Review: “F9: The Fast Saga”
Joe’s Take
Twenty years ago, no one knew the “Fast and Furious” franchise would still exist. However, nine movies and a spinoff film later, the multi-billion dollar property is still alive. “F9: The Fast Saga” proved it still has places to go.
After the disappointing and unnecessarily dark “F8 of the Furious,” “F9” returns to the fun that makes this franchise so entertaining. The beginning scared me as the movie opens with a flashback of the day Dom’s father died. This worried me because I thought the film might keep its dark tone from the eighth installment and serve as a mostly serious movie. The flashbacks continue throughout the film to show the tension between Dom (Vin Diesel) and his brother Jakob (John Cena). The scenes work well to progress the story, and Vinnie Bennett, who plays young Dom, nails his mannerisms. There’s one point where he’s driving and he does an eyebrow raise and it looks just like Diesel. It’s a small part, but he does a really nice job with it. Even though the audience knows what happens in the opening flashback, as explained in the first film, the sequence proves beautifully shot and powerful.
The film then shifts to the present with a smaller crew than we’re used to, with Dom, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges) and Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) going on the first mission. It doesn’t take too long to get them assembled, which the audience appreciates. No need to take a ton of time for the characters to decide to go on the mission when the viewers know they eventually will.
The chemistry among the crew is there immediately, almost like getting the family back together. Granted this should be easy for Diesel, Rodriguez, Gibson and Ludacris as they’ve been a part of the franchise for quite some time. However, they gave Emmanuel, who joined the cast in “Furious 7,” a lot more to do and she thrived, fitting right in with Gibson and Ludacris. Her driving sequence in the middle of the movie proves hilarious and fun.
This is the best Gibson has been in a “Fast and Furious” movie since “2 Fast 2 Furious.” The role plays much more to his skillset and he more so lets the film come to him. His humor plays within the fabric of the movie. It seems more natural and Gibson seems more comfortable.
Although the film starts off with a team of five, it grows throughout with plenty of cameos from old favorites of the previous movies. They all worked, and brought a smile to my face. The best comes from one of the newest members of the franchise, Helen Mirren (Queenie). The overqualified Mirren dominates the screen in a five-minute sequence that is incredibly out of place. But, who cares? It’s Helen Mirren.
“F9” has a bit of a villain problem, as too many come to the surface. Cipher (Charlize Theron) is left over from the eighth installment, while Jakob and Otto (Thue Ersted Rasmussen) team up. While I enjoyed the back-and-forths between Cipher and Otto, there was no room for the great Theron to shine. Cena thrives when a film allows him to use his natural charisma. In “F9,” he’s just a straight up bad guy for the most part. There’s not much fun or interesting about his character.
Director Justin Lin returns to the franchise after a two-film hiatus and helms some awesome and over-the-top action set pieces. As absurd as some scenes are, they look really good. Also, you’ll never be more entertained by a magnet. This is where the film thrives, with its popcorn action, fun and humor. Ever since Dom and Brian pulled a safe through the streets of Rio de Janeiro in “Fast Five,” we want that entertainment. For the most part, every film since has delivered. Granted, every film tries to jump a bigger shark. “F9” jumped a megalodon. The question is when does the absurdity become too much? Some may say it’s already there, but as a fan I still absolutely love this franchise.
At 2 hours and 25 minutes, the film is definitely too long. There are a few scenes here and there that can be cut. As with most franchises, there are also characters and scenes used to lay the groundwork for future films. For the most part, the story works. It’s not anything we haven’t seen before, but for as much of a plot as a “Fast and Furious” movie needs, it fits right in.
Nine movies in, the “Fast and Furious” franchise is what it is. You know what you’re getting into, so you either love it or you don’t. “F9” won’t do anything to change your mind, but fans of the series can smile. This is far from one of the best films in the franchise, but it’s a step up from its predecessor and proves the franchise still has legs. The absurdity is at an all-time high, but the joy is right where it should be.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, left, and Tyrese Gibson in a scene from “F9: The Fast Saga.” (Giles Keyte/Universal Pictures via AP)
Rebecca’s Take
When it comes to the “Fast & Furious” franchise, I’m such a big fan of the gloriously outlandish, physics-defying films that I grade them on a rating system of their own. In my eyes, 2011’s “Fast Five” – the peak entry that catapulted the street-racing series to the next level – is a perfect, five-star film. “Fast Five” and the next two sequels, “Fast & Furious 6” (2013) and “Furious 7” (2015), represent the saga’s gold standard.
When the dark and dismal “Fate of the Furious” debuted in 2017, I was worried the series had finally run out of gas. After eight films, was this the end of the road for the “Fast & Furious”? Had Vin Diesel taken his campaign to get the franchise an Oscar too far?
The good news is “F9: The Fast Saga” remembers what the series is about: fun and family. The supercharged sequel finds new lanes for the franchise to explore, cranking up the high-octane action, absurd stunts, beloved character returns and ridiculous fun that fans of the series have come to expect.
In the ninth installment of the franchise, street racer/master mechanic/heist planner/patriarch Dominic Toretto (Diesel) comes out of hiding to confront a new enemy: his estranged brother Jakob (John Cena). Now a super spy, Jakob is involved in a plot to steal Ares, a device that can wreak havoc on any nation’s computer weapons systems.
Determined to stop his brother, Dom and his loyal crew – wife Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), tech guy Tej (Ludacris), muscle Roman (Tyrese Gibson) and hacker Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) – reunite with some familiar faces for their biggest mission yet.
From the get-go, “F9” delivers the over-the-top, eye-popping action sequences that have become a hallmark of the series. The latest installment marks the return of director Justin Lin, who masterfully helmed the third, fourth, fifth and sixth entries. Lin’s handiwork immediately comes through onscreen as he restores the series’ flashy luster. This was missing from F. Gary Gray’s dull direction of “Fate of the Furious.”
The thrilling sequel starts with a breathtaking NASCAR race, setting the pace for the adrenaline-fueled set pieces. During a wild chase from military tanks, a new gadget cements Dom’s status as the series’ Batman. The sequel gets a lot of mileage out of a giant magnet, which proves incredibly useful – and downright entertaining. And the stunts are literally out of this world as the franchise finally goes into space. The gravity-defying sequence gives Gibson and Ludacris some of their best moments in the franchise, drawing laughs every time the pair is onscreen. “F9” successfully pushes the boundaries on what the series can accomplish.
While “Fate of the Furious” made the mistake of separating its core characters, “F9” brings them together right away – and resurrects a fan favorite. The “Fast & Furious” films are known for bringing back dead characters, and when they do, they always make it work. This time, “F9” meets the challenge of bringing Han (Sung Kang) back into the fold. When I saw my favorite character in the franchise was returning after a two-film absence, I was ecstatic. “F9” explains why the snack-loving Han’s death wasn’t all that final, and for the most part, the explanation works. Kang’s sensitive yet cool jack of all trades fits in seamlessly with the crew, adding to the group’s delightful chemistry. The film hints we’ll be seeing more “Justice for Han.”
“F9” also gives its female characters plenty of screen time – and with each other, addressing a criticism Rodriguez has levied at the films. After sitting out “Fate of the Furious,” Jordana Brewster returns as Dom’s sister, Mia. In one scene, Mia and Letty eat dinner and check in with each other. It’s a lovely, quiet moment in which we see two female characters simply talking, which is rare for the series. That’s not to say Letty and Mia don’t get in on the action, which they do – and it’s totally awesome. The two show they can easily fend for themselves during an all-out brawl. For Rodriguez, “F9” marks the latest example of her physical prowess, having taken on Gia Carano and Ronda Rhousey in previous installments.
The film also gives its other female characters standout moments. While the films usually spotlight Ramsey’s hacking abilities, “F9” gives Emmanuel her own action sequence. Her driving scene is exciting and hilarious, allowing the actress to blossom out of her element. The sequel also introduces a new character, Elle (Anna Sawai), whose mastery of firearms is quite helpful. One of my favorite moments features the return of Queenie Shaw (the fantastic Helen Mirren), who shows off her driving skills during a short chase. If the franchise could bring Mirren back for a chase scene in the next (and last) two movies, that would make me happy.
In a departure from past installments, “F9” weaves in flashbacks of Dom and Jakob. The technique effectively explains the wedge between the two brothers. As Dom’s younger self, Vinnie Bennett channels Diesel’s mannerisms, bearing a striking resemblance to the superstar. As the younger Jakob, Finn Cole might not have Cena’s chiseled looks, but the actor does a good job in conveying the character’s chip on his shoulder. The NASCAR scenes also bring the great Michael Rooker to the franchise. The casting is a clever callback to 1990’s “Days of Thunder,” where Rooker plays Cup champion Rowdy Burns, Tom Cruise’s rival.
As enjoyable as “F9” is, it’s not without its flaws. The blockbuster is nearly two-and-a-half hours, which is long (prepare for at least one bathroom break).
Positioned as the film’s villain, Cena feels like the odd man out. Most of his scenes are separate from those with the main cast, so he’s largely unable to share in the group camaraderie. His action time is limited onscreen, and he doesn’t get to showcase his flair for comedy. You can’t help but feel Cena is being underused here so he can be used more in future films. Speaking of villains, the franchise still hasn’t figured out how to use Charlize Theron’s Cipher. The “Fate of the Furious” baddie returns in “F9,” but as a secondary villain, she’s barely in the film.
Like a NASCAR race, “F9” has plenty of turns before reaching the finish line, hitting its marks as a welcome return to form. The film mostly corrects the mistakes of “Fate of the Furious,” leaving the eighth entry in the rear-view mirror as it follows closely on the bumper of the best three films in the series. With its outrageous stunts and ever-growing family of characters, “F9” proves the franchise has a lot left in its tank. With just two more films to go, the road ahead looks bright once again for the franchise.
4 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Luca”
Rebecca’s Take
Disney-Pixar’s newest cartoon “Luca” features several hallmarks of the animation studio’s critically acclaimed films. Streaming exclusively on Disney Plus, the literal fish-out-of-water tale is cute and colorful. The kids’ movie boasts vibrant animation, good lessons and likable lead characters.
However, don’t go into “Luca” expecting another introspective film like last winter’s “Soul.” With its heartfelt but simplistic story, Pixar’s latest effort lacks the depth and emotion of the studio’s other entries. “Luca” is a serviceable Pixar film that doesn’t reach the heights of a “Toy Story,” “Inside Out” or “Soul,” but fares better than the so-so “The Good Dinosaur.”
The coming-of-age story follows its namesake character Luca (voiced by Jacob Tremblay), a young sea monster who lives off the coast of the Italian Riviera with his parents, Daniela (Maya Rudolph) and Lorenzo (Jim Gaffigan). Growing bored with his life under the sea, Luca disobeys his parents and goes to the surface, where he transforms into a human appearance on land.
Luca strikes up a friendship with fellow sea monster Alberto (Jack Dylan Grazer), and they spend the summer exploring the Italian city of Portorosso. When they hear about the annual Portorosso Cup Triathlon, the friends decide to enter so they can use the prize money to remain on land. The two join forces with determined competitor Giulia (Emma Berman) in the hopes of beating Ercole Visconti (Saverio Raimondo), the Cup’s defending winner and town bully. But Luca and Alberto must hide their identities from a city that reviles sea monsters while keeping a suspicious Ercole at bay.
With its stunning animation, “Luca” whisks viewers away to the spectacular colors of the Italian coastline. Bathed in bright hues, the film bounces back and forth between its aquatic and land settings. The underwater sequences feature stunning shades of green and blue, while the streets of Portorosso favor vivid browns, yellows and the fiery red of Giulia’s hair.
The disarming film mines a lot of comedy from Luca’s and Alberto’s transformation from sea monster to human, and vice versa. Something as simple as a flick of water or a sudden rain shower can cause them to sprout scales or a tail, drawing laughs. The seamless transitions between the boys’ forms are a credit to the team of animators.
At an hour and 35 minutes, “Luca” is one of Pixar’s shorter films, but the cartoon feels like it doesn’t have enough material to stretch out its runtime. The film starts off slow before taking on a wandering, almost aimless approach as Luca and Alberto explore the surface. The boys’ traipsing around the coast reminded me of 2017’s drama “Call Me By Your Name,” another story of self-discovery set in Italy. But “Luca” is much more kid-friendly, favoring younger children with its straightforward plot and light themes.
After a shaky two acts, “Luca” finds its footing in its final act. The Portorosso Cup Triathlon, which consists of swimming, eating pasta (seriously!) and cycling, is beautifully animated and emotionally rewarding. This is where the film sticks the landing, bringing home its message of acceptance – both of yourself and others. “Luca” assures kids that it’s OK to be different. The film makes it clear that not everyone will like you for who you are, but that’s OK, too.
Though “Luca” delivers positive messages for children, it falls short on the big tear-inducing moments that Pixar is known for. The story is still heartwarming, but it’s more of a tug on your heartstrings instead of a pull. You may not need a tissue for this one.
The child stars of “Luca” deserve applause. As Luca, Tremblay taps into the character’s innocence and naivete, then confidence as the sea monster comes into his own. Grazer balances Alberto’s arrogance with a vulnerability that stems from the loner’s past. The two share a nice camaraderie as their characters bond and then clash. Berman adds to the friendship dynamic as the feisty Giulia, who wants to win the Cup while growing closer to Luca, causing Alberto to become jealous.
Despite a notable voice cast, the adults in “Luca” are not as well-developed as the kids. Marco Barricelli shines as Giulia’s dad Massimo, a sea monster hunter who comes to care for Luca and Alberto. But Rudolph and Gaffigan have little to do as Luca’s parents. The film misses an opportunity to maximize their talents when the couple arrives on the surface to search for their son. As Ercole, Raimondo’s villain is entirely one-note and cringeworthy.
If you’re expecting “Luca” to be on the same level as Pixar’s top tier of films, you may have to readjust your expectations. The adorable cartoon meets Pixar’s high animation standard, but its simple story doesn’t swim to the emotional depths of its masterpieces. Just average, “Luca” offers enough for children and parents to enjoy, but little about it will linger after the credits roll.
3 out of 5 stars
“Luca”
Joe’s Take
Because of its distinguished track record, Pixar brings a certain level of gravitas to its films. The studio makes animated kids movies, but for the most part they delve into adult themes so the whole family can watch and enjoy. While “Luca” brings the gorgeous animation and strong voice work, it lacks the usual substance associated with Pixar.
After watching the trailer, I was most excited to see the eye-popping animation and it didn’t disappoint. The beautiful transformations from the sea creatures to human characters proved the most engaging part of the film. I like when a film can make the audience feel the world and its pieces through the animation with attention to detail and texture. “Luca” does that and creates a world of wonder kids can enjoy. I also appreciated some of the character designs, especially Massimo Marcovaldo (voiced by Marco Barricelli). It was a simple design, but worked perfectly for the character and his personality.
The voice work is also excellent, led by Jacob Tremblay (Luca Paguro), Jack Dylan Grazer (Alberto Scorfano) and Emma Berman (Giulia Marcovaldo). Tremblay continues to thrive in Hollywood. He should have an Oscar nomination for his role in 2015’s “Room” and showed his range in 2019’s raunchy comedy “Good Boys.” He’s once again excellent, this time as the lead voice actor. Also, he’s only 14.
Tremblay creates a quick and believable chemistry with Grazer, another strong young actor who is most known for his roles in the “It” franchise and “Shazam!” In the film, their characters become fast friends, and I bought their relationship because of the actors. Berman fits right in when the duo meets her character later in the film. There are some other notable actors involved in the voice work, including Maya Rudolph (Daniela Paguro), Jim Gaffigan (Lorenzo Paguro) and Sacha Baron Cohen (Uncle Ugo), but the three younger actors power the film.
The movie’s biggest flaw is it seems like it’s in a hurry. The runtime is 1 hour, 41 minutes, but the credits start to roll before the film hits the hour and a half mark. It never took the time to develop any themes or substance that were more so hinted at instead of explored. The creatures are literally fish out of water. The film could have gone in numerous directions with that, like the idea of acceptance or being who you are meant to be without allowing anything to hold you back. It’s not like these ideas haven’t been explored before, but the film didn’t do much with anything it established. All the conflict didn’t last very long. What seemed like obstacles quickly turned into inconveniences. Again, maybe the expectations placed on a Pixar movie aren’t fair, but in the end this is a run-of-the-mill kids movie.
“Luca” proves a well-animated and acted film, but lacks the substance to make it great. It’s a quick and adorable watch that kids will enjoy and parents can definitely tolerate. However, it doesn’t meet the standard of a Pixar film or produce an emotional impact that sticks with the audience.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “In The Heights”
Rebecca’s Take
Before “Hamilton” became a national phenomenon, Lin-Manuel Miranda made his mark on Broadway by writing and starring in “In the Heights.” The Tony award-winning musical celebrating the Washington Heights section of New York City and its thriving Latino community ran from 2008 to 2011 on the Great White Way.
When I saw the show in August 2008, it was just a few months into its run. The show’s energy and joy were infectious. Little did I know I’d be reviewing the film adaptation 13 years later.
After being delayed a year by the pandemic, “In the Heights” finally comes to glorious life on the big screen. In theaters and streaming on HBO Max, the powerful and vibrant film heralds the return of the larger-than-life movie musical, spotlighting a diverse cast. With its timely story, dynamic directing, show-stopping tunes, high-energy dance numbers and fantastic ensemble, “In the Heights” makes a nearly flawless transition from stage to screen.
The sweeping musical follows the neighborhood of largely Dominican immigrants as they search for the American dream. Bodega owner Usnavi (Anthony Ramos), who runs the store with the help of his young cousin Sonny (Gregory Diaz IV), yearns to return to the Dominican Republic. Usnavi is too nervous to ask out Vanessa (Melissa Barrera), a stylist who aspires to become a fashion designer. Meanwhile, intelligent student Nina (Leslie Grace) – the pride of the neighborhood – returns from her freshman year at Stanford University after feeling excluded due to her heritage. Nina is reunited with her ex-boyfriend, Benny (Corey Hawkins), who works for her father’s (Jimmy Smits) dispatch business. When a $96,000-winning lottery ticket promises to put some dreams closer in reach, others’ dreams threaten to fade away. As the summer heat rises and a blackout hits, the future of the Heights and its residents grows more uncertain.
“In The Heights” comes out at a relevant time as the issue of immigration remains in the national consciousness. The musical has been updated to reflect key events that occurred during the 13-year gap since its Broadway debut. The film adds a compelling subplot about the Dreamers and the DACA act, which affects the immigration status of one of the main characters. There’s also references to Hurricane Maria’s devastation of the Dominican Republic, and even pop culture references to “John Wick” and “Hamilton,” if you’re listening closely.
Visually stunning, “In the Heights” dazzles the senses as director John M. Chu brings a cinematic scope to the story. Without the limitations of the Broadway stage, the film adaptation excels at interweaving the story’s various settings, from the bodega to the sun-soaked streets to neighborhood grandmother Abuela Claudia’s (Olga Merediz) apartment. During the rollicking opening number “In the Heights,” the camera rests on several characters as they buy lottery tickets at the bodega, then weaves seamlessly between Usnavi, Sonny and Benny among the aisles, catching their reflections in the cooler’s windows as Vanessa walks in. Cho sprinkles creative shots like this throughout the film.
The kinetic direction matches the rhythm of the music, enhancing the exuberance of the songs and the breathless choreography. Nina is welcomed home by the ladies at Daniela’s (Daphne Rubin-Vega) neighborhood salon in the catchy “No Me Diga,” a delightful group number that sees the women busting out moves around the hair dryers and wigs. As the film plays up the mystery of who holds the winning lottery ticket, the cast unites at the local pool to sing the rousing “96,000.” In this eye-popping, candy-colored sequence, each character reveals what they’d do with the winnings, their hopes and dreams laid bare as they perform synchronized routines in and around the pool. Merediz, who reprises her role as Abuela Claudia from the stage show, belts her heart out during the introspective “Paciencia Y Fe.” The heartfelt number forms the story’s emotional center.
With its large, inclusive cast, “In the Heights” features an extraordinary ensemble whose voices complement one another. Taking over the role of Usnavi that Miranda originated onstage, the charismatic Ramos conveys a youthful enthusiasm paired with a wistful longing for the home he once knew. His “el suenito” – little dream – contrasts nicely with that of Vanessa, played magnificently by the vivacious Barrera. Vanessa longs to move also, but to another part of town and a better job. Ramos and Barrera share a sweet spark onscreen.
Ramos and Barrera aren’t the only standouts. Grace knocks it out of the park as the conflicted Nina, longing to find her place among the lack of a Latino community at Stanford. The pop singer’s soft, gentle voice radiates sadness and uncertainty as she tries to calm herself during “Breathe,” but pivots to hope and optimism during the duet “When the Sun Goes Down” with Hawkins’ loyal Benny.
The would-be couple’s sequence utilizes magical realism as the two dance together on the side of a building. The whimsical technique is used sparingly throughout the movie, and it works very well. However, I would have liked to see the film lean even more into magical realism.
When “In The Heights” digs its heels deeper into the social issues and dilemmas facing its characters, the film slows down during its final hour. It’s a rare lapse of action for the two-and-a-half-hour musical before the triumphant “Carnaval Del Barrio” gets the ball rolling again. It’s a nitpick during what is otherwise Chu and Miranda’s masterpiece.
Full of stirring songs and boisterous dance numbers, “In the Heights” does justice to the Broadway show, treating viewers to an immersive and joyous big-screen experience. Despite being delayed a year due to the pandemic, the film is emerging at the right time as viewers have been deprived of going to Broadway and even the movie theater for months. For me, the film brought back enjoyable memories of seeing the original show onstage. Whether you watch it at home or in the theater, “In the Heights” ushers in a grand return to form for movie musicals.
4.5 out of 5 stars
This image released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows Anthony Ramos, from left, Gregory Diaz and Leslie Grace in a scene from “In the Heights.” (Macall Polay/Warner Bros. Pictures via AP)
Joe’s Take
Last year, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s phenomenon “Hamilton” was released on Disney Plus. Everyone had the opportunity to see the filmed version of the stage musical after Broadway shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. Without COVID-19, audiences would have seen the film adaptation of one of Miranda’s earlier musicals, “In the Heights,” around that time. Instead, movie-goers waited a year for Warner Bros. to release it. Finally, it hit theaters and HBO Max on Friday and proved one of the best films of the year.
The film perfectly brings the audience into the culture of Washington Heights, a neighborhood in New York City (aka Nueva York). The opening “In the Heights” number establishes the tone and tells the viewers what they need to know about the neighborhood. This upbeat showstopper hooks the audience immediately and establishes the film’s magical realism and the pulse of the neighborhood, including its residents’ ability to find joy and strength in difficult times. The musical number “96,000” strengthens the heart and audience’s understanding of the neighborhood and its undying hope. It’s also the most memorable sequence as it combines magical realism with some incredible camera work and choreography on a large scale.
Although it gives many characters plenty of time to shine, “In the Heights” centers on Usnavi (Anthony Ramos) and his dream to return to the Dominican Republic to reclaim the best days of his life. After serving as side characters in “Hamilton,” Ramos takes centerstage and crushes the lead role. He puts his talent on full display and it all seems effortless. Ramos has a natural feel for the role and the film, which makes his acting seem so real. He also beautifully handles emotional sequences.
Normally I’d say Ramos won the film, but “In the Heights” shares the screen time among multiple engaging characters. Melissa Barrera (Vanessa) establishes herself as a force on the big screen with a booming voice and incredible dancing. The film also gives the character substance and a reason for the audience to care. Vanessa works to make it in the fashion design world, a career path that seems difficult to achieve with her status. However, she won’t allow that to stop her drive as she hammers home with the song “It Won’t Be Long Now.”
Leslie Grace (Nina Rosario) also wows with her opening number “Breathe,” as Nina tries to find her place. She has the ability to leave her block and earn a strong education at Stanford, but feels more comfortable in Washington Heights. Her relationship with Benny (Corey Hawkins) serves as a great subplot with heart. Hawkins surprised me with his singing ability. He’s an awesome actor, and his range continues to grow.
While the film has plenty of heart, Abuela Claudia (Olga Merediz) serves as the film’s soul. She is the surrogate grandmother of the neighborhood, and frankly the audience’s as well. Merediz gives a beautiful performance, and takes the film to another level with her number “Paciencia Y Fe (Patience and Faith).” There are just so many characters who get their moments and make the most of them. Sonny (Gregory Diaz IV) is a great character with some really powerful sequences. Daniela (Daphne Rubin-Vega) puts an exclamation point on the film when she kicks off “Carnaval Del Barrio.” Jimmy Smits (Kevin Rosario) is one of the most notable actors in the film, and I would think of 10 other performances before his. That’s the depth of this musical.
The world building and character development brings the audience into the film. I felt like a member of the family and part of the community. That emotional engagement paves the way for the rest of the film.
Director Jon M. Chu had some clunkers over the years, including “Now You See Me 2,” “Jem and the Holograms” and “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.” However, he found his footing with “Crazy Rich Asians” and took it up a few more notches with “In the Heights.” This is the kind of film that is in his wheelhouse. He perfectly handles vibrant colors and magical realism and can elevate a strong script. I’m happy to see he found some better properties and hope to see more from him like this in the future.
I love how this movie sets up and pays off scenes in the beginning of the film. The movie tells the audience a blackout looms in three days. It doesn’t explain anything more than that. The blackout just keeps getting closer and closer. The audience has no idea what this means, and that adds to the engagement. Also, there’s a few Easter eggs for Hamilton fans to enjoy.
While the film is almost flawless, I have a few nitpicks. The movie sporadically uses magical realism, like characters walking on the side of a building and creating animation with their hands. I would have liked to have seen more magical realism, especially since the film introduced it and had the right director to accomplish it. At 2 hours, 23 minutes, the film starts to feel its length late. It takes a little too long to bring the film home.
“In the Heights” is on the same level as “Hamilton” as far as theatrical experience and quality, but they are very different productions. Fans of “Hamilton” will love “In the Heights,” because they love great, powerful and emotional musicals. “In the Heights” lives up to the expectations of a Miranda creation and in some ways exceeds them.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Cruella”
Rebecca’s Take
Disney’s live-action versions of their animated classics have been hit-or-miss. “Maleficent” (2014) was a breath of fresh air and my favorite, a bold retelling of “Sleeping Beauty” from the point of view of its misunderstood villain. “Cinderella” (2015) was charming but ultimately safe. The worst of the remakes is “The Lion King” (2019), a carbon copy of the 1994 cartoon that featured stunning visuals but lacked the heart of the original.
Going into “Cruella” at the movie theater, I didn’t know what to expect. The origin of the fur-loving villain Cruella de Vil from the “101 Dalmations” franchise sparkled with promise, but would it deliver? The answer is a resounding yes.
Delightful and original, “Cruella” shows the fruits of Disney’s labor when the House of Mouse takes chances. Tackling adult themes, the dark prequel available in theaters and on Disney Plus proves the more Disney’s live-action films deviate from the original source material, the better they are.
The film is a journey of self-discovery told through a villain’s origin story, with surprising twists and turns. “Cruella” is also a story of self-acceptance. The prequel celebrates its lead character as she comes into her own.
Set in London during the punk revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, “Cruella” follows Estella (Emma Stone), an outsider from society with her half-white, half-black hair. As a child, Estella is a free-thinking spirit with a knack for fashion who frequently gets in trouble at school. When her mother dies tragically, Estella is forced to live on the streets, taking up with orphan grifters Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser).
After Estella starts working at a department store, her unique sense of style catches the eye of fashion designer the Baroness (Emma Thompson), who gives her a job. While working with the Baroness, Estella not only learns about fashion, but that the designer was connected to her mother’s death. As she embarks on a plan of revenge, Estella’s more assertive side – named “Cruella” – emerges as she comes to terms with who she really is and who she’s meant to be.
Rated PG-13, “Cruella” is the darkest of Disney’s live-action films – and the better for it. The inventive prequel greatly expands upon the Cruella de Vil character established in the 1961 cartoon and the later live-action versions. The film unravels the bitter woman set on making a coat from the skins of dalmations, revealing her sad childhood, grief from losing a parent and struggle to conform. “Cruella” addresses these hard-hitting subjects in an accessible way for kids and teens.
Like “Maleficent,” “Cruella” builds sympathy for its protagonist and makes her relatable. As an orphan with unusual hair and independent personality, Estella is shunned by the mainstream. Her classmates make fun of her, the department store manager ridicules her, and the Baroness looks down her nose at her. She also likes dogs (see, she’s not all bad!) and even has a cute canine sidekick. The audience roots for Estella to succeed even as her plots grow more malicious.
Though the film has been compared to “Joker,” “Cruella” is more similar to “The Devil Wears Prada.” Estella must navigate the dog-eat-dog world of high fashion on her way to embracing her individuality. The counterculture punk era provides the perfect setting as Estella gradually lets her rebellious nature free, outfitted in Jenny Beavan’s stunning costume designs. Estella transitions from demure black outfits to eye-popping black leather, black eyeliner and bright red lipstick as Cruella takes over.
The character benefits from Stone’s immense likability. The actress transforms from the meek Estella to the self-assured Cruella. She goes from covering up her black and white hair, vowing to “keep her head low,” to letting her natural locks flow and taking charge. By the time Cruella makes her show-stopping public debut, I was already cheering for her. Stone captures the complexity in Cruella, showcasing her vulnerability alongside her resilience.
“Cruella” provides a cage match for a pair of Oscar winners. Playing two strong-willed characters, Stone and Thompson share a palpable push-and-pull dynamic, first as protégé and mentor, then as enemies. At the top of her game, the fierce Thompson is the film’s true villain. She inspires fear and foreboding as the cold, calculating and ruthless Baroness. Thompson makes an excellent ice queen, priming viewers for what Cruella will one day become.
The prequel expands upon its links to the original while adding a modern sensibility. Jasper and Horace, the burglars from the 1961 cartoon, are introduced as Estella’s family surrogates, growing up alongside her. Fry, who was enjoyable in the mediocre films “Yesterday” and “Love Wedding Repeat,” stands out as the insightful Jasper, who begins questioning Estella/Cruella’s methods. As Horace, Hauser brings comic relief as the clumsy, dim-witted burglar with a heart. In an inclusive move for Disney, “Cruella” promotes acceptance of the LBGTQ community with a new character, the gay and compassionate shopkeeper Artie (John McCrea).
What works against “Cruella” is its length. The film moves at a clip, but at a whopping 2 hours and 15 minutes, it’s long for audiences of all ages to sit through. Trimming about 15-20 minutes could have tightened up the film. The prequel also relies heavily on playing punk rock songs from the time period, one right after another. The frequently changing radio dial can get annoying.
Taking a cue from “Maleficent,” “Cruella” offers a bold and imaginative take on one of Disney’s most famous villains, and the result is just as fabulous as its well-dressed protagonist. The enjoyable prequel establishes a complex character to root for. As one of Disney’s best live-action offerings, the film shows that moving away from its source material can pay off with a rewarding story and a new world to play in. “Cruella” opens the door to more films starring Stone’s fashionable antihero.
4 out of 5 stars
Emma Stone in a scene from “Cruella.” Costumes for the film were designed by Oscar winning designer Jenny Beavan. (Laurie Sparham/Disney via AP)
Joe’s Take
While I don’t remember a lot about the original “101 Dalmatians” and the live-action “101 Dalmatians” and “102 Dalmatians,” I know Cruella de Vil’s goal in all three. She wants to kidnap, skin and kill dalmatians to make a coat. Naturally Disney thought this villain needs an origin story. I was quite skeptical and didn’t even want to watch Disney’s “Cruella.” The concept of turning this evil villain into a protagonist seemed absurd. While there is a lot of good in “Cruella,” this film was dead on arrival because of its concept.
The film needs to get the audience on Cruella’s side immediately, because at least it’s smart enough to know its title character is based on a Disney villain who kidnapped and wanted to skin and kill dalmatians. It tries to accomplish this by making the three dalmatians in the film look evil and having the dogs commit a horrific act in a matter of minutes. Absolutely absurd. It also makes the villain of the film, the Baroness (Emma Thompson), more evil than Cruella. Oh also, in this film, Cruella loves dogs. She even has a dog companion, Buddy. See! She’s not evil! That is the main issue of the film. It works so hard to justify the person Cruella becomes, and that’s a losing battle. I’m going to keep saying it. This character is best known for kidnapping dalmatians in order to skin them and kill them to make a coat.
That doesn’t mean the main character always has to be someone the audience can get behind. However, when it comes to Disney and dogs, the main character should be a little likable. You know, for the kids maybe? It tries so hard to accomplish that as Emma Stone’s Cruella teeters on the edge of evil, but never quite goes there. That’s the other way to make this film. Lean into the evil. But it’s Disney so it can’t do that. Disney doesn’t even allow on screen smoking so the film didn’t have Cruella’s iconic cigarette holder. Again, dead on arrival. The film can’t go too evil with its main character, but can’t make her too good either. It leaves the film stuck in this middle ground where it just exists and doesn’t move the needle one way or the other. Making that kind of live-action remake or retelling has made Disney a lot of money. Unfortunately, it hasn’t resulted in anything worth watching.
Also, we don’t need to know the origin of Cruella de Vil’s name. We don’t need to know the origin of anybody’s name. We don’t care. Please stop shoehorning those scenes into prequels. Also, I like the songs, but this film went full “Suicide Squad” for its soundtrack. You don’t have to play a popular song every other minute. It’s a movie, not a music video.
The story and dialogue was incredibly predictable. I was sitting on my couch quoting the next lines before they happened. It also has an underlying theme of empowerment, which is cool but not when the character is empowered to become a dognapper who wants to skin dalmatians and kill them to make a coat.
OK, so I mentioned good things. Stone and Thompson own the screen and do what you expect Oscar winners to do, give great performances. They drive the film as they go toe-to-toe and make for some engaging sequences. Joel Fry (Jasper) and Paul Walter Hauser (Horace) also work well together and give strong efforts. John McCrea (Artie) makes the most of his screen time and it’s cool the film has an LBGTQ character. Mark Strong (John the Valet) essentially plays Mark Strong.
The real star of this film may be Jenny Beavan and the costume department. Beavan does a lot of work creating what seems like hundreds of outfits. I’ve once been told I have no sense of fashion, but even I can tell the work on this film is Oscar-worthy. The elaborate designs prove a huge part of the film. Beavan will be in the running for her third Academy Award. She also won for 2015’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” and 1985’s “A Room with a View.”
I appreciate the quality of some of this film, which makes me think what if this was just a movie not based on anything? What if this movie wasn’t handcuffed by Disney and by an existing property? I think it would have been much easier to get behind and would have freed the movie up to do whatever it wanted. Instead, it was held back from being anything good or even great with the talent involved. That includes director Craig Gillespie, who made something as good as 2017’s “I, Tonya.” Of course, he made something as bad as “Million Dollar Arm,” one of the worst sports movies and another Disney project.
“Cruella” is another middling Disney live-action remake or retelling. While there’s a ton of talent and award-worthy costume design, the concept is flawed. Making a Disney character who kidnaps dalmatians in order to skin them and kill them so she could make a coat the main character makes no sense. It only would make sense if another studio did it and leaned into the evil. The film sort of works if you can forget who Cruella becomes, but I can’t. I’ll admit I don’t typically enjoy villain origin movies, because I don’t need a whole film to explain to me why a villain is evil. That could be accomplished within a film about a hero. Take “The Dark Knight” for instance. I understand why the Joker is a villain, because it hints at childhood trauma and trauma throughout his life. Making a whole film about it is overkill. And “Cruella” at 2 hours and 15 minutes was definitely that.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “A Quiet Place Part II”
Rebecca’s Take
In 2018’s “A Quiet Place,” director John Krasinski masterfully helmed a family-centric horror hit and one of the year’s best films, based on a simple conceit. Three years later, Krasinski has done it again with “A Quiet Place Part II,” and his timing couldn’t be better.
The highly anticipated sequel was one of the first movies to be pushed back from its original 2020 release because of the coronavirus pandemic. Finally arriving in theaters more than a year later, the long wait was worth it.
“A Quiet Place Part II” is just as suspenseful and emotional as the original, made to be experienced on the big screen. Krasinski’s magnificent follow-up taps into the perfect blend of horror and heart that made the first film so special.
The premise of the films is that alien creatures have descended on Earth, killing most of the population. The blind monsters are attracted to noise, so if you can stay quiet, you can stay alive. The post-apocalyptic sequel catches up with the Abbott family immediately after their house was attacked by the creatures in the original. After loving husband and father Lee (Krasinski) sacrifices himself to save his family, his wife Evelyn (Emily Blunt) sets out with their daughter Regan (Millicent Simmons), son Marcus (Noah Jupe) and newborn baby to leave their home.
The family finds shelter with an old friend, the loner Emmett (Cillian Murphy), who has become distrustful of other people. But Regan has discovered a way to defeat the monsters. When a radio broadcast suggests there are other humans out there, the determined Regan ventures out to help them. With the family now split up, each member faces a threat to their survival – from the monsters and the very people they’re trying to save.
Acting as a prequel and a sequel, “A Quiet Place Part II” doesn’t make the mistakes that many sequels do. At a fast-paced 97 minutes, the compact follow-up expands the world of the first film by introducing a few new locations and characters without growing too big. Though it features more monsters, “Part II” holds true to the theme of family that differentiated the original from other genre films. The film inserts heart-tugging callbacks and reflective moments in between the pulse-pounding action. It gives its characters enough time to acknowledge their emotions.
From its opening scenes, “A Quiet Place Part II” cranks up the tension, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats. The breathtaking first 10 minutes shows Day 1 of the monster invasion. In one long take filmed through a car window, Evelyn drives the family’s vehicle in reverse as a bus rushes toward them – then we view a terrifying glimpse of the monster. Throughout the film, Krasinski alternates between continuous takes, quick cuts and warranted jump scares to demonstrate the lurking danger – which isn’t always from the creatures.
As the characters diverge on three separate journeys, the film splices back and forth between them as the plots reach a thrilling crescendo. The excellent editing by Michael P. Shawver will leave moviegoers holding their breath. With the film’s emphasis on silence, the sound design adds another layer of suspense as the slightest noise threatens to lure a creature. In one nail-biting scene, Regan climbs onto a desk as she carefully tries to avoid a coffee cup. I’ve never been so scared of a cup falling over in my life!
Like the original film, the acting in “A Quiet Place Part II” is full of phenomenal performances. Each of the Abbotts shows themselves to be resourceful. Jupe gets some of the film’s most suspenseful moments as he tries to protect himself and the baby. As Evelyn, Blunt calls up her action pedigree as the resilient mother must battle the monsters to save her children. The actress (and Krasinski’s real-life wife) shines in a few standout scenes, but this isn’t her movie.
“A Quiet Place Part II” belongs to Simmons. As the hearing-impaired Regan, the deaf actress takes the reins of the story as she carries on her father’s mission. Maturing since the last film, Simmons deftly handles the creature action and character-driven scenes. The actress shares great chemistry with Murphy, the film’s newest addition. As Emmett, the outstanding actor naturally fills the void left by Krasinski’s character. After dealing with his own losses, Emmett is reluctant to open himself up, but he forms a protective and encouraging bond with Regan.
The follow-up brings back the communal experience of watching horror movies with an audience. During the sequel, my entire audience gasped out loud when a character was injured early in the film. I’ve missed this shared experience by not being able to watch movies in a theater for months. The film also eerily bridges the gap between art and real life. Even though “Part II” was filmed before the pandemic, I couldn’t help but compare the last few minutes of normalcy for the Abbotts to the day last March when our world shut down.
While other horror franchises revel in doom and gloom, the “Quiet Place” films radiate hope. This reflects Krasinski’s optimism. The beloved “The Office” alum kept up viewers’ spirits with his “Some Good News” videos during the pandemic. Making a welcome return in front of the camera here, Krasinski’s brand of family-focused horror has connected with moviegoers. The films’ message – that family is the most important thing – may even resonate more now.
My only complaint about “A Quiet Place Part II” is that the film’s ending feels abrupt. As well-paced as the film is, I didn’t actually want it to end, which I don’t often say about horror films. The film leaves itself open for a “A Quiet Place Part III,” which I hope we get.
After a more than yearlong delay, “A Quiet Place Part II” emerges at just the right time, convincing moviegoers to return to the cinema. This is not only one of the best horror sequels that I’ve ever seen, but the masterful follow-up is one of the best films of the year. “Part II” cements Krasinski’s reputation as a filmmaker to watch.
With heart-pumping suspense, an emotional center and great performances, “A Quiet Place Part II” signals it’s time to come back to the theater – and enjoy the silence.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Millicent Simmonds, left, and Cillian Murphy star in “A Quiet Place Part II.” (Jonny Cournoyer/Paramount Pictures via AP)
Joe’s Take
Obviously, I watch movies weekly to provide content for this blog, and my friend Jason usually joins me for a lot of the theater experiences. However, the coronavirus pandemic halted that tradition as studios pushed back a lot of their film releases at least a year. One of the first films to move was “A Quiet Place Part II,” which actually had its world premiere in March 2020 in New York City. Many movies followed, as studios pushed release dates to 2021 and even 2022. While we saw “Tenet” in September, it was one of the few blockbusters to debut in the heart of the pandemic.
Fourteen months after its original release date, “A Quiet Place Part II” hit theaters this weekend. In a way, it felt as though “A Quiet Place Part II” bookended the pandemic, at least for the theater industry. For the first time in a long time, the theater was at least half filled and the experience among strangers watching a horror/thriller returned. I felt the nervous energy in the audience. It was the best theater experience I had in more than a year. For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic, it feels like blockbusters and the theater experience that comes with them are back. Also, “A Quiet Place Part II” is awesome.
The film opens with a flashback to Day 1 when the creatures arrived. The thrilling opening sequence sets the tone for the film, as the viewers are on the edge of their seats. The audience knows what’s coming at any minute, while the characters don’t. That tension never subsides as the film flashes forward to where the previous installment ended. The Abbott family, including Evelyn (Emily Blunt) and her three children Regan (Millicent Simmonds), Marcus (Noah Jupe) and a newborn, just witnessed the death of their husband and father, Lee (John Krasinski), and are forced to leave their house, which was destroyed. However, they are now armed with a weapon (the feedback created when Regan puts her hearing aid to a microphone) that makes the creatures vulnerable.
Looking for shelter, the trio runs into a former family friend Emmett (Cillian Murphy), who doesn’t want them to stay more than the night. However, Regan figures out a possible safe zone for all of them, and Emmett must decide to help the family or make them leave.
Krasinski, also the director and one of the writers on the film, knows how to build and sustain tension. The audience spends most of the 1-hour, 37-minute runtime on the edge of its seat. The tension only grows as the film progresses, especially during a thrilling sequence where the characters are split up and the shot keeps jumping among the three scenarios. In the theater, I felt the nervous energy and heard the gasps and the ‘Oh my Gods,’ as the film kept the audience engaged throughout.
The acting only got stronger in the second installment, as Blunt, Simmonds and Jupe had more time with their characters and with each other. The big addition was Murphy, who nailed his role. He perfectly helms his emotions, and thrives alongside Simmonds.
The score is once again excellent, perfectly fitting into the background in most scenes to build tension and then coming to the forefront for more emotional moments. The CGI creatures look great, as they see more screen time in the sequel.
It also beautifully captures a lot of visual storytelling. While there is some exposition, the film tells a lot of Emmett’s story visually. Some of one scene is shot through the scope of Emmett’s rifle, which tells the audience he’s only looking out for himself and not others in danger. The audience understands what Emmett is going through just from visually cues, and a lot of that credit should go to Murphy’s subtle acting. Instead of stopping and explaining, the movie continues to flow. This allows the film to focus on what it needs to and lessens the runtime. Keeping an audience tense for two hours would have been too much.
“A Quiet Place Part II” maintains the tension, emotion and character development from the first installment to create a stellar sequel. Blunt, Simmonds and Jupe shine brighter, as Murphy fits right in with the strong cast. It’s rare when a sequel meets expectations. However, it picks up where the first one left off, and kept what made the original so great. It was also the perfect theater experience, something that didn’t happen for more than a year.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Army of the Dead”
Rebecca’s Take
2021 may be Zack Snyder’s year. First, the polarizing filmmaker released his fabled “Snyder cut” of “Justice League,” allowing him to complete his sprawling vision of the DC Extended Universe superhero teamup. The redo was a significant improvement upon the original 2017 film, helping the director reclaim his work.
After playing in the world of superheroes for more than a decade, Snyder returns to his roots – zombies – with “Army of the Dead.” The director’s reentry to horror comes 17 years after his debut film, 2004’s “Dawn of the Dead” remake. Not just a zombie film, “Army of the Dead” is a zombie-heist film with a heart amid its gory guts.
Snyder puts his own spin on the well-worn zombie genre. The wildly fun popcorn flick, now playing in theaters and on Netflix, features the best of Snyder’s hallmarks – a bold aesthetic, solid action and likable characters. But the film also includes the worst of Snyder – a bloated runtime and an unsatisfying ending.
The film takes place in Las Vegas. Zombies have overrun Sin City, and the government plans to destroy it with a nuclear bomb. Before Las Vegas is blown to smithereens, casino owner Bly Tanaka (Hiroyuki Sanada) entices ex-mercenary Scott Ward (Dave Batista) with a daring proposal: retrieve $200 million from the vault of his casino, of which Ward can keep a cut. To pull off the heist, the zombie slayer assembles a ragtag team of individuals with various skills, including his estranged daughter, Kate (Ella Purnell). As the clock winds down, Ward and his crew must battle zombies, his daughter’s resentment and a pushed-up deadline.
“Army of the Dead” hits the jackpot with its Vegas setting. With its flashy casinos and blood-soaked Elvis impersonators, Sin City provides the perfect backdrop for a zombie apocalypse. As Snyder used vibrant colors to bring 2009’s “Watchmen” to life, the director embraces the neon tones of the Strip in “Army of the Dead.” Hot pink opening titles flash over scenes of costume-clad zombie showgirls devouring a gambler. The gore contrasts with the glitter and glamour.
Like any Snyder film, the action and special effects are stunning. The first 15 minutes deliver a gorgeously edited introduction to the world that Snyder, who also co-wrote the film, has created. The film starts with an explosive, fiery crash, then shows the undead invade the casinos as they make Vegas their playground. There’s plenty of zombie kills as the characters make their way through the half-lit casino with the ever-present threat of the undead. “Army of the Dead” even introduces a zombie tiger, Valentine, who is as lethal as she is unsettling.
Snyder brings new blood to the zombie genre. By meshing a zombie film with a heist film, the director raises the film’s stakes. “Army of the Dead” cranks up the tension as the crew works against the impending nuclear bomb to open the safe while outrunning the deadly undead. The safe becomes as big of an obstacle as the zombies. The film also adds a new layer to its villains. “Army of the Dead” introduces a new kind of zombie, the “Alphas.” They’re smarter and faster than the shuffling “shamblers,” and able to show emotions like a regular human. The Alphas are an intriguing evolution of the traditional zombie that freshen up the stale genre.
The immensely enjoyable ensemble is capably led by Batista. The former WWE wrestler proves he can take on leading man duties, following his role as the quirky Drax in the “Guardians of the Galaxy” films and a revelatory part in “Blade Runner 2049.” Batista imbues Ward with regret as he looks to repair his relationship with his daughter, and their bond forms the backbone of the movie. Moviegoers can sympathize with Ward and root for him to pull off the job against nearly impossible odds.
Apart from Ward, however, few of the characters are fully fleshed out. As the brave and caring Kate, Purnell joins her dad’s mission to look for her friend Geeta (Huma Qureshi), a young mother who has gone missing. The cool and collected Nora Arnezeder shines as the street-smart Lilly, nicknamed the “Coyote.” My favorite character is Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer), the awkward safe cracker. The nerdy Dieter strikes up a sweet friendship with tough, gun-toting zombie hunter Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) that I really liked.
The film deserves a shoutout for its integration of Tig Notaro. The comedian stands out as Marianne Peters, an unflappable pilot who brings sarcasm and swagger. What’s amazing is Notaro originally wasn’t supposed to be in the movie. She replaced comedian Chris D’Elia, who was digitally removed after allegations of sexual misconduct. Notaro filmed her scenes by herself, and they were added to the film through a seamless blend of special effects.
As entertaining as “Army of the Dead” is, the film’s main problem is its length, a common problem facing Snyder’s work. Two hours and 28 minutes is a haul for a zombie movie, and its pacing suffers for it. After the dynamic introduction, “Army of the Dead” lacks any major zombie action for almost an hour. The film uses this time to establish its world, which it does well. The long pause between zombie attacks could disappoint moviegoers, though the action-packed last hour makes up for it. Although the film has plenty of time to develop its characters, it doesn’t apart from its main father-daughter relationship. The film could have easily lopped off a half-hour, which would have resulted in a tighter movie.
With so much time invested, the ending falls short of the buildup. Yes, it’s a zombie film, so we’re aware the characters’ survival is not assured. The screenplay gives hints along the way at a future for some characters. But shortly after some of these moments, the film turns on a dime and offs the character. The screenplay introduces certain emotional beats only to use them for shock value. It’s a cruel bait-and-switch.
In a confusing move, some of the characters’ fates are left muddled. It’s not clear whether this was done for the purpose of a sequel, or if the film just lost track of its characters. Unfortunately, it’s just that hard to tell.
“Army of the Dead” delivers the second half of a solid one-two punch from Zack Snyder. The director puts his stamp on a genre in need of fresh blood. The zombie-heist hybrid features the right mix of thrilling action, a delightful cast and an emotional core.
The zombie flick limbers along due to its overly long runtime, and its ending lacks a satisfying conclusion. But the film’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses. “Army of the Dead” reanimates a fun time at the movies.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Ella Purnell in a scene from “Army of the Dead.” (Clay Enos/Netflix via AP)
Joe’s Take
Coming off the director’s cut of “Justice League,” Zack Snyder built up a lot of good will with fans, myself included. A couple months later, he released “Army of the Dead” on Netflix. That strayed from his usual allegiance to Warner Bros., but returned to his roots of the film that first put him on the map, 2004’s “Dawn of the Dead.” I had every confidence Snyder could make a fun zombie action movie, but the film’s length and unnecessary drama doomed “Army of the Dead.”
In typical Snyder fashion, the film starts well with a strong opening sequence and an excellent title sequence that uses visual storytelling and introduces characters the audience will see down the road. Although this is a zombie film, it’s also a heist film. The outbreak happened in Las Vegas, the zombies are contained and the government is set to nuke Vegas in a few days. However, a casino owner, Bly Tanaka (Hiroyuki Sanada), wants the money in his vault, which is surrounded by zombies. So, he hires Scott Ward (Dave Bautista) and tells him to get a team together to get the money.
Ward builds a team, “Ocean’s 11” style, and we’re off … Wait, no we’re not. The film must establish the unnecessary drama first. Ward has a rift with his daughter, Kate (Ella Purnell), and her friend is inside the quarantine zone with the zombies. This fun zombie heist film suddenly turns into a father/daughter drama. The film took itself too seriously for what it is. The viewer can feel the run time (2 hours and 28 minutes) as the film comes to a screeching halt when the Wards discuss their issues and Scott tries to decide what he will make in his food truck after the heist. They even shoehorn in a character in love subplot, something the audience already figured out without the story shoving it in its face. I think “Army of the Dead” also tries to be a political commentary at one point.
In the meantime, the film forgets it introduced one character and made a big deal about his saw, which he never ended up using. It also introduced ideas within the quarantine zone that are never revisited. The film throws a lot at the audience and just asks the viewers to accept it all. It could have benefitted from more world building and less drama. I feel like I say it every other movie review, but focus on what the movie is — a zombie heist film.
The shame is, when it does focus on that, “Army of the Dead” is pretty good. Bautista once again proved he can act as long as the role is within his range. The dynamic between Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) and Dieter (Matthias Schweighofer) is funny and enjoyable. The zombie action set pieces prove extraordinary and feed into Snyder’s strengths. There’s just too much randomness and drama in between to make it a truly fun film.
“Army of the Dead” has the right actors and director in place to create a fun zombie action heist film, but squanders it with drama and a lack of focus. This makes it a typical zombie film, as proved by its predictable ending, and unmemorable. Snyder has strayed before trying to make a film more than it is with 2011’s “Sucker Punch.” Unfortunately, this film is closer to “Sucker Punch” than his better work.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Spiral: From the Book of Saw”
Rebecca’s Take
When the “Saw” movies were cutting up the box office in the mid- to late 2000s, I avoided them like a sharp, pointy object. The franchise, which forced its characters to choose life or death by placing them in gruesome traps, spawned the “torture porn” genre, which my weak stomach couldn’t handle.
Coming out every Halloween, the films became one of the most successful horror franchises of all time. Relying on low budgets with lesser-known actors, the eight films in the franchise grossed a staggering $976 million at the global box office. A reboot of the series, 2017’s “Jigsaw,” still didn’t entice me to see what I was missing. But “Spiral: From the Book of Saw” did.
The “Saw” offshoot boasts an A-list cast with Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson and promised a new spin on the franchise. So finally, I faced my fear and dived into the series. I watched the previous eight films in less than a week. Yes, the gore was gratuitous. But the series’ overarching narrative about serial killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his quest to test those who he didn’t think appreciated life was intriguing, even as the quality of the films dwindled over time.
After knocking off every “Saw” film, was I ready for “Spiral”? Yes, I was. But it turns out that I overprepared.
While “Spiral” seeks to sharpen the long-running franchise’s blade, it lacks teeth. The ninth film connects only loosely to the movies before it, which shines the detective flashlight on its biggest problem. “Spiral” tries to be a police procedural and a “Saw” movie at the same time, but it doesn’t entirely succeed as either. Despite a game cast and a promising concept, “Spiral” doesn’t feel like a “Saw” film. It’s uncertain if the film is meant to appeal to longtime fans or court brand new ones.
The film follows Rock’s Detective Zeke Banks, the only good cop on a corrupt police force. Living in the shadow of his father, beloved former chief Marcus Banks (Jackson), Zeke has established a different reputation for himself. Having turned in his fellow officers for their misdeeds, Zeke is labeled a rat. He is unable to trust anyone in the department, including his new partner, the fresh-faced, idealistic William Schenk (Max Minghella).
The two are put to the test when a Jigsaw copycat starts targeting cops. One by one, officers become ensnared in death traps reminiscent of those built by the deceased John Kramer. As the bodies add up, Zeke is under pressure to figure out the killer before more people close to him pay the price.
The top-tier casting gives “Spiral” the best acting in the “Saw” franchise in years. Known for his standup comedy, Rock convincingly plays against type as a horror movie lead. He taps into Zeke’s bitterness as the weary detective is used to fending for himself in a department devoid of morals. You can hear the distaste come out of Rock’s mouth as he defends his actions.
The actor shares a nice camaraderie with Minghella as the jaded veteran reluctantly teams up with the eager rookie. Their humorous back-and-forths add a needed lightness to the dark film. Jackson shines as Zeke’s dad, adding fun to some of his scenes and legitimacy for the franchise in others. But the two actors don’t share the screen as much as they could have.
For a series known for its small budgets, “Spiral” features a high production value, which makes it the best-looking of all the “Saw” films. The sequel brings back Darren Lynn Bousman, who directed “Saw II,” “III” and “IV” and lends his experience behind the camera here. The police station’s earthy brown tones give way to the sickly greens that bathed the franchise.
The movie starts off strong with its first trap. An undercover cop is hung by his tongue in a wretched device as a subway train approaches. That’s just the first of its gruesome death machines, which include one that rips off fingers and another involving hardening wax. The film’s creative traps satisfy the quotient of gross-ness to which “Saw” fans have become accustomed. It’s during the traps that “Spiral” feels most like a “Saw” movie.
However, the traps take a backseat to the murder mystery. “Spiral” exchanges the pulpiness of past entries for a realistic grittiness. The film channels “Seven” as the killer adds a new party trick to his arsenal, sending packages with disturbing contents to Zeke (you can guess what’s in them). But each package sends the police to a new place, making the plot feel like a series of location changes. This breaks up any tension “Spiral” tries to build in between the trap sequences.
For a film that prioritizes its police investigation over its horror aspect, the mystery itself is nowhere near as intricate as in previous films. In past entries, the franchise took pains to spin a convoluted mystery that resulted in a stunning twist – even multiple twists – at the end. “Spiral” pushes back against that series convention, laying out a cut-and-dry story. This hurts the plotting of the mystery. It’s actually kind of obvious who the killer is, so by the time the “twist” is revealed, it comes across as a confirmation and not a shock. The killer’s connection to Jigsaw is tenuous, which may disappoint longtime fans.
The film deserves props for trying to catapult the franchise into social relevance. The franchise has addressed corruption in law enforcement before, but “Spiral” takes on the issue of police brutality that has dominated headlines. Its timing is remarkable considering the film was postponed a year due to the pandemic. The killer wears a pig mask – a mainstay throughout the series – but gives it a new meaning as the new “game” exclusively targets dirty cops. Instead of Jigsaw’s famed Billy the puppet, the killer uses a pig puppet dressed in a police uniform.
Though “Spiral” seeks to break out of its horror comfort zone, the film still doesn’t push the issue of race as much as it could. The movie features two Black stars – Rock and Jackson – but doesn’t specifically address police treatment of minorities. It misses a prime opportunity to tackle racial injustice. Oddly enough, the franchise did a better job of addressing the nation’s flawed health care system in “Saw VI,” the only other entry that treads into social issues.
Did I need to watch all eight “Saw” films before seeing “Spiral”? The answer is no – as long as moviegoers know the gist of Jigsaw’s philosophy, you can jump right into “Spiral.” But the film may favor new fans over loyal ones. The latest attempt at the franchise’s revival reveals itself to be a middling entry in the series.
Sure, it’s better than some of the other sequels. But it only feels like a “Saw” movie during the torture bits as the film prefers to focus on the plodding police investigation.
“Spiral” aspires to be more. The acting of Rock, Jackson and Minghella boosts the proceedings, and its willingness to tackle police brutality aims to make the franchise more socially relevant. But ultimately, “Spiral” is a few pieces short of a satisfying puzzle.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Samuel L. Jackson in a scene from “Spiral: From the Book of Saw.” (Brooke Palmer/Lionsgate via AP)
Joe’s Take
The “Saw” franchise is back again after declaring the seventh film “The Final Chapter,” and returning with an eighth film, the underwhelming “Jigsaw.” This ninth installment, “Spiral,” claims to be “From the Book of Saw.” That means “Spiral” is simultaneously a spinoff and a sequel. It attempts to give a fresh take on a 17-year-old concept. How would that blend? Better than expected, but not without its flaws.
“Saw” doesn’t traditionally bring big stars or good actors into its franchise. Danny Glover, Donnie Wahlberg and Cary Elwes come to mind, but they starred mostly in the first few. Tobin Bell became a star through his great performance as Jigsaw. “Spiral” brought the gravitas of Chris Rock in the leading role as Detective Zeke Banks and Samuel L. Jackson as his father, former police chief Marcus Banks. Add character actor Max Minghella (William Schenk) and from the start the film feels different. And it is to a certain extent.
All “Saw” films have a plot where a person or people are in the midst of a “game” orchestrated by Jigsaw or one of his proteges, while on the outside there is an investigation into the game and/or the person or people within the game. “Spiral” is the only film that doesn’t have a long game. The film follows the investigation into a series of short games, which usually serve as the opener to “Saw” movies. This story follows Rock’s character and delves into his backstory.
Zeke Banks is a detective who turned in a corrupt cop and has paid for it ever since. Seen as a rat by most of the department, he is now a veteran of the force about to be caught up in the biggest case of his life. An apparent Jigsaw copycat targeted his best friend in the department, and he feels obligated to take on the case.
The film serves as a social commentary as corruption is rampant among the department that clearly needs reform, but torture and death is not the way to do it. While Zeke Banks’ obsession with the case increases, he faces his own obstacles with morality. The commentary is effective without beating the audience over the head with it.
The script is solid throughout, especially for a “Saw” movie, as the film opens with a hilarious discussion about “Forrest Gump” and ends with a twist I didn’t see coming. Rock shines in the leading role, as he brings his serious acting strength and blends it with the over-the-top emotional reactions that go hand-in-hand with “Saw” movies. In a small role, Jackson brings more clout with his usual performance. I haven’t seen Minghella since “The Social Network,” but he is excellent as Zeke Banks’ partner.
Also, it allows the audience to draw its own conclusions about the difficulty of the games. The film doesn’t come out and tell the viewers why they are so difficult. It respected the audience and tried to be smart.
I have a lot of praise for this film, but the biggest thing holding it back is that it’s a “Saw” movie. By being a part of a nine-film franchise, “Spiral” has to hit beats. It needs to end with a twist, it needs grotesque traps, it needs the great “Saw” score. “Spiral” is a film that tries to be more, but can’t get past the boundaries set by the franchise. I say it time and time again. Movies that have more than one focus can’t rise to the greatness for which they strive. “Spiral” is simultaneously a detective movie and a “Saw” film, when it had the opportunity to make a great detective movie and definitely one of the best “Saw” films. It compares closest to “Saw VI,” which tackled the health care system but put the health insurance executive in the long game. The focus was on the game and the “Saw” concept. That made for a good “Saw” movie.
“Spiral” has a lot to like about it. It’s smart, well-acted and incredibly watchable. I’ll see this again and enjoy it. However, it doesn’t become much more than a decent movie, because it tries to be two things at once.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Wrath of Man”
Rebecca’s Take
May is the traditional beginning of the summer movie season. But as the coronavirus pandemic continues to play havoc with the movie calendar, there’s no comic book movie in theaters to anoint the start. That spot would have gone to Marvel’s “Black Widow,” which was pushed back from its scheduled Friday release date to July 9.
However, for those of you ready to go back to the movie theater, Guy Ritchie’s “Wrath of Man” is game to satisfy your moviegoing itch. Take 2 Blog returned to the cinema for the revenge-heist flick. The intense actioner delivers an adrenaline-charged thrill ride that will keep you on the edge of your theater seat.
Ritchie’s latest film follows the mysterious H (Jason Statham), who starts working for an armored truck company in Los Angeles that moves around large sums of cash. The firm, Fortico, was recently hit hard by a deadly theft. When another attempted heist targets the truck H is in, the guard dispatches the would-be thieves in minutes after barely passing his physical.
As the motivations driving Fortico’s newest employee come to light, H is unwillingly drawn into a plot to rob a cash truck by a mole inside the company.
“Wrath of Man” unfolds like a puzzle, putting a fresh spin on what would otherwise be a standard shoot ’em up thriller. The film’s structure takes an inciting incident and shows it from different perspectives, with the narrative moving backward and forward in time to show how the pieces come together. The effective storytelling choice prevents the film from becoming a rote entry in the genre.
Known for his cinematic flair, Ritchie creates a grounded actioner. There’s few of his trademark, clever one-liners in favor of breathless, heart-pumping action. The thriller ramps up the tension from one sequence to the next. The methodical rollout of revelations builds up to the relentless climax as the inside job goes down. The flick reveals the plan for the final heist while it’s happening instead of beforehand, changing up the genre formula. After not having been to the theater in months, I was holding my breath throughout the last act.
The action is well-shot throughout, starting with the initial cash truck robbery gone wrong. But as good as the film looks, “Wrath of Man” lacks Ritchie’s stylistic flourishes from his more sensational films. The thriller embraces a gritty approach as compared to his over-the-top “Sherlock Holmes” films, of which I’m a big fan. Make no mistake: “Wrath of Man” is a very violent film. There are lots of headshots, some with blood spurting out. A brutal interrogation scene had me feeling queasy.
The film showcases Jason Statham doing what he does best: being a bona fide action star. “Man of Wrath” marks his fourth film with Ritchie, after “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” “Snatch” and “Revolver.” And at 53 years old, Statham shows no signs of slowing down. Whether he’s wielding a gun, firing off shots or fighting off bad guys, Statham exerts a disciplined physicality that makes him fearsome. As H, Statham portends an icy demeanor that masks his quest for revenge. Though his motive is a simple one, Statham plays H as a layered character, with a moral code of sorts. He’s the only character the movie makes an effort to explore, and the only one the audience cares about.
Statham is surrounded by an impressive cast of supporting players, including the always reliable Andy Garcia and Eddie Marsan. The bullish Holt McCallany stands out as Bullet, a co-worker at Fortico who welcomes H to the crew but grows suspicious of his cash truck partner. It’s nice to see Josh Hartnett as Boy Sweat Dave (yes, that’s his name), a tough-talking driver who falls apart when things go sidewise. The calm and collected Jeffrey Donovan plays an important role as a sergeant readjusting to civilian life. Post Malone even pops up as a robber, adding to his action credentials after last year’s “Spenser Confidential.”
But keep your eyes on Scott Eastwood. “The Longest Ride” and “Fate of the Furious” actor is downright chilling as Jan, a deranged ex-soldier with a growing bloodlust. The actor channels his legendary father, Clint Eastwood, as he takes on a darker role.
As tense as “Wrath of Man” is, the film feels its two-hour length. After a slow start, the film finds its footing. But about halfway through, the movie starts showing different perspectives of the same incident. Though the method works in terms of storytelling, it feels like you’re watching the first act all over again.
The film also lacks in character development. Though the Fortico crew is likeable, we never find out much about them. Most of the characters are expendable for the sake of the film’s revenge plot.
As the summer movie season opens, “Wrath of Man” gets the job done. With an intriguing narrative and intense action, the revenge-heist thriller brings something new to the genre, though not without flaws. The heart-stopping film features Statham at his best, which should satisfy longtime fans. Ritchie fans may appreciate the director’s commitment to a more-grounded actioner.
If “Wrath of Man” is the film that lures you back to the theater, strap in and enjoy the ride.
3.5 out of 5 stars
From left, Holt McCallany, Jason Statham, Josh Hartnett and Rocci Williams star in “Wrath of Man,” a film by Guy Ritchie. (Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures via AP)
Joe’s Take
A Jason Statham movie brings a certain set of expectations. Good or bad, I always expect a Statham film to entertain. I expect a few awesome martial arts scenes. I expect Statham’s character to be at least likeable. In “Wrath of Man,” none of those expectations come to fruition. As a result, “Wrath of Man” joins the pack of fine but forgettable action movies.
The frustration with the film is that it starts so well. A crew robs an armored truck and director Guy Ritchie shoots the entire sequence from the vehicle. Soon after, the mysterious Patrick Hill, nicknamed H (Statham), gets a job as an armored truck transporter. Trained by Bullet (Holt McCallany), Statham gets the lay of the land with the audience. The film introduces the viewers to a lot of the characters. This early character development is where the film thrives. “Wrath of Man” takes the audience into the locker room to show the culture of the armored truck drivers. Everyone in the locker room is out to prove he is the most “manly,” including the lone woman, and the inappropriate banter comes with it. It fits the film so well, and that’s when Statham and McCallany shined brightest.
Then the characters find out what the audience already knows, H has a dark background as he single-handedly takes out a team of robbers. The film establishes H hopes to find the crew that pulled the job to start the film. Also, the audience knows his motivation — revenge. The opening raid establishes the crew shot and killed a civilian. So, it takes us back to the opening scene from the perspective of H, who sees his son executed before taking a few bullets himself. After that, the film tries to do too much, absolutely destroying the momentum it built.
H isn’t the wholesome man with a dark past the movie sold. He’s in fact the head of a crime syndicate who brutally tortures others in an attempt to find his son’s killers. Suddenly the film’s protagonist is also evil. That’s fine because antiheroes can work, but it just falls short in this film because it built H’s early charisma. Now, that charisma is gone.
The film also spends a lot of time giving backstory on the crew H is after. Then the film’s third act kicks in with many speed bumps along the way. The crew looks to raid the security agency H works for and the script goes for the technique of telling the audience part of the plan and then showing what happened. So the audience watches the action, then the action stops to go back to the crew explaining the next part of the plan. Then the action continues and stops, continues and stops. Meanwhile, the audience knows what’s coming because the crew just explained it to us. This start-stop action slowed the third act to a crawl.
This film’s concept needs simplicity. H doesn’t need a long backstory. The crew doesn’t need a long backstory. Just get to it. Take 2014’s “John Wick” for instance. The basic premise is a man seeks revenge because someone killed his dog. The film gives the audience a little more information that Wick’s dead wife left him the dog as a way to help grieve properly. He is also the best and scariest assassin in the world. They establish that in a matter of 10 minutes in “John Wick,” which then spends most of its energy building a cool world and unique gun fu action sequences. “Wrath of Man” takes so long to set up its characters, giving the audience information it doesn’t need. The viewers know all the pertinent information for the revenge thriller. A man seeks vengeance for the death of his son. The film didn’t need much more than that, but it decided to bog itself down with unimportant details.
The pieces were there with a stylistic director like Ritchie to create unique action sequences. The talent was there with a martial arts and charismatic actor like Statham. McCallany gives a strong performance, and Scott Eastwood (Jan) steps out of his usual bland comfort zone to perfectly embody an unhinged character. It develops characters effectively in the first act and squanders that momentum the rest of the way with unnecessary details and a third act that feels stuck in traffic.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
93rd Academy Awards: A botched ending
Joe’s Take
As the Academy and Oscars producers should know, an ending can make or break a film. A great ending allows the viewer to forget some of the film’s earlier flaws. A bad ending can make the audience forget the film’s earlier greatness. Well, it turns out they don’t know that or they just don’t care. Last night was the 93rd Academy Awards, and the ceremony had its worst ending … ever.
When I say end, I’m not just talking about Anthony Hopkins’ egregious victory over the late Chadwick Boseman to cap the night. This production’s entire last act failed and turned a decent ceremony into a disaster. Let’s start at the beginning of the Oscars’ home stretch.
It’s about 10:40 p.m. and “Fight for You” from “Judas and the Black Messiah” just won best original song. There are three awards left, best picture, best actress and best actor. Before the commercial break, though, it’s time for a game. No, really. They stopped the ceremony to play a game with a few actors. Best actress nominee Andra Day, best supporting actor winner Daniel Kaluuya and best supporting actress nominee Glenn Close had to guess whether a song won an Oscar, was nominated for an Oscar or wasn’t nominated at all. Day said something ABC had to cut the audio for, so rough start. Lil Rel Howery and Kaluuya rallied with some humorous references to “Get Out,” a film they both starred in, and Glenn Close almost stole the Oscars with “Da Butt” dance. So, horrible idea for a game that the actors in attendance salvaged.
They came back from commercial break and started the In Memoriam. They had a lot of names to get through as we lost way too many greats during the extended 2020 movie season. The problem is this In Memoriam is flying. The rushed In Memoriam leaves just a brief moment to read the person’s name and what he or she did in the industry. Originally I gave it a pass, but then I remembered the awful game we had to endure. The ceremony could have cut the game and given more time to the In Memoriam.
Now, the next award is BEST PICTURE, which was given away before best actor and best actress. This blows my mind, but I have a thought. Maybe the show is saving best actor for last to honor Boseman, especially considering we just had to speed read his name during the In Memoriam. “Nomadland” won best picture, which isn’t a shock. It was the heavy favorite and Chloe Zhao won best director midway through the ceremony.
So now, the big finish. Frances McDormand wins best actress and says … nothing. Not her fault, she used her good stuff when “Nomadland” won best picture minutes earlier. No problem. The Academy is about to crown the late great Boseman for the last and greatest performance of his career to end the show in a beautiful, emotional and heartwarming way. And the winner is … Anthony Hopkins. And he’s not here so the show’s over, bye!
How does this happen? Well, my blame pie includes two sets of people, the show’s producers and the Academy. I’m giving both 50% of the blame.
The producers don’t know who will win any award, so they made the MASSIVE mistake assuming Boseman would win best actor. They built their show around that. They also knew Hopkins, who defeated Boseman at the BAFTAs not too long ago by the way, wasn’t at the ceremony. That’s incompetence. Now, as with any movie with a bad ending, we’re left to question the choices earlier in the show. The most influential and impactful actor who died last year at 43 of colon cancer had about three seconds in the In Memoriam. That’s it. Taking away whether you thought Boseman had the best performance or not, it is the producers’ job to make sure he is properly honored like he deserves. They failed.
Don’t worry, I didn’t forget about you, Academy. The fact that most of you thought Hopkins achieved a better performance than Boseman is embarrassing. Even if you thought the performances were equal when it comes to range and emotional impact, which you shouldn’t, how can you not take into account Boseman learned how to play the trumpet for his role in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom?” Did you not care that “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” was a far superior movie to “The Father?” Oh, that’s right. You snubbed it as a best picture nominee in favor of “The Father.” Did it not matter that Boseman’s role was far more demanding, requiring emotional range and physicality? I guess not. I guess it was more important to give Hopkins his second Academy Award, even if it meant the beloved Boseman would never get an Oscar.
Let’s not forget Boseman deserved two Academy Award nominations for his work last year. However, “Da 5 Bloods” was also snubbed and with it Boseman’s chance at a best supporting actor nomination. This colossal failure between the Academy and the producers led to the ceremony honoring Boseman for no more than three seconds. Let that sink in. Three seconds in a rushed In Memoriam.
I’d also like to add Riz Ahmed (“Sound of Metal”) had the second best performance in the best actor category. I’d put Hopkins third.
Here’s where I’m to blame. I assumed the Academy and the ceremony wouldn’t disappoint me. Why was I surprised when I witnessed another failure? This stuff has been happening for years. Here’s just a few examples from the past decade. “The King’s Speech” won best picture at the 2011 Oscars over “Inception” and “The Social Network,” two of the top films of the decade. Anyone ever revisit “The Artist?” Well, it won best picture in 2012. In 2013, “Argo,” Ben Affleck’s third best film he directed out of four, won best picture over the far superior “Zero Dark Thirty.” “The Shape of Water” topped “Get Out,” one of the most influential films ever and one of the best of the decade, at the 2018 Oscars. A year later, “Green Book” captured best picture despite being the worst movie in the category.
Let’s also not forget one of the Oscars’ most memorable moments happened because of incompetence. Remember when “La La Land” won best picture for about two minutes in 2017 before it was revealed “Moonlight” actually won? That was a human error in the production of the show.
Furthermore, the random game during Sunday’s ceremony isn’t the first time the Oscars have tried to do something cute. That’s an every year thing. Jimmy Kimmel brought a bus of people into the Oscars one year. Some actors also went across the street to hand out candy at a theater another year. The one thing they have in common is none of them work. Yet, they continue to waste time on these every year.
On a side note, the pre-show was garbage with awkward interviews and horrid transitions.
As the ratings continue to plummet, the production isn’t getting any better. It in fact just hit rock bottom Sunday. And no matter how obvious the winner might be, the Academy will always find a way to get it so horribly wrong.
If I ever trust the Academy or producers again, I question my sanity. You all failed. Do better.
Chloe Zhao, winner of the awards for best picture and director for “Nomadland,” poses in the press room at the Oscars on Sunday, April 25, 2021, at Union Station in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, Pool)
Rebecca’s Take
This year’s Oscars were already going to be substantially different because of the coronavirus pandemic. Delayed by two months, the 93rd Academy Awards juggled COVID-19 protocols as it altered its red carpet, slashed the guest list and changed its location.
Separately from those constraints, the show’s producers decided to shake up its traditional format. But just because they could change it doesn’t mean that they should have. In trying to make the ceremony more like a movie with its own climax, the producers lacked faith in their product, botching the ending of a history-making show.
During the age of coronavirus, awards shows have morphed into Zoom meetings. The Emmys, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards became screens of dressed-down celebrities at home. To its credit, the Oscars tried to avoid that trap.
For the first time during the pandemic, the broadcast felt like a real awards show. Filmed in 24 frames per second – the standard for film, Sunday’s vibrant and glossy Oscars reminded viewers of the movies they had missed seeing in cinemas due to theater blackouts. The opening tracking shot of presenter Regina King walking into Union Station in Los Angeles, with candy-colored titles overlapping, brought a welcome energy that had been lacking throughout awards season.
Seeing the stars sitting at tables – in person! – felt familiar and intimate. Instead of seeing clips from the nominated films, the presenters told stories and tidbits about the nominees, which made the broadcast more personal. For about two hours and 40 minutes, the Oscars felt like life was returning to normal, much as it has in the real world with the rollout of vaccines.
And then, like the title of show producer Steven Soderbergh’s 2011 film, the 93rd Academy Awards went “Haywire” in its final act.
It wasn’t enough that Chloé Zhao would become the first woman of color and just the second woman to win best director. Because she was the frontrunner, the producers moved that category up in the broadcast. It wasn’t enough that her film, “Nomadland,” was the heavy favorite to win best picture. So the producers moved the night’s biggest award from last to third to last, ahead of the best actress and best actor honors.
Instead, they decided to end with the category they thought would have the most emotional resonance. The producers bet big that the late Chadwick Boseman, the frontrunner for best actor for his sensational performance in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” would claim the honor, and shifted that category into the final spot.
The producers should know better. At the Oscars, you can’t guarantee who’s going to take home the trophy – “La La Land” and “Moonlight,” anyone? In trying to manufacture drama, the show created even more of it when Boseman didn’t win.
Instead, Anthony Hopkins’ name was read aloud for “The Father” – stunning everyone, including the producers. And to add insult to injury, the 83-year-old actor wasn’t even in attendance to accept his second Oscar. What was meant to be a tender, beautiful and heartfelt tribute to Boseman’s short but impactful career turned to confusion as the awards show abruptly ended. After the promise of something more, the cut to black felt completely anti-climactic. This is the worst kind of ending for a movie – and what’s supposed to be the biggest night in film.
After seeing Boseman’s widow accept award after award, it was a shock not to hear the actor’s name for best actor. Boseman, who made a career out of playing Black icons both real and fictional, achieved his best performance playing an ambitious but naive trumpeter in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.” He readily gave himself over to the impassioned and physical demands of the role. He had so much talent yet to give when colon cancer claimed the actor last summer at the age of 43. I thought Boseman deserved the award, and that it would cap off the stellar body of work he left us.
But don’t blame Hopkins. The internet response accuses the actor of pulling a “Green Book” and stealing the win from Boseman. But the comparison isn’t exactly fair.
First, the actor’s recent BAFTA win indicated the category wasn’t cut and dry. Second, crowd favorite “Green Book” was tone-deaf and simplistic in its treatment of race relations, undeserving of its 2019 best picture win. Hopkins, on the other hand, delivers an excellent, layered performance as a dementia patient struggling to understand what’s happening around him. It’s an emotionally grueling and devastating portrayal that anyone who has watched family members suffer from dementia can relate. I have looked into the eyes of relatives who had Alzheimer’s and realized the lack of recognition staring back at me.
Is Hopkins worthy of the award? Yes, without a doubt. Should he have won over Boseman? Not necessarily, and many viewers have already taken a side. But by placing the best actor category for last, the producers set up the show to fail when the outcome didn’t go the way they wanted. After a rushed In Memoriam segment, Boseman didn’t get the extended tribute he deserved. And Hopkins wasn’t there to try and temper the tide against him. In an Instagram video this morning, the actor revealed he did not expect to win the award and paid tribute to Boseman. The decision to shake up the order of the awards did a disservice to both actors.
So who do we blame? The show’s producers. The pandemic protocols didn’t mandate changing up the order of the awards; the producers decided to do that on their own. Had they left the traditional structure intact, then the best director and best picture honors would have followed best actor. Zhao’s historic wins would have been celebrated last, lessening some of the blow from the best actor stunner. The producers already had their dramatic moment, but they didn’t trust it.
This is a shame for everyone – the producers, the winners and the viewers. Instead of the focus on Zhao’s one-two punch, the Boseman/Hopkins disaster is commanding the Oscars conversation.
This takes away from the awards’ other historic moments. Out of the best actor winners, half were diverse performers. Daniel Kaluuya became the sixth Black actor to win best supporting actor for “Judas and the Black Messiah.” Best supporting actress winner Yuh-Jung Youn (“Minari”) is the first Korean to claim an Oscar. In taking home the Oscar for original score for “Soul” with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Jon Batiste became the second Black composer to win in the category. Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson are the first Black women to win makeup and hairstyling for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.”
The producers had the ending they wanted: historic wins and progress for diversity. And for the most part, the show aced its snazzy new look and creative nominee introductions. But it wasn’t enough. Instead, the best actor miscalculation will go down as one of the biggest goofs in Oscars history. That’s what people will remember about a ceremony that put in the work to rise above an unprecedented pandemic to recognize the best in film.
Now once again, in a seemingly endless cycle, next year’s Academy Awards must seek redemption – and prove that they’re still worth watching.
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak
Review: “Minari”
Rebecca’s Take
As Bong Joon-ho accepted the Academy Award for last year’s best picture winner “Parasite,” the South Korean writer/director begged audiences to give films with foreign-language subtitles a chance. This paved the way for “Minari,” the Oscar-nominated family drama filmed in America but largely told in the Korean language.
Writer/director Lee Isaac Chung’s semi-biographical tale speaks to the Asian American immigrant experience. The tender and moving best picture nominee reaps the benefits of its intimate setting, expert directing, gorgeous cinematography and impressive performances.
However, going into the film expecting another “Parasite” would be a mistake. The gentle “Minari” is a much different animal than Bong’s savage satire. “Minari” has an important story to tell, but the acclaim surrounding it was so high that it didn’t quite meet all my expectations.
Set in the 1980s, “Minari” follows a South Korean family who moves to Arkansas to start anew in America. Jacob (Steven Yeun), the family patriarch, is determined to turn their land into a successful farm. His wife, Monica (Yeri Han), doesn’t share his enthusiasm.
As they try to build a new life from scratch, the strained couple is raising their daughter Anne (Noel Cho) and David (Alan S. Kim), who suffers from a heart condition. To help with the kids, Monica’s eccentric and fun-loving mother, Soonja (Youn Yuh-jung), comes to stay with them. As the family encounters agricultural problems and personal misfortune, Jacob and Monica’s love and commitment to each other is put to the test.
“Minari” elegantly showcases an immigrant family’s struggle to succeed in a new country. The film’s title, minari, refers to a water celery that can be planted anywhere and grow abundantly. The plant serves as a metaphor for the family’s journey to put down roots in America. The land in the Ozarks where the family settles is ripe for the taking, but Jacob and his family must put in the work to cultivate it. The title celebrates their resilience as they face one obstacle after another, from water problems to vendor issues to getting along with each other.
Chung, whose South Korean parents immigrated to Arkansas, grew up on a farm and knows his way around one. The film serves as a love letter to America’s heartland. Fertile farmland, with an endless blanket of grass, stretches out along all corners of the frame. The best director nominee realistically captures the promise and pain that Jacob and his family experience as they learn the trials and tribulations of farming. Throughout the story, the land appears as both friend and enemy. The lush cinematography exudes a dreamlike haze as the family chases the American dream.
The drama features terrific acting from its Asian and Asian American cast. The actors switch back and forth between Korean and English, lending authenticity as the characters adjust to their new surroundings.
In an understated performance, Yeun exudes a quiet authority mixed with a fear of failure. “The Walking Dead” alumnus delves into Jacob’s stubbornness and vulnerability while keeping his emotions in check. Jacob is determined to make a better life for his family, even if it means skewing his priorities. Yeun walks a fine line that deservedly earned him a best actor nomination – the first Asian American man to receive one in Oscars history.
Jacob’s optimism puts him at odds with the practicality of his wife, earnestly portrayed by Han. When Jacob and Monica fight, the level-headed Han will only allow her character a moment of emotion or two before wiping her eyes and moving on. Her restrained portrayal adds to the film’s realism. Though the couple’s marriage may be shaky, the strength of their love is believable. Making his film debut, the precocious Kim steals hearts as David. Acting as a stand-in for Chung, the young actor brings fresh eyes as his innocence colors his point of view. Will Patton shines in a small character role as an offbeat Korean War veteran who helps Jacob on the farm.
But the film’s standout is Youn. As soon as the veteran actress enters the film, Soonja’s quirkiness livens things up. She curses, jokes around and teases her grandson, much to his chagrin. Soonja is not a traditional grandma, but she’s the one David needs as she encourages the boy. The two share some of the film’s most emotional moments. The best supporting actress nominee adds heart and soul in a delightful, uplifting performance that should earn her the Oscar.
Youn’s portrayal saves “Minari” when the film starts to drag. Sometimes the film feels so realistic that its action borders on the mundane, which makes the two-hour film feel its length. In the final act, a dramatic event happens that feels contrived to move the film along to its conclusion. As a result, the ending comes off as a bit ambiguous, which can be frustrating.
Coming into “Minari,” I had seen so much hype that I expected to be swept away by its story. Although I cared about the family’s ups and downs, I wasn’t as emotionally hard-hit by the film’s events as others were. But that doesn’t mean the film doesn’t accomplish its goal.
Well-made and well-shot, “Minari” is not another “Parasite.” Lee Isaac Chung lifts the veil on Asian American immigrants, spotlighting their stories as part of the ongoing search for the American dream.
With its excellent directing and masterful performances, the heartwarming film stands out among the best picture nominees. Though it may not have checked off all the boxes for me, the film largely achieves what it sets out to do. Like “Parasite,” here’s hoping “Minari” influences more filmmakers of color to tell personal stories in their native languages.
4 out of 5 stars
From left, Steven Yeun, Alan S. Kim, Youn Yuh-jung, Yeri Han and Noel Cho star in “Minari.”
Joe’s Take
Nominated for six Academy Awards, including best picture, “Minari” explores family and the struggles that disrupt that dynamic. The film tells a heartbreaking yet beautiful story of a Korean family working to realize the American dream.
Everyone in the family has a different priority, and the main battle comes between husband and wife. Jacob (Steven Yeun) takes a risk and creates a farm in hopes the family can live comfortably, while his wife Monica (Yeri Han) is content getting by and surviving. Both make sacrifices, but the rift between them persists through screaming matches and a consistent lack of affection.
Meanwhile, Monica’s mother Soonja (Youn Yuh-jung) tries to find her place as grandmother to David (Alan S. Kim) and Anne (Noel Cho).
The casting proves phenomenal as Yeun and Youn earned best actor and best supporting actress nominations. Although she didn’t receive a nomination, Han achieved the best performance. She stays grounded and reserved in her duties as a mother even though she doesn’t agree with her husband’s and family’s paths. Han handles her emotions realistically. I connected with her the most because of her perfect execution. Judging by the Oscar nominations, I was pleasantly surprised with her performance and importance as the heart of the film.
That isn’t to take away from Youn’s performance. Her chemistry with Kim also adds to the film’s heart. Youn’s presence boosted “Minari” immediately as it struggled to get its footing early. Youn kicks the film into gear, and her funny and powerful scenes with Kim elevate it..
Yeun, of “The Walking Dead” fame, naturally commands the leading role. He starts the film with exuberance, but struggles in pursuit of his dream. His exuberance turns to obsession that affects his relationship with his family. It all culminates in a powerful ending.
Kim and Cho were great as the kids. Kim had the more challenging role, and he nailed the humor and emotion. Cho played the mature sister, who takes on a lot of responsibility at a young age. She also provides comic relief and heart. Great character actor Will Patton (Paul) also thrives in an over-the-top role. He plays it up just the right amount so the audience believes he can be a real person. His dynamic with Jacob and the family also adds heart to the movie.
Lee Isaac Chung’s script and direction allow the actors to bring the film to its full potential. The heartbreaking and beautiful story reaches the soul of the audience. Emile Mosseri creates a gorgeous score that perfectly complements the film without overpowering any scene. He rightfully earned an Oscar nomination for his work.
“Minari” has a few dull and Oscar-bait moments and proves a bit predictable. The trailer also gives away a big scene toward the end of the film. Not that that’s the movie’s fault, but I wouldn’t watch the trailer before watching “Minari.” Despite its few setbacks, it belongs in the best picture category. It proves a complete film with strong directing, writing, acting and music that immerses the audience in the story. It also achieves the heart that most films struggle to reach.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Rebecca Kivak and Joe Baress write about movies for Take 2 blog. Together, they review current flicks and offer their insights into the latest movie news. Rebecca is a copy editor and page designer at The Times-Tribune. She started her career with Times-Shamrock Newspapers in 2005 and has won several professional journalism awards for page design and headline writing. She also covers NASCAR races from Pocono Raceway. Contact: rkivak@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5126; @TTRebeccaKivak