Posted in Movie Review

May December

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

Todd Haynes (Dark Waters, Carol), a director not known for shying away from heavy subject matter, takes on an infamous story ripped from 90’s tabloids. Well, sort of. The script itself is a fictionalized account of the Mary Kay Letourneau story and takes place twenty years after said events.

May December centers around an actress named Elizabeth (Natalie Portman) who is staying at the home of Gracie (Julianne Moore) and Joe (Charles Melton) to shadow them as research for her upcoming film. Twenty years prior, Gracie had been a teacher who had sex with Joe, who was in seventh grade (thirteen years old) at the time. She had gotten pregnant, gone to prison, given birth in prison and after she was released, Gracie and Joe were married.  

Gracie is portrayed as a passive aggressive, unapologetic and insecure woman in her mid-fifties. Joe is portrayed as a passive, obedient, man in his mid-thirties who has recently begun to question his past trauma. Elizabeth is the central character, portrayed as initially unassuming before forcibly building a connection and subsequent obsession with both Gracie and Joe. And though the entire process of mimicking and maybe humanizing a pedophile seems to disgust most everyone she comes into contact with, her reckless nature and a performance from Portman that deserves to be highlighted and dissected, does justify why an already captivating story is told through interactions with an interloper.

Up to this point in my review, May December sounds like an absolute must-see. And if it wasn’t for choices Haynes makes, it would’ve been. It is obvious that the story is compelling as is, but Haynes chooses to add an extra overdramatic layer of sauce onto an already sauced dish. This includes the addition of an aggressively melodramatic score, which is ridiculously distracting and treats the subject matter facetiously. Also, the addition of a sexual tension element between Elizabeth and certain characters came off as so completely forced that it all feels like a Brian De Palma or Paul Verhoeven film; which may not sound like a bad thing, but is very ill-fitting and non-complimentary in regards to the telling of this particular story. There are scenes in the back half of this movie which attempt some Ingmar Bergman that works a bit better. The film also keeps you intentionally at a distance. And maybe in Haynes’ mind this is for the best. Although, it comes off as very mismanaged, as we aren’t allowed to connect with anyone onscreen.

Final Thought: With a script written by Samy Burch that makes it a point to examine how an adult relationship built on childhood sexual assault affects not only those directly involved, but family, friends and offspring, this is a film with a strong foundation. Haynes is the single reason why May December isn’t as potent as it could’ve been. It’s that simple. Sometimes good directors inexplicably fumble.

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1  

Posted in Movie Review

Good Burger 2

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

Often times there are things I found funny as a child that I look back on and find absolutely cringe now. One of those things was my obsession with the duo of Kenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell.

My secret hope was the guys would take a darker or more subversive approach to the original material (like Barbie or Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure) seeing as their entire fan base are nearing their forties. But this is just the same old garbage, the same old characters but older, doing the same old derpy, screechy slapstick for kids. And what they do is such a specific form of 90’s Nickelodeon comedy, kids today may not only find it unfunny, but childish as well. 

A sequel to the 1997 movie, sees an adult Dex (Kenan Thompson) forced to get a job at his childhood place of employment, Good Burger, which is now somehow owned by his childhood friend and local idiot, Ed (Kel Mitchell). The main storyline centers around Dex being a manipulative money hungry entrepreneur trying to get to Ed’s money. This results in a representative from a huge corporation (played by Lil Rel Howery, who is given nothing to do here) tricking Ed into selling Good Burger.

There is an abundance of recognizable catch phrases, as well as cameos from Nickelodeon has-beens and other “stars”. There’s a gag where Ed has kids that all look and dress like him. And in the final thirty minutes Good Burger 2 does actively criticize automation and unfair labor practices. But don’t be fooled, none of that in any way makes this movie any less of an embarrassment. The production value is absolute trash. This movie looks and feels like it was put together in a week.

Final Thought: Good Burger 2 only works when these two childlike characters enter the real world and interact with “normal” people who seem visibly bothered by their existence.We still have to suffer through these obnoxious characters, but as least we are momentarily given the illusion of others suffering with us. This should’ve been an SNL skit. And even then, it would’ve been too long.  

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Napoleon

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

I walked out of the theater absolutely fascinated with this film. Admittedly it’s kind of a messy acquired taste, but in retrospect that only reinforced my admiration for Napoleon as an ambitious work of genius.

Following the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix), director Ridley Scott and writer David Scarpa show an unflattering portrait of a man that would become Emperor of France and have a series of conflicts/wars named after him; the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). Historically regarded as a military genius who was able to build up France’s army into a feared conquering force. He was also known as a war monger, narcissist and a master propagandist. Scott chooses to tell the story of Napoleon as an insecure tyrant on and off the battlefield.

Most of the film is focused on his marriage to Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby) and their abusive and codependent relationship. This relationship is in fact the heart of the movie. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how epic the battle sequences were, but award worthy sequences are only secondary to the tale of Napoleon and Joséphine.  It’s all so captivating, no matter how deranged things get between them, due to Scott, Phoenix and Kirby’s willingness to take giant swings, resulting in performances which slightly invoke Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Blasphemy, I know.    

Scott definitely has a specific story he wants to tell here. Within the first forty minutes it is quite apparent where his loyalties lie. And once I understood the satirical framing at play, the unhinged feel of the film became something I never wanted to look away from. The fact that Scott seems more enamored with Napoleon’s toxic relationships with both his wife and the men he leads into battle, than simply retelling another 1000% historically accurate biopic snoozer, is honestly delicious. I sat in my seat and ate it all up. The more awkward, the better.

Final Thought: There is so much packed into this two-hour and thirty-eight-minute film and I wish it would have been longer. If for nothing else than to bring a bit more balance and connective tissue into this near perfect film. While we see Napoleon’s childish personality on full display, a historically relevant look at how close he was to his mother (a well-documented fact) would have added context. Napoleon was also known for being a charismatic leader. We see him lead, but barely get a taste of his charisma, as to why so many men were more than willing to die for him. So, despite the criticism this film is receiving (due to inaccuracies) and how it is very apparent while watching that there is a longer (arguably more perfect) version of Napoleon out there (Scott has already promised an over 4-hour long cut, which will be released on Apple TV+), the film that I saw should see award consideration.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

The Killer

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 4 out of 5.

A David Fincher movie? Sign me up. With a Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross score? And a protagonist with an ever-present nihilistic inner monologue? Ummm…is this my new favorite movie?  It’s not, but it’s still very good.  

Fincher brings to the big screen a story adapted from a popular French graphic novel, which follows the life of an unnamed assassin. And that’s it. A story so simple that it is impossible to spoil.  Fincher gets this. He displays an understanding of the material and how the person at the center of it sees the world. His direction (with some masterful cinematography from Erik Messerschmidt) allows for audiences to feel the Killer’s isolation, the cold unforgiving world he exists in and the claustrophobic ever-present danger that closes in on this man during every moment of this movie. Fincher does what he does and does it to perfection. 

Narrated by “The Killer” (Michael Fassbender), we follow this solitary assassin during a stakeout. With only his meticulous inner monologue to keep him occupied, he walks us through his outlook on life as a person who kills for money.  Not quite holding a misanthropic/Travis Bickle vision of the world, the Killer’s monologue is a mix of forced disengagement, skepticism and nihilism with a tinge of curiosity. The details of said monologues are often couched in random facts, philosophical insights and anecdotes; historical and otherwise, depending on his actions in that very moment. Some of the Killer’s mantras include: “stick to the plan”, “anticipate, never improvise”, “trust no one” and “forbid empathy”. And everything seems to be going according to plan until he mistakenly misses a target, which propels him into an entire movie’s worth of battles with ruthless employers who now see him as a loose end.   

Fassbender embodies this man of few spoken words, as someone who slips through this world constantly attempting to convince himself to do what it takes in order to succeed, all while maintaining a detachment from the violence he puts into the world with such ease that we develop a bond with this cold-blooded killer as he details how cold-blooded he is.

Final Thought: The vibe is a dreary, dimly lit and stylish revenge story with a ruthless protagonist. A tale built for the cinema, from a director who can do no wrong. Currently available on Netflix, I just wish I could’ve seen this in the theaters. The Killer is introspective John Wick. And yes, I now need a series of these films.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Sound of Freedom

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

You know how the Fast & Furious movies are made for “bros who love
cars”? Like really really LOVE cars? This is that but for American
Christians who obsessively fantasize about becoming vigilantes, traveling to
South America and saving brown children from traffickers. For how distasteful I
believe the movie actually becomes, I must say that Sound of Freedom had one
hell of a marketing campaign.

Synopsis: Former American government agent becomes a
vigilante, traveling to South America on a quest to rescue children from
traffickers.

It’s PG-13 and thankfully doesn’t show anything “explicit”, but
what it does contain are countless protracted sequences displaying the lead up
to child harm, knowing that’s what their audiences came to see. These sequences
are filmed in an excessively lecherous manner that doesn’t progress the story
one bit (directed by Alejandro Monteverde). If you are familiar with the term
torture porn, then Sound of Freedom contains that, but in faith-based
form.

On a technical level it’s not the worst movie ever. Sure, there are heavy
white savior vibes. And sure, the characters are all made easily digestible,
but that simply stems from a lazy script from Monteverde and Rod Barr.

Final Thought: Jim Caviezel also gives a shockingly stiff
performance, which doesn’t help things one bit. That said, Monteverde is
talented enough to get audiences from point A to point B. I simply couldn’t get
past the lingering and leering of specific sequences. In conjunction with the
subject matter, these directorial choices felt exploitative. I understand that
the subject of child trafficking is heavy, but the way this is filmed is
definitely by design.

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram
@moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Passages

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

One of more beautifully shot films of the year (one of those where every frame could be a painting), filmmaker Ira Sachs builds a story centered around a narcissistic filmmaker named Tomas (Franz Rodowski) who is married to Martin (Ben Whishaw) before impulsively sleeping with and then falling in love with a woman named Agathe (Adéle Exarchopoulos).

With a premise like this, Passages could’ve quickly turned into a film focusing all of its attention on the idea of sexual fluidity in a less than charitable way. But early on Sachs establishes his story as entirely a character study of a narcissistic individual and those he chooses as his partners. While there are many well filmed sex scenes, nothing in this is sensationalized or in poor taste in a way one may suspect from the premise. Sachs does well to establish every moment of every sex sequence as solely an extension of Tomas’ larger manipulation. Furthermore, the world established contains only brief mentions of labels such as gay, straight, bisexual, husband, girlfriend, etc. The idea behind this (coupled with an absolutely enchanting performance from Rodowski) appears as a deliberate way of devaluing established ideas about what constitutes a relationship, as well as continuing to keep the focus not on the sex itself, but on seducing one into spending ninety-six minutes with a curiously destructive man-child protagonist.

The issue with constructing a movie in this manner with a character this unlikable as the focus, may unfortunately mean that some will find Tomas so intolerable that they may not make it through the full runtime. While others may simply find disappointment in a film that is lacking a level of exploitation the premise may have alluded to.    

Final Thought: Sachs knows how to present his unpleasant protagonist in a way that while we may never outwardly sympathize with him and may downright detest his abusive tactics, it is difficult not to find Tomas fascinating to the point of attractive. This balance is the most interesting thing Passages has to offer.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and on Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

When Evil Lurks

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

This Argentinian horror written and directed by Demián Rugna has been touted by some as one of the best horror movies of 2023, for reasons I don’t fully understand.

When Evil Lurks tells the story of two brothers living in a remote village who find themselves having to stop the spread of a demon who has possessed a local man. The man has been infected by said demon for so long his body is distended and morphed into a bloated mass of boils and puss. It is discovered that the demon spreads like a virus if shot (or killed improperly?). As the story moves forward, we find that at times both humans and animals can become contaminated by merely coming in contact with an infected person or someone who has been around an infected person. For example, at one point a dog becomes possessed by simply sniffing the clothing of someone who came in contact with a possessed person. Yeah, the rules here are a little murky, and because of this the rules are explained and reestablished throughout the movie up until the very end. And even then, I feel like I needed more time with these people in order to fully understand the lore behind a form of possession which was new to me, but that so many of the townsfolk seem to have extensive knowledge on.

The hysterical delivery/nature of this movie is confusing as well, as this is not a comedy. I caught myself laughing at scenes that in retrospect I don’t believe are played for laughs. This has something to do with the smattering of telenovela-level acting within the film, but also, I can only imagine how much better this movie could’ve been as a dark comedy. Rugna’s decision to play this entire thing straight allows for many visuals (specifically the vomit and snot eruption sequences) to come off as confusing.

That said, I have to believe the primary draw of this film are the kills and the scares, because all of that stuff is quite good.  The setups may not be the greatest, but the actual point of impact is consistently gasp-inducing. As a horror film, there are things to admire here. It’s the in-between moments that only serve as a distraction from the director getting to show off.

Final Thought: Watch this for the visuals, I guess. Again, there are many superbly designed horror sequences, with some wonderful use of practical effects. If you are into horror visuals specifically, Rugna is as talented and creative as they come. It’s simply difficult not to become increasingly disinterested in a plot that becomes more cumbersome over time. And paired with its tonal issues, When Evil Lurks is an overall disappointment due to how intriguing the setup was. 

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

The Nun II

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 2 out of 5.

In a continuation of the first movie, the demon nun is back and she has so many more dark hallways and corners to emerge from.

Unsurprisingly The Nun II (directed by Michael Chaves) isn’t scary as much as it is repetitive. The bulk of this movie we spend watching characters stand still in dimly lit areas, patiently waiting as the Nun performs long-winded reveals and loud bangy “scares”.

There are a couple of cool kills and the final thirty minutes is thankfully a bit bonkers, including the appearance of a devil-goat-demon thing who runs super-fast (clearly the best thing in the film). And if you can get to that point, it will be enough to carry you to the finish line, as the story itself doesn’t matter at all. But what did I expect from one of the weakest spin-offs in the Conjuring cinematic universe?

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and on Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Thanksgiving

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Known more for his torture porn aesthetic than for making traditional slasher films, I went in fingers crossed that filmmaker Eli Roth (Hostel, The Green Inferno) would present a movie of the latter and not containing as much of the former. And honestly, Thanksgiving isn’t as gory as I expected. It’s also shockingly underwhelming and simply not as fun as it needed to be.

Synopsis: A year after a Black Friday trampling incident/riot, the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts is terrorized by someone in a pilgrim mask, seeking revenge.

It’s technically a feature length version of a fictitious trailer Roth created for the 2007 movie “Grindhouse”. So, hoping for something full of over-the-top B-movie slasher camp shouldn’t have been out of the question. But Roth is simply the wrong director to make this work in any kind of memorable way. Sure, there are over-the-top kills, but Thanksgiving never leans into this aspect as much as it could’ve. Instead putting more emphasis on a story that had potential, but ends up being your standard “killer comes to town, bumps off citizens one by one until the mask comes off and the killer is revealed” movie you could watch at home.

Side Note: I do enjoy Rick Hoffman (Suits, Hostel) as an actor. He just gets nothing to do here. And nobody else gives a performance worth talking about, so let’s get back to the review.

Another thing Roth is known for is his clunky dialogue. And his constant attempts at humor. I laughed once. Lazily, most of the humor centers around the use of New England accents, which is funny for all of ten minutes. The lack of funny moments could’ve been forgiven if the movie was at all scary, or fun or held a semblance of anything that would allow the impact of Thanksgiving to be remembered after the credits rolled.  

Final Thought: I’m in no way a Roth fan (if you couldn’t tell), but I know he can deliver a better product than this. On the other hand, who cares. Let’s focus on the violence. Is this the violent gorefest the trailers promise? Again, it’s not as gory as I expected, but what Roth does well he does well here. That is, every sequence of practical effects works in the way they were intended. Most of the kill sequences elicit a visceral response. Every time someone’s head explodes on impact or someone’s intestines lie hanging from their stomach, it’s engaging in a way Roth clearly understands. Unfortunately, there isn’t nearly enough of that stuff to make up for the one-note comedy, dull characters and a script which I liken to an unseasoned Thanksgiving feast.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Twitter @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

The Exorcist: Believer

Posted on by Markus Robinson

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Going in knowing it would be a near impossibility for this to come close to the greatness of the 1973 original, all I needed from The Exorcist: Believer was for it to be slightly better than the most middle-of-the-road possession movie. And writer/director David Gordon Green (Halloween, Halloween Kills, Halloween Ends) couldn’t even give me that. 

Among other things, this is a poorly directed film with few highlights to speak of. The story is essentially, two little girls walk into the woods and come out possessed. The first half sees a very basic horror setup inexplicably fumbled, as things happen that are neither scary or engaging. The idea of creating actual tension and/or scares seems to baffle Green this time around, as he repeatedly chooses to substitute loud noises for any and all scary moments. I don’t honestly remember one legitimate scare amidst the nearly two-hour runtime. 

My hope was once Ellen Burstyn (reprising her role from the original film) entered the story around the halfway mark, the film would find its footing. But instead, the back-half is even worse. A sloppy incoherent mess, culminating in an exorcism sequence which can only be described as a scattershot of ideas which somebody forgot to edit down into something coherent. 

Final Thought: The Exorcist: Believer inexplicably reeks of inexperience. Fluctuating between a very sloppy and very unsure attempt at horror. Was Green intimidated and overwhelmed by this project? It certainly looks so. But I’d rather have seen an exorcism film with Green taking huge risks and failing hard, than end up with a product which comes across as poorly conceived, uneventful and boring.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1