Review of “The Exorcist: Believer”

Pain of loss transcends cultural, religious and national differences. We all lose someone or something special or precious to us. The most recent pain of loss in my life was a dog. My wife and I adopted a shaggy terrier mix we named Roy. Roy was bright and spunky, welcoming us home with jumps, kisses and a combination howl/growl we called a trumpet. It never failed to bring a smile to our faces as we knew we were truly welcomed by “our boy Roy.” As he aged, he jumped less and then stopped all together, and we got no more trumpets, but we knew Roy was happy to see us, nonetheless. Roy’s spine was deteriorating and one day he lay on the floor unmoving for 24 hours. Encouragements to eat or asking if he needed to go outside were met with the same disinterest. That’s when we knew it was time. The next day, we said a tearful farewell to our boy Roy. My wife and I cried for hours and mutually agreed we would get no more dogs as the pain of their passing was too much to bear for a third time. A rescued beagle/basset mix named Ernie was the first dog we had as a couple. He died unexpectedly after cancer surgery, and my wife and I cried for hours. It isn’t fair our pets don’t live as long as we do. Saying goodbye to a lifetime’s worth of dogs, cats, fish, lizards, snakes, spiders, or whatever you consider a pet, is a pain that strikes deep. Imagine the pain of losing a loved one, responsible for giving you life, you never had the chance to meet. That pain kicks off the events of “The Exorcist: Believer.”

Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) and his wife Sorenne (Tracey Graves) are on their honeymoon in Haiti. Victor, a photographer, is catching hundreds of photos of island life while his very pregnant wife is enjoying the sites. While shopping, Sorenne meets a voodoo practitioner who offers a blessing of protection for her unborn child. Sorenne goes back to rest at the hotel while Victor continues to take photos when the 2010 Haiti earthquake strikes, causing a partial collapse of the hotel. Victor finds a badly injured Sorenne in the rubble. In the hospital, doctors tell Victor they can only save either Sorenne or their unborn child. Thirteen years later, Victor is taking family portraits to support himself and daughter Angela (Lidya Jewett). Attending junior high, Angela is friends with Katherine (Olivia Marcum). One day after school, the pair heads off into the nearby woods without telling anyone where they are going. Angela is hoping to use a scarf of her mother’s to help in contacting her spirit during a ritual, with Katherine’s assistance. Earlier on their drive to school, Victor notices Angela has the scarf and takes it from her. Neither girl returns home, leading Victor, and Katherine’s parents Miranda and Tony (Jennifer Nettles and Norbert Leo Butz), to call the police. A three-day search finds nothing, but the girls are found by accident in a barn 30 miles from where they were last seen. The girls are unharmed, but they don’t remember what happened to them or how long they’ve been missing. Doctors believe the girls’ unemotional manner is due to shock and both are allowed to go home with their parents. When strange things begin happening at both girl’s homes and both display unusual aggression, nurse Ann (Ann Dowd) who has treated both girls since their return, and is Victor’s neighbor, brings Victor a book written by Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) about her daughter’s experience of possession by a demon. Victor is skeptical as he lost his faith after Sorenne died but is convinced by Ann to read the book. Seeing similarities between the events in MacNeil’s book and his own daughter’s case, Victor tracks her down and convinces her to help.

The 1973 “The Exorcist” is one of my favorite films. While some of the effects may look a bit dated in today’s digital age, the film builds a sense of dread and tension almost from the first scene that transcends time. The idea of a child undeniably overtaken by a demon from Hell, or by anything beyond their control, should send shivers down the spine of everyone. While I have no children of my own, I can sympathize with Chris MacNeil and the plight she finds herself and Regan in. From the setting in an upscale home to the look of the MacNeil family, the events of “The Exorcist” stabs at the heart of what most people aspire to be: Prosperous and normal.

“The Exorcist: Believer” updates the setting to modern time but reflects the family dynamics of the original with a single father raising his daughter alone. It also introduces other faith systems in the battle against the demon. Fundamentalist Christians, Evangelicals, Catholics and Haitian Vodou joins forces in the battle for the young girls’ souls. It’s an idea that might have drawn howls of protest at one time, giving equal weight to all forms of spiritual worship, but it makes sense for the story to include them all.

The performances by Leslie Odom Jr., Ann Dowd, Jennifer Nettles, Norbert Leo Butz, Lidya Jewett and Olivia Marcum are all first rate. The sense of fear and anger from the parents is palpable. Nettles and Butz play the conservative couple as somewhat looking down on Odom. Their clashes over finding, then caring for, their daughters have a hint of classism, and Katherine’s parents also seem slightly racist. While the racism isn’t overt, their reactions to Angela’s father always feels a touch aggressive.

Ann Dowd’s character has a painful backstory that is exposed over time, giving her nurse Ann a complex set of feelings as she assists in driving out the demon. It’s a history the demon uses to make Ann question her faith and ability. It’s a nice story touch that gives what could be a minor character more emotional weight.

Lidya Jewett and Olivia Marcum are great as the demon-afflicted Angela and Katherine. While the special effects makeup and demonic voice provided by Lize Johnston do most of the heavy lifting, the pair adds to the effects with facial expressions that work well in conveying the evil, the pain and torment both are facing. We don’t get much time with the two prior to their possession, but they don’t seem mismatched as two friends.

It’s great seeing Ellen Burstyn again as Chris MacNeil. She isn’t given much to do and is mostly missing in the second half of the film, but Burstyn raising the caliber of any project she’s in. MacNeil isn’t looking to return to the demon-fighting game considering what her first go round cost her, but she does it because a father’s love convinces her to rejoin the conflict. Since “The Exorcist: Believer” is the first of a planned trilogy, perhaps we’ll get an opportunity to see more of Ms. Burstyn in the future.

“The Exorcist: Believer” is rated R for some violent content, disturbing images, language and sexual references. We see the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake with bodies buried in rubble and injured people. The girls are mostly seen with cuts, bleeding and/or black ooze from the mouth, contact lenses making their eyes look milky or a different color, blistered feet, toenails and fingernails coming off and bleeding, amongst other injuries. During the exorcism, one of the girls expels a black solid mass from her mouth. We see one character’s head twisted around, breaking their neck. One of the girls is shown profusely bleeding from what appears to be the groin. There are a couple of crude sexual references made about the girls while they are missing. Foul language is scattered but includes a couple of uses of the “F-word.”

“The Exorcist: Believer” is a competently made and acted film. It lacks the gravitas and uniqueness of the 1973 original as horror movies seem to come out every week. Also, the film is what I’m referring to as the “Conjuring-ication” of supernatural films. It’s got some stars and the special effects are good, but the film doesn’t generate much tension or a true feeling of peril. Perhaps I’m too old and jaded to find much scary in movies when the news is more than frightening enough. Still, “The Exorcist: Believer” manages to deliver some decent entertainment and I can’t ask for much more than that.

“The Exorcist: Believer” gets four stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter (or if you prefer, X) @moviemanstan. I’m also on Bluesky, Threads and Spoutible @stanthemovieman.

Review of “Saw X”

There’s an old saying that roughly goes revenge is a dish best served cold. The first time I heard it was in the film “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” where it was supposed to be of Klingon origin. However, a quick internet search shows it comes from the 17th or 18th century. It also has a couple of accepted meanings but generally it is more satisfying when one has had time to prepare vengeance that is well-planned, long feared, or unexpected. I can’t say I’ve ever exacted revenge. I’ve certainly felt wronged to the point that I wanted to be vengeful but lack the killer instinct and cunning to plot and carry it out. Cinema is filled with the vengeful and their nefarious schemes to exact retribution. A recent example is in “Oppenheimer” with a character waiting years to put himself in a position to destroy the scientist’s reputation and career. In the movie “She-Devil,” Rosanne Barr’s frumpy housewife takes revenge on Meryl Streep’s romance novelist character for stealing Barr’s movie husband Ed Begley, Jr. In “The Sting,” following the murder of a mutual friend, aspiring con man Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) teams up with old pro Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) to take revenge on the ruthless crime boss responsible, Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Another internet search provides a list on IMDb.com of the 50 best revenge films featuring titles such as “Leon: The Professional,” “Man on Fire,” the original “Old Boy,” “V for Vendetta” and both “Kill Bill” movies. Revenge is often served with cold steel, hot lead and punches. However, it is rarely served with a side of engineering and require a knowledge of gear ratios. That brings us to the subject of this review, “Saw X.”

John Kramer (Tobin Bell) is dying of a cancerous brain tumor and has only a few months left. He tells his doctor he has a lot of work left to do before he shuffles off this mortal coil. The doctor doesn’t understand the “work” Kramer speaks of is the “games” he plays with those that hurt and take advantage of others as the “Jigsaw Killer.” Kramer has been attending a cancer support group and runs into former group member Henry Kessler (Michael Beach) at an outdoor café. Kessler was dying of pancreatic cancer, but tells Kramer a doctor has this new, non-FDA approved treatment that has him in full remission. Kessler gives Kramer a website address as the only way to contact the doctor as they work out of the country. Kramer goes to the website, uploads his records and sends an email. The next morning, he gets a call from Dr. Pederson (Synnove Macody Lund). She tells Kramer about the drug cocktail her father invented and, when used with surgery, she believes can cure his cancer. He will have to travel to the clinic just outside Mexico City. She claims “big pharma” is constantly looking for them to shut them down. Kramer arrives at a home and is greeted by Gabriela (Renata Vaca) and shown to his room. There he is met by Dr. Pederson who takes him on a tour of the facility and introduces Kramer to Valentina (Paulette Hernandez), Mateo (Octavio Hinojosa) and Dr. Cortez (Joshua Okamoto), the team that will provide his care and conduct the surgery. He also meets a patient, Parker Sears (Steven Brand), who has received a clean bill of health after treatment. Following surgery, the next day Kramer wakes up in a hospital and is given bloodwork results showing he’s cancer free. After leaving the hospital, Kramer wants to give a bottle of tequila as a thank you gift to Gabriella. Kramer, an engineer, triangulates the location of the hidden clinic thanks to some radio towers on a hill he can see from his room. Arriving at the clinic, he finds it abandoned. Where the surgery took place, Kramer finds a video on a computer called “Surgery of Tomorrow” and sees it’s the video he thought was live during his brain procedure. Kramer knows he’s been swindled out of a great deal of money and sold false hope, along with countless other desperate cancer patients. Kramer contacts his helpers to find those responsible, builds his “games” and prepares to teach the swindlers a lesson as the “Jigsaw Killer.”

I haven’t seen all the “Saw” films but, outside of the original, what I’ve seen I didn’t like. “Saw IV” was a bit messy and all over the place. However, referring to my review from the time shows I gave it four stars. I thought the contraptions were fun and, while the film defied logic, it was good for some Halloween gore. On the other hand, “Spiral: From the Book of Saw” featured uninspired traps, a manic performance from Chris Rock and an all-around amateurish attempt to revive the franchise in its ninth outing. “Saw X” steps back in time between “Saw” and “Saw II,” hoping the return of star Tobin Bell sparks some interest in the franchise. Bell is very good as the dying Jigsaw Killer. His hope of being given another shot at life is reflected in a scene where, after his alleged surgery, he designs one of his games then rips the page out and throws it away. Maybe he plans on giving up being the angel of painful lessons. It’s a small glimpse at his plans for a longer future than he expected. Of course, those plans are set aside once the scam is discovered. The script, by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg, gives some depth to the violence and gore that’s to come. It’s a horror film with a brain, both literally and figuratively. Bell makes the most of his role, giving us a desperate man on a mission, his body succumbing to the ravages of his disease, whittling away at what time he has left to teach those that need a lesson.

It also helps that “Saw X” has a twist putting Jigsaw and his accomplice in the crosshairs. This came as a genuine surprise. I won’t spoil anything, but the chance for Jigsaw to be hoisted up on his own petard renewed my interest in the film. You can only watch so many amputations, gutting and bone breaking before you start to get bored. Having the stakes raised by putting Jigsaw in danger made me sit up in my seat.

Of course, the film requires you to suspend your disbelief as each of the contraptions in “Saw X” would require a long time to build. Kramer may use the available machinery in the abandoned factory where his prisoners are kept, but it still requires time for fabrication and construction of the unique puzzles. The finishing puzzle also requires Jigsaw to predict the future and anticipate precisely what his targets will do. If one thing happens outside of his planning, everything falls apart. There is one minor glitch but, in the end, Jigsaw teaches the lessons that need to be taught.

“Saw X” is rated R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, language and some drug use. I don’t want to ruin the surprise of the traps, but, if you’re squeamish, you probably want to see something else. The movie is filled with blood and gore, self-mutilations, decapitation, and more. Drug use is limited to seeing a drug addict swallowing pills. Foul language is common in spots.

I wasn’t expecting much from “Saw X” and left the theater pleasantly surprised. For the tenth chapter of a horror franchise, “Saw X” has a surprising amount of depth, an engaging story, interesting characters and fascinating traps. The kills are appropriately gory, and the final resolution is satisfying. I can honestly say you won’t want to gouge your eyes out after seeing “Saw X.”

“Saw X” gets four stars out of five. I know, I’m surprised too.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter (or if you prefer, X) @moviemanstan. I’m also on Threads, Bluesky and Spoutible @stanthemovieman.

Review of “A Haunting in Venice”

Death comes for us all. If we’re lucky, we live a long and happy life and die peacefully in our sleep. Sadly, that isn’t the destiny of everyone. Some struggle with disease, physical and/or mental. Some die by their choices, either living a life filled with unhealthy food and lack of exercise, or by the substances they choose to use to dull the pain of their existence. Others have no choice in the matter and their lives are snuffed out by the decisions of those known or unknown to them. There are car crashes, building collapses, natural disasters, crime, war and countless other ways to be removed from this mortal coil. All this is a serious bummer, I know, but in movies, TV shows and books, watching a detective piece together and facts of a death, either mundane or diabolical, expose the cause and those responsible can be entertaining and thrilling. My wife and I recently rewatched all the episodes of “Columbo” that aired back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and was revived from 1989 until 2003. The character of Columbo made a show of his bumbling manner and disheveled appearance, leading the killer to believe the police detective was easily deceived. This would lead the killer, whom Columbo had suspected from their first meeting, to make mistakes and lead to their eventual capture. A detective who never wants anyone to question his intelligence is the creation of writer Agatha Christie, the Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot. If the question is ever asked, Poirot is quick to proclaim himself the greatest detective in the world. All his skill at deduction is required as he faces a killer in an alleged haunted house in “A Haunting in Venice.”

Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is living in Venice, Italy, after retiring from detecting. Despite his refusal to take a new case, people line up at the entrance to his home begging for his help. He is protected from these desperate people by a retired policeman turned bodyguard Vitale Portfoglio (Riccardo Scamarcio). While at his home, Poirot is approached by Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), a friend and writer of crime novels. Her fictional detective is based on Poirot after following him around on a case where the pair develop an uneasy friendship. Oliver wants Poirot to accompany her to a séance at the palazzo of Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly), an opera singer that retired following the death by suicide of her teenage daughter Alicia (Rowan Robinson) following a period of mental illness. The séance will be conducted by psychic medium Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh) who has recently been released from prison on a charge of witchcraft. Oliver cannot figure out how Reynolds is able to make her fake seances look so real and wants Poirot to expose her. Aside from Poirot, Oliver, Mrs. Drake and Vitale, others in attendance are Maxime Gerard (Kyle Allen), Alicia’s former fiancé, Olga Seminoff (Camille Cottin), Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) who cared for Alicia in her last days, Leopold Ferrier (Jude Hill) the doctor’s child, and Desdemona Holland (Emma Laird) an assistant to Reynolds. During the séance, Poirot reveals Nicholas Holland (Ali Khan) one of Reynolds’ assistants and Desdemona’s brother, hiding in a fireplace and using a device to create some of the odd happenings. Despite this, Reynolds speaks in an altered voice and, speaking as Alicia, says she was murdered without identifying who is responsible. After the séance, one of the participants is murdered, their body impaled on the raised arm of a statue outside the palazzo. Due to a heavy storm the police are unable to come to the scene and no boats can transport the survivors away. Despite this, Poirot locks all the exits and announces no one can leave until he has captured the killer.

Star and director Kenneth Branagh has carved out a special place in the world of Agatha Christie adaptations with his take on Hercule Poirot. His three films, “Murder on the Orient Express,” “Death on the Nile” and now “A Haunting in Venice,” have given a bit of perspective on the idiosyncrasies of the detective. We learn in the first film of his need for order and consistency. In the second film, the specific reason for his ornate mustache is revealed, but I don’t know if this is from Christie’s books or a creation of the scriptwriters. In this film, we see an older, more cynical Poirot that has seen too much death, causing him to question the existence of God and an afterlife. These insights also give us a glimpse into the reason Poirot is such a good detective.

The massive cast of “A Haunting in Venice” causes the juicy story beats to be spread a bit too thin. Each person is a suspect mostly because of their proximity to those in the house. Even the young son of Dr. Ferrier is suspected at one point. We only learn later why some have more reason to be the killer than others. That’s good. Otherwise, the movie would only be about a half hour long. Still given the size of the cast and the sprawling multi-floor palazzo, the important moments tend to be spread about almost randomly.

The important clue of the case, much like in “Death on the Nile,” is revealed in a ham-fisted way that is impossible to miss. But just to make sure it registers; the script repeats the clue a couple of times like it’s banging a gong. You’ll know the item in question is important whether you wanted to or not. You may not understand why it’s important, but you can’t miss that it is.

The mixture of a murder mystery with the unknown of a possibly haunted house makes “A Haunting in Venice” the most interesting of the Branagh Poirot movies. While there is no chance the detective won’t put all the pieces together and expose the very living villain of the piece, there is some room for doubt as the story has Poirot questioning his own senses. He’s seeing people that aren’t there and hearing voices no one else hears. Is this the paranormal? Are there ghosts and spirits haunting the palazzo? Will Poirot be forced to admit there is more than his formidable mind can comprehend? One will need to watch the film to get all these answers and it is well worth the trip to the theater and the time to find out.

“A Haunting in Venice” is rated PG-13 for some strong violence, disturbing images and thematic elements. Poirot is attacked and nearly drowned. We see a flashback of Alicia Drake falling into the canal and sinking under the water several times. We see the first murder victim impaled on the statue, first in shadow and then lit. There is a fistfight between two men in the house. People’s skeletons are discovered in the home. A character discusses liberating a Nazi death camp at the end of World War II and some of the things he and other soldiers did. Foul language is limited to the use of one word.

I wasn’t a huge fan of “Murder on the Orient Express” nor “Death on the Nile.” I thought the first film did nothing new with the story and the second was particularly heavy-handed with revealing the clue that breaks the case. While “A Haunting in Venice” commits a similar sin to “Nile,” the overall feel of the film, the creepy location, the haunting backstory of the house and a murder after a séance, combine with a stellar cast and some interesting camera choices by director Branagh and cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos to make this haunted house worth a visit, even if it is only September.

“A Haunting in Venice” gets four stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter (or if you prefer, X) @moviemanstan. I’m also on Threads and Spoutible @stanthemovieman.

Review of “The Nun II”

There are two topics of discussion guaranteed to destroy the mood of any gathering: Politics and religion. It’s best to keep conversations on mundane topics like the weather, your/their work and how the local sports teams are doing (unless they are losing, then that should be avoided). In our increasingly divided society, politics is best left to the pundits on TV and religion should be kept within each of our hearts. We should live by the principles of our chosen faith but keep the proselytizing away from family and social gatherings. Maybe you can ask if anyone has seen a ghost or believes spirits haunt places. According to a survey published by the website Statista taken in 2021, 36% of Americans believe in ghosts. According to USA Today, also from 2021, 43% of Americans believe in demons. It’s likely in a gathering of 10 or more people, you’ll find three or four that believe and may have an experience to share. An entire movie universe has been spun out of our fascination with the afterlife. The ninth film in “The Conjuring” franchise is “The Nun II.”

Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), following her battle against the Demon Nun (Bonnie Aarons) at Saint Carta’s monastery, is living at a convent in Italy. Meanwhile in France, a priest is lifted off the ground and burst into flames in front of altar boy Jacques (Maxime Elias-Menet). After the priest’s death, a lone figure is seen walking away from the church, casting the shadow of the Demon Nun. At a boarding school in France, Maurice (Jonas Bloquet), who was also working at Saint Carta, is now the handyman. He is very close with several of the girls (but not in a creepy way) especially Sophie (Katelyn Rose Downey) and her mother Kate (Anna Popplewell) who teaches at the school. The death of the priest in France is just the latest in a series of unusual deaths of priests and nuns that bear a resemblance to the death of all the nuns at Saint Cartha. A Vatican representative travels to Irene’s convent and asks her to investigate. Joining her uninvited on the journey is novitiate Sister Debra (Storm Reid) who is questioning her faith and if she’s in the right place. Irene and Debra learn the Demon Nun is looking for an ancient relic that is hidden in a former convent that is now a boarding school in France. The nuns race against time to find the relic that would give the Demon Nun enormous power.

Three “Conjuring” films, three “Annabelle” films, one “La Llorona” film and now two “The Nun” films. Some audience members and critics complain there are no original ideas coming out of Hollywood. There are (“Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” are two good examples), but films based on established intellectual properties (also known as IP) tend to be an easier thing to sell to moviegoers. There are exceptions, like the recent “Flash” film that will cost its studio Discovery/Warner Bros. hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. “Blue Beetle” likely is also going to lose money. Even the Marvel/Disney juggernaut has lately been coming up short in box office receipts. But “The Conjuring” franchise is the closest thing to a guaranteed profit in all of entertainment. Over the previous eight films, their total budgets are $178.5 million. Their total worldwide box office is $2.1 billion. We don’t have a production budget for “The Nun II” but the first “The Nun” cost $22 million so let’s estimate the cost of the sequel is $30 million. From opening day and Thursday previews, the film has grossed $13.1 million and is projected to earn north of $30 million in its opening weekend. With a franchise where each film earns on average five and a half times its production budget worldwide, plus DVD sales, VOD sales and rentals and the sale of rights to streaming platforms, it’s little wonder this franchise has continued to spit out film after film. While the bean counters in Hollywood corporate suites will find “The Nun II” to be a winner, what about audiences?

There’s a thing called the law of diminishing returns and “The Conjuring” franchise, and specifically “The Nun II,” has broken that law. I love a good horror movie. Any film that can raise my pulse, cause me to grip the armrest of my seat, give me a good jump scare and leave me exhausted as the credits roll is a winner to me. I find both “The Nun II” and its predecessor to be dull. While the sequel is an improvement, the back story of the demon, named Valak thanks to “The Conjuring 2,” isn’t compelling enough to provide the audience with a reason to care. And her desire for the relic isn’t explained either. Valak seems to be plenty powerful without it, presenting itself in one form then another and able to control its human host with ease.

Taissa Farmiga is very good at giving a look of wide-eyed fear, but the script by Ian Goldberg, Richard Naing and Akela Cooper gives her otherwise very little to do. Storm Reid is likewise wasted in an underwritten role as the young nun questioning her faith. That story thread is ignored after being mentioned when we first meet her. Perhaps the most fleshed out character is Maurice, played by Jonas Bloquet. He has a budding romantic interest in Anna Popplewell’s Kate, the mother of Katelyn Rose Downey’s Sophie. His interactions with most of the other girls at the school are playful and friendly without drifting into groomer territory. He also is willing to protect Sophie from the girls that bully her. Bloquet is more the star of “The Nun II” simply because his character is far more interesting than the demon-fighting nuns.

