before the movie is finished, June pretty much suspects nearly every character in this movie, even her mom of faking the whole thing, and then, when the final revelation is made, it’s just stupid. Without going into spoilers, if the villain’s goal in this one was to harm the person they wanted to harm, and then connect with the other person they wanted to connect with, there are far simpler ways to do it. Screenwriters Will Merrick and Nicholas D. Johnson, both of whom also directed this movie, seem to have concocted this plot just so they could tell a story all through computer use.

MISSING plays out like one big commercial for the internet. What June is able to do throughout this movie is admittedly impressive. There’s no doubt about that. She’s able to make phone calls, access video feeds, hire a man in Colombia to help her search for her mom, hack into private emails, access private photos, look up the personal history of people she doesn’t know, and she does this all from her bedroom using just a computer and her phone. The fact that we as a society have this kind of technological power is kinda neat. Screenwriters Merrick and Johnson, who based their screenplay on a story by Sev Ohanian, at least deserve credit for writing a story that makes full use of all these technological advances. But like I said, this movie plays out like a commercial, and commercials as we all know aren’t exactly truthful.

Everything that June does in this movie involving internet use not only works perfectly but works fast! I don’t know about you, but my experience online is that things don’t work perfectly, and they certainly don’t work quickly. Then again, I’m an adult of a certain age, and June is 18, and so maybe for most teenagers, the internet is that fast and precise. I have to admit, that while I didn’t enjoy the story in this one at all, I did marvel at the technology featured in it.

On the other hand, I spend most of my days looking at a computer screen and a smartphone, since basically here in 2023 nearly every aspect of life is conducted on a screen, from writing to teaching, to paying bills, checking the weather, socializing, it’s all screen time! So, the idea of watching a movie which in its entirety is taking place on a computer screen, does absolutely nothing for me. That’s the last thing I want to look at while watching a movie. So, I hope that this kind of movie storytelling doesn’t become more of a thing.

Storm Reid is okay in the lead role as June, although most of what she gets to do in this one is offer facial reactions to things playing out on screen. Likewise, Nia Long is fine as missing mommy Grace. Faring a bit better is Amy Landecker as Grace’s friend Heather, as we get to see various emotions from her, as her character goes through some changes in this one. Megan Suri is fun in a small role as June’s friend Veena, and veteran actor Joaquim de Almeida probably gives the best performance in the movie as the man on the ground in Colombia who helps June search for her mother. He’s the only character in the movie that in the brief time we see him we get to know him and know what he is thinking and feeling. Everyone else in this movie takes a backseat to the computer screen, and they come off as superficial.

The ending to this one is also a bit of a headscratcher. I won’t get into it, but it involves a TV show June was watching at the beginning of the movie.

I didn’t hate MISSING. I was impressed enough with the computer and internet aspects of the story to look past its convoluted plot, for a while, anyway. But as it goes along, it simply gets more contrived, to the point where it finally becomes just flat out stupid.

I know there’s some love out there for this one, as critics and fans alike have been saying good things about it. But it didn’t work for me.

So, while MISSING displays an intriguing gimmick where the entire film takes place on a computer screen, it simply can’t overcome the fact that it plays like one big commercial rather than a movie.

And that’s because what’s missing from this movie is a good story.

I give it two stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful