Even if it's never quite found the same level of success as other TV prime time cartoons like The Simpsons or Family Guy, Bob's Burgers has been consistent in its quality of low key humor and heart. These traits are in full display in The Bob's Burgers Movie, which will no doubt please fans, but I also suspect this is a case of something that works beautifully in a half hour time slot that feels stretched thin and padded at over 100 minutes.
This is a movie that has its charms, but I was also ready for it to be done long before it was. This is especially true of its climax, which feels like three different climaxes stitched together, and each one dragged to maddening length. What's quirky, charming and bright on TV just felt endless to me here, and dressed up with fancier animation than the show. The movie also seems to want to be a musical, kicking off with a rousing number that introduces the individual characters and their wants for the next 100 minutes. Then it chickens out, and seems to drop the notion. Then, it starts in again with another number a good 40 minutes or so after the last one. Either commit to the idea or not. This is a movie that was easy for me to admire in a lot of ways, but hard to truly enjoy.
To be fair, the characters from the show are as likable as ever. Set in and around the family-owned titular restaurant, we are introduced to patriarch Bob (voiced winningly as always by H. Jon Benjamin), his optimistic wife Linda (John Roberts), and their three kids, which include the boy-obsessed Tina (Dan Mintz), the constantly-excited Gene (Eugene Mirman) who enjoys making instruments out of things around the restaurant, and youngest daughter Louise (Kristen Schaal) who is going through a personal crisis when she thinks others don't view her as being mature because of the bunny ear hat she's always wearing. As on the show, these characters and the voice actors play off each other beautifully, and directors Loren Bouchard (the series creator) and Bernard Derriman know how to use them to their best from time to time.
The problem I had is that 20 minutes or so of these characters is a lot different from a feature film, and I was never as engaged as I often am when I catch an episode. The plot concerns a sinkhole suddenly forming in front of the restaurant, bringing business to a halt just as the family is struggling to pay off their loan on the building. Some human remains are discovered within the hole, leading to the kids going off to solve the mystery behind a murder from long ago that's been forgotten all this time. All of this is done with the usual laid-back style that I understand is the trademark of the show, but it simply did not engage me. Upping the animation beyond the usual TV budget just wasn't enough to hold my attention, and the jokes did not land as often as I would have liked.
The Bob's Burgers Movie stretches for time, going deeper into the history of the landlord of the restaurant, Mr. Fischoeder (Kevin Kline) and his bizarre family, which might delight fans, but I found it distracting and didn't work as well as the stuff involving Bob and his clan. It doesn't take long for the movie to start to resemble a really dragged out episode, and not a particularly memorable one in my eyes. Maybe this is what you want, and maybe you will enjoy this more than I. As a critic, I can only report on whether a film worked on me or didn't. This is a movie that delighted me from time to time, then it slowly started to lose its spell, and then the movie seemed to be wrapping itself up, but it still went on going and going for seemingly another hour until I had kind of checked out.
There's stuff that works, but not enough for me to recommend except to the most devoted of the show's followers. They might just be thrilled seeing these characters and the show's trademark humor up on the big screen. More power to them. I ended up feeling detached, and that's not something I'm proud about, because I like these characters.
Top Gun: Maverick is not only that rare sequel that is leagues better than the original, it's also the kind of all-encompassing, immersive and stirring Summer Blockbuster that I thought Hollywood had forgotten how to make. More spectacular and emotional than the 1986 film, this should be the blueprint all filmmakers follow when it comes to making a nostalgic follow up film.
And while it definitely helps to have knowledge of the original film, this is a popcorn entertainment that anyone can enjoy. Until yesterday, I haven't seen the original since back in high school sometime in 1994 or so, but I was able to slip back easily enough into the film's world. Revisiting the first after watching this to make sure my hunch of this being a better film was correct, I came to realize just how much more so. Tom Cruise is a better actor now than he was when the first hit, the screenplay supplied by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie is stronger, and director Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion) stages both the aerial dogfights and the dramatic moments better than the late Tony Scott did in Top Gun. There's plenty of homages and moments that recreate famous scenes from the first film here, but there's just as much new to get excited about, which gives this film the feeling that it's respecting its predecessor, rather than cowering in the shadow of it.
We are reunited with Cruise's iconic Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell as he is about to be a test pilot for an experimental aircraft. He's living in a different world from last we saw him. As one of his superiors (Ed Harris) tells him early in the film, pilots will soon be replaced by drones. Maverick still has a bit of that cocky swagger, but it is now also filled with lots of experience, age, and personal regrets, and Cruise seems to be relishing the challenge of getting to recreate one of his more famous movie portrayals, and place him in a different time and light. As the plot kicks in, he has been assigned to teach some of the best pilots in the Navy's fighter training Top Gun program, as they are about to embark on a potential suicide mission that will require "two miracles" in order to succeed, and Maverick's skill will be needed to train them.
It is Maverick's old rival-turned-friend, Iceman (Val Kilmer), who recommends him for the position. In one of the film's better moves, it gives Kilmer a meaningful and memorable cameo, using elements of the actor's real life battle with lung cancer in the scene. The fact that he is the only other actor aside from Cruise to return from the first movie (aside from some clips from the first featuring Anthony Edwards and Meg Ryan placed in the film) does not harm things at all, as getting to see these two share the screen again as these characters is poignant and powerful, given where real life has taken these two stars. We are introduced to Maverick's new superiors, which include Admiral Beau Simpson (John Hamm) and Admiral Solomon Bates (Charles Parnell), as well as the top pilots that he will be training for this mission.
There are a bit few too many pilots for the movie to successfully juggle, which is one of the film's few failings, as we learn little about them save for two, which would be the cocky and sure "Hangman" (Glen Powell), and "Rooster" (Miles Teller), who is the son of Maverick's deceased friend and partner "Goose" from the first. It is the relationship between Maverick and Rooster that creates the key dramatic tension, as it should, as Rooster has not forgiven Maverick for the death of his father, and resents having to take orders from him. The tense relationship between the two is handled beautifully, and never seems as contrived as it could have been in a lesser screenplay. Slightly less successful is the romantic subplot Maverick engages in with an old flame named Penny (Jennifer Connelly). It's not that there's anything wrong with it, but it does suffer from a somewhat overstuffed narrative, and she never quite comes into her own as a character, because Connelly is competing with everything else.
This matters little with how successful everything else is about this Top Gun. The aerial sequences are breathtaking, beautifully shot, and some of the best action sequences to come out of Hollywood in quite a while. Again, this should be a blueprint for future filmmakers on how to stage a fast-paced action sequence coherently. Everything just has this immersive feel that puts you square in the middle of the action, and on the biggest screen, it is simply awe inspiring in a way that I thought blockbusters could never be again. The sequences also simply feel real, using as little CG effects as possible, and if they do, they are incredibly well done or hidden so that they don't take us out of the action. And even if some characters do get cast to the side a bit in the script, the ones that it does choose to focus on are well-written and given plenty of opportunity to stand out.
This is simply one of the best pure popcorn entertainment films to come in a while, and this is coming from someone who never really latched onto the first, even when I saw it in the theater when I was on the verge of turning 9 in 86. My anticipation for this could fit on the head of a pin, even when the rave reviews started to come in. I was fully impressed by the effort that went into this, and I hope it opens some eyes in the industry on how to follow up a nostalgic film in the best way possible so that it's better than its inspiration in nearly every conceivable way.
Downton Abbey: A New Era is as light and frothy as escapist entertainment can get, and I kind of admired it for that very reason. There are a number of people who will criticize the fact that the film celebrates a group of privileged and old fashioned one percenters, but the family on display is as charming as ever, and the movie is fun, even if you're someone like me, who has never actually watched the show, and who's main exposure to the characters has been the 2019 movie.
Set in 1929, the film finds the Crawley family has come into possession of a villa in the South of France due to a hidden love affair that the Dowager Countess (the always-welcome Maggie Smith) had over 60 years ago. Just as certain members of the family are about to set off to explore this villa and help solve the mystery behind this unknown suitor, a Hollywood film crew shows up at Downton Abbey, led by director Jack Barber (Hugh Dancy), who want to shoot a silent movie on location in their home. This comes at an opportune time for the family, as the roof is in desperate need of repair. And so, Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonneville), his wife Lady Cora (Elizabeth McGovern), their loyal butler Carson (Jim Yates), and select other members of the family travel to France, while other members stay behind and get involved with the film production.
Just like the previous film, this is a chance for fans of the show to reunite with these characters and see what they have been doing since the series ended its six season run. There are numerous subplots, a wedding, a few scandalous details about hidden pasts, a few characters might be fighting an illness, and an overall sense of escapism that keeps this lightweight material afloat. For someone who is not familiar with the series, I found myself charmed by the characters, and more interested in the plot involving the film crew taking over the home of these characters. The interactions the characters have with the two Hollywood stars of the film, the dashing Guy Dexter (Dominic West) and the lovely but somewhat combative Myrna Dalgleish (Laura Haddock) is a lot of fun. I also liked a moment late in the film where the extras on the movie go on strike, and the servants at the mansion home have to fill in for them.
Is Downton Abbey out of touch in today's climate of inflation, disease, and war overseas? That can't be denied. And yet, as previously mentioned, it works as escapism. For a certain audience, this is probably as thrilling and as fun as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And yet, I can't deny that I got caught up in these characters and their lightweight problems. The cast from the old TV show know how to sell this material (as well they should by now), and they slip back into their old roles with ease. As for the new characters who are introduced, the fit in beautifully, and everyone gets to have their own stand out moment. The ways that the film juggles so many characters, subplots, and situations is quite admirable, lends the film a sense of professionalism. This may be lightweight entertainment, but it knows what it's doing.
This is the kind of movie where you shut your brain off, take in the lovely scenery, enjoy some great acting, and just forget the outside world for about two hours. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who would welcome that, so I will not be surprised if in another few years, we get a third visit from these characters.
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a mix of a reboot of an old kiddie show, a Hollywood satire, a genuine mystery comedy, and a high-tech blend of live action and animation that, like Roger Rabbit, borrows licensed characters from different studios and blends them together. The end result is a movie that works much better than you would expect, and is definitely smarter than it needed to be.
In a way, the movie resembles a successful take on the same idea The Happytime Murders attempted. That was the failed Hard-R Muppet Movie the Jim Henson Studio tried their luck with back in 2018 that featured a Muppet detective trying to solve a series of murders connected to an old TV show. Both films take a concept usually associated with children's programming, and drops them into a more mature storyline. But where as Happytime emphasized four-letter words and dumb jokes about Muppet sex, Rescue Rangers takes the concept of the 1989 cartoon and its characters, and honors it with smart writing, respect for the original fanbase, and some genuinely bright humor. No, this is not the movie most people who grew up with the show will be expecting, but it's probably better than that.
Catching up with the two Chipmunk stars from Disney's past, we learn that they don't always talk like they're on helium. Apparently, that was an act for the show. (They do occasionally slip back into their "chipmunk" speak from time to time.) Chip (voice by John Mulaney) and Dale (voice by Andy Samberg) are childhood friends who came to Hollywood together with a dream of making it big, worked their way doing cameos on various shows in the 80s, and eventually got their break when the Disney Corporation gave them their own show, where they played the leaders of a team of pint-sized rodent detectives who solved crimes the police wouldn't touch. Despite the success, Dale became tired of being seen as a second banana to his friend, and tried to get a solo spin off project ("Double-O Dale") off the ground. This, combined with the cancellation of the TV show, caused a rift between the friends.
30 years later, Dale has had the "CG Surgery", and is working the convention circuit, living off his past fame. Chip (still hand drawn) now sells insurance, and despite being great at his job, is unhappy with life. The former friends are brought together when one of their co-stars from the old show, Monterey Jack (voice by Eric Bana), calls them up needing help. His addiction to cheese has gotten him in trouble with an underground gang that is rounding up old cartoon characters, and forcing them to go under a surgery process that turns them into cheap bootleg characters who star in knockoff DVD movies. When he ends up going missing, the duo team up with human police detective Ellie Steckler (KiKi Layne) to find him and the other missing cartoon characters.
I can imagine the lawyers at Disney were constantly breathing down the necks of the filmmakers while they were making this, as the movie not only serves as a satire of one of their nostalgic franchises, but includes cameos from shows not owned by them, such as Beavis & Butt-Head, Lego, and My Little Pony to name a few. I'm sure it cost a lot to license outside characters, but I'm glad they took a chance, because it helps with the overall theme of humans and cartoon characters of different styles (stop motion, anime) inhabiting the same world. Beyond the cameos and references, this is just a bright and funny script by Dan Gregor and Doug Mand that, while it definitely doesn't have anything inappropriate, seems targeted more at adults than kids.
And it makes sense to make this movie for them, since the kids who used to watch the old TV show are now in their 30s and 40s. Apparently, this is an idea that's been around for almost 10 years at the Studio, and the original plan was to do a straight up reboot origin story film about the mini crime fighters. But when director Akiva Schaffer (2016's Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping) and members of the comedy team The Lonely Island came on board, they completely retooled the idea into more of a satire. This was obviously a risky move, but it pays off, because it still manages to pay respect to the original source, while giving audiences a unique experience. It could not have been easy for them to talk a major corporation into doing a more satirical and slightly more adult take on the material, but it works.
Rescue Rangers is certainly a gamble, but one that should play well both with those who watch it out of nostalgia, and those who are not familiar with what came before. That's really the best way to tackle a nostalgic reboot film. It's hard to please both audiences, but this movie does just that.
Alex Garland's Men is a movie of quiet emotional power and suspense for about 70 minutes or so, then it dives off the deep end. I'm not saying that the images Garland employs in the film's final moments are not memorable, or that it goes wrong in any terrible way. It just seems like the last half belongs in a different movie from the first. What starts as a true nightmare ends in a rush of special effects that overwhelm everything that came before it.
And yet, we have some strong performances here, and a few moments that are truly disquieting before it all changes course. Jessie Buckley is sublime as Harper, a woman vacationing in the English Countryside in order to escape her past and a personal tragedy concerning her husband (Paapa Essiedu) that still haunts her. The flashbacks concerning the events that led up to this, as well as the scenes where Buckley plays up the guilt and the anger are finely acted and constructed. The film's opening scene depicts the moment in question, and immediately grabs our attention because of how masterfully and dream-like Garland depicts it. As we witness flashbacks of events that led up to it, they continue to instill confidence in the audience that this will be a serious and thoughtful look at how people can manipulate or dominate a relationship without even attempting to, and the lasting effect it has on the victim.
The area she decides to vacation in is one of those isolated small towns you see often in movies, where the population is made up mostly of oddballs and weirdos who seemingly become even stranger when the sun goes down. The fact that a majority of the people she encounters are all played by the same person (Rory Kinnear, also excellent) only adds to the weirdness. And yes, there is a reason why so many of these roles are played by one actor. Surrounded by these creeps, including a naked man who is supposedly stalking her, and with her only source to the outside world being her sister (Gayle Rankin) whom she communicates with over video chats on her phone (naturally, the connection is terrible in this town), she can't help but kind of descend into madness and guilt as these weird events keep on piling up.
And yet, Men does not go the route you would expect, and I have to give Garland credit for that. He could have easily gone for a supernatural or "dream" explanation, but he keeps on reminding us that what poor Harper is experiencing is very much real. She's not crazy, nor is she losing her grip. She's simply being forced to come face first with the manipulation and cruelty that she has had to endure most of her life in the form of some very strange locals. I was with this, and the film's idea of exploring toxic masculinity through these means. But as the film's climax started to play out, I realized that Garland was kind of throwing subtlety to the window, and just going for shocks and over the top gory effects. I will not delve deep into what happens, but I will say that anyone who sees this will certainly be talking about the last half, either praising it to the skies, or wondering what the hell it was all supposed to mean.
I will be honest, reader, I was a bit lost as it played out, and I had to look up some interviews with Garland as to what the ending was supposed to represent after it was over. So, if you're left a bit dumbfounded by this movie, I won't blame you. Thinking back on the film, I don't know if I can label this a complete success, but I also can't deny that the movie has some wonderful moments up until the climactic ones. I was actually with this one more when it was trying to be mysterious, rather than it was just going into bat crap crazy mode. I know there will be people who will embrace this movie fully, as there should be. There will also be plenty who will see this as a prestige horror film that flies off the rails, as again, there should be. I have a feeling that the director wants to spark debate and conversation, and he certainly will.
I liked a majority of Men, so I am recommending it, but if you check out during the final moments, I won't blame you. I was intrigued enough to keep following it, but will admit that I liked the subtle and creepy moments better than when the movie is just throwing weirdness in our face.
Of the numerous Stephen King adaptations we got the 80s, you'd have to think that the cry to update 1984's Firestarter was quite faint indeed. However, it was somehow picked up by genre producer Jason Blum, and here is a cheap-looking and ultimately disappointing take on a story that inspired a disappointing film already 38 years ago.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong steps into the role previously filled by Drew Barrymore in the original as Charlie, a seemingly-innocent little girl with pyrokinetic powers. She was born with these powers, because her parents Andy (Zac Efron) and Vicky (Sydney Lemmon) were experimented on by a shady government agency back in college, and due to side effects, both of them developed psychic abilities. Andy has the ability to control the minds of others, while Vicky can levitate objects with telekinesis. Both of them have been on the run from the government ever since, and have been living "off the grid". Now that Charlie is 11, her abilities are starting to grow in strength, and are getting harder to control. While at school, she is bullied by a boy who's just begging to be flame broiled. Instead, little Charlie runs to the restroom, where she loses control, and lets off a massive fireball. The incident obviously makes headlines, and the family finds themselves on the run now that the agency knows their location.
The head of the agency, Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben) hires assassin John Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes), a former test subject of the same experiment as the parents, after them to bring Charlie back to them, and to kill the parents if necessary. While on the run, Charlie will have to learn to channel and control her developing powers, to the point that the movie starts to resemble a comic book origin story. In fact, at one point, she's called the first "real live superhero". Screenwriter Scott Teems (Halloween Kills) tries to play up the Sci-Fi angle here, going for more of an adventure tone than sheer suspense. In the process, he loses what tension there is to the story. This is a dry and bland adaptation that does little to truly explore these characters and ideas, or Charlie's development from a frightened little girl to a master fireball manipulator, which seems to happen in about a minute during a montage.
This Firestarter is not slavishly faithful to the original story or the earlier adaptation, but what it does new is not exciting or thrilling. Even worse is the direction by Keith Thomas (an indie horror and music video director making his mainstream film debut), who incorporates static close ups of whoever is talking whenever possible. Say what you will about the 1984 film, but you can't deny that the movie's climax where young Charlie uses her powers to their fullest to lay waste to her tormentors is a high point in an otherwise forgettable movie. The fact that it used some very difficult practical fire effects and that no stuntmen were injured makes it all the more impressive. In the 2022 remake, the climax is supremely underwhelming. Not only are the effects cheesy and heavily CG, but Thomas shoots things so tightly that it's sometimes hard to tell what's happening, or to whom.
What we end up with is a remake that we not only didn't need, but is also bland in its effort to generate excitement in the audience. The performances and dialogue fail to breathe life into the leaden material, and the lifeless direction only rams the mediocrity of it all home. The only thing that does stand out is the music score, which was provided by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter, and Daniel Davies. The neat touch about John Carpenter getting to score this is that he was the original choice to direct the earlier film, but was dropped when the studio developed cold feet after his 1982 film of The Thing underwhelmed at the box office. It often comes across that the composers understood the mood the movie was supposed to be going for better than the filmmakers did, and give a memorable score that honestly belongs in a better movie than this.
The movie is not terrible, as it's far too forgettable to create anger in its audience. It simply passes by in a very slow 94 minutes, then sends the audience home unfulfilled. Given the prices for going to the movies these days, that's too much to ask for to partake in such an underwhelming experience.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is one of the few Marvel films that feels distinct to the director behind it, rather than the Studio. There are moments here that could only come from filmmaker Sam Raimi. There's the required Bruce Campbell cameo, a music score by Danny Elfman (after Tim Burton, Raimi is the director most associated with Elfman), and a climax that hearkens back to his Evil Dead days. This makes for a wild ride, and one much darker than the usual Marvel fare.
The film serves not only as a follow up to 2016's Doctor Strange film, but also continues the ideas that were first explored last year in Spider-Man: No Way Home, and the streaming series WandaVision. If you have not seen these, or if it's been a while, a crash course will be in order, as it's getting harder to follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe without some kind of encyclopedic knowledge, or fan support. Benedict Cumberbatch is naturally in the role of Strange once more, and after dipping his toe into the Multiverse in No Way Home, he is thrust head first into it this time around. His mission is to help protect a teenage girl named America Chavez (Xochiti Gomez), who not only hails from one of these parallel universes, but has the power to cross over to any that she chooses, though she does not understand why she has this power, or how to use it.
We learn that the Doctor exists in these various Multiverses as well, and because one of them betrayed America's trust in a previous encounter, she is not quick to join up with him. Regardless, various demons and monsters are pursuing her for her power, and he may be her only hope for survival. The antagonist after her power is none other than Strange's former ally, Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), who has been driven even further into madness after the events in WandaVision. If you have not seen the series, you likely will not fully understand her motivations, or what has led to her current circumstance. Regardless, even as a stand alone entertainment, you may not fully get the plot if you've not been keeping up with events, but the movie is still a lot of fun as it mixes elements of fantasy, horror and adventure.
Though toned down for a more PG-13 family-friendly audience, the movie still contains many of the filmmaker's horror elements, such as bizarre monsters, morbid humor, and gruesome violence. And though the film is less comical than a lot of Marvel films, it still finds the right tone for its moments of levity, with Cumberbatch bringing plenty of dry wit as the Universe (or Universes) literally explode all around him. At its core, Doctor Strange is a balancing act, and a difficult one at that. It's a superhero story told with a Gothic Horror bent, along with an adventure that explores alternate timelines and possibilities. Through all of these worlds, the one thing that remains certain is that the Doctor is still longing for the lovely Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams), and how the movie plays with that longing and their relationship in different ways and scenarios is a clever and sometimes heartfelt touch. This is a movie with a lot on its plate, but its balanced in such a way that the film's over two hour run time goes by quickly.
Naturally, there are some possibilities for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe hinted at throughout. Also naturally, they will not be revealed here. Suffice to say, fans will have a lot to look forward to, including a certain nostalgic music cue when a particular character makes their appearance in one of the Multiverses. Fortunately, you don't have to be a fan to enjoy this. The movie is alive with its own imagination, and though I would have liked to see a few more worlds and alternate timelines explored than we got, I doubt many will leave unsatisfied. Like usual with Marvel, the movie speaks to its core audience, but is smart enough not to completely shut out those who might find themselves dragged to the theater by their companion.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is not a genre redefining film, and never pretends to be. It's a well-crafted entry that gives us what we expect, and maybe a bit more with Raimi at the helm. It's quite amazing how well they have been able to handle this idea of multiple universes that they have recently started exploring. This is a movie where with just one misstep, it would have exploded in their face. It's kind of a small cinematic miracle that they did not make a crucial misstep here.
I am a rabid movie fan since 1984 who calls them as he sees them. Sometimes harsh, but always honest, I offer my 'reel opinions' on today's films. I don't get money for my reviews, and I have to pay to get into every movie I see (even the really awful ones), so what you will see here is the true reaction of a man who is passionate about film. - Ryan Cullen