Valak should be a fantastic scary monster, but she is at most just a weird looking nun. With a stark, white face, glowing eyes and a mouthful of sharp teeth, Valak has all the tools to be the stuff of nightmares. Sadly, the script also lets her down as it never establishes her power set. In the opening scene she levitates a priest off the ground and sets him ablaze. Later, she grabs Irene by the throat but there’s no fire, no throwing her from wall to wall, nothing indicating Valak is any more powerful than a strong man. Why could she set the priest on fire but not Irene? Is Irene more holy or more blessed than the priest? Since Irene defeated Valak in the first film one would think the demon would have more reason to kill her than some average priest (a reason is given why the people she’s killing are her targets but that gets into spoilers). The screenwriters don’t seem to be keeping up with what Valak can and cannot do and to whom.

This lack of consistency within the character gets to the heart of the problem with this franchise: The creators churn them out so fast they don’t try to keep them consistent. It’s what some people complain about with the “Star Trek” franchise. The TV shows adhere to canon most of the time. If it happened on the original 1960’s series, it is referred to as the history of future series. There are occasional tweaks to make modern storylines work and still pay homage to the past, but you don’t have full reboots of canon events just so an episode works (just ignore the Kelvan universe in this example). “The Nun II” pays very little attention to what Valak’s abilities and powers are even from one scene to the next. It’s frustrating as the film plays out with this seemingly all-powerful demon being limited to blowing out candles and burning out lightbulbs in one scene, then setting a character on fire the next.

“The Nun II” is rated R for violent content and some terror. A priest is burned alive. Another character is set ablaze but is saved. We see photos of other priests and nuns killed in various way. A character is grabbed by the throat and lifted off the ground. A character is slammed to a stone floor and their head bashed a couple of times into it. A woman is beaten with an incense burner used in Catholic mass then is killed by a piece of construction equipment falling on her head. Children are chased by a humanoid goat and one child is gored in the chest. Foul language is either infrequent or non-existent.

“The Nun II” is a blah film. It exists merely to add to the tally of “The Conjuring” franchise total box office. I don’t know why these films are getting so boring, but they are. I hope the title for the next film, “The Conjuring: Last Rites,” is an omen that perhaps these films are coming to an end, but I doubt it. They will have to start consistently losing money before Discovery/Warner Bros. puts this franchise out to pasture. I suppose I can only hope they either quit making them or they get better.

“The Nun II” gets two stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter (or if you prefer, X) @moviemanstan. I’m also on Threads and Spoutible @stanthemovieman.

Review of “Bottoms”

For some, high school is an awful experience. For most, it was tolerable with some bright spots to help gloss over the bad. For that lucky, blessed few, high school is nothing but great friends, fun parties, dances with your best guy or gal and fun at Friday night football games. I was in the middle category. Being a band kid, it was always a blast to march over to the football stadium, run through the pregame show and National Anthem, then watch the game until just before halftime when we were back out on the field to perform the show we had rehearsed for weeks. We’d play the fight song whenever our team scored a touchdown and generally had fun. While I was a fat kid (and adult), I had enough friends to soften the blow of the occasional bullying I received. I was able to express myself on stage in drama productions that brought me positive attention. All in all, my high school experience was fine. For kids that fall outside the gender norms of male, female and straight, high school can be a painful, even life-threatening time. The recent crackdowns on expressing one’s preferred gender and sexual orientation in schools are making the lives of these marginalized kids that much harder. In the movie “Bottoms,” the challenges faced by two queer kids are played for laughs as they struggle with their desire to lose their virginity and raise their social standing from the lowest rung on the social ladder to something closer to the middle.

Best friends PJ (Rachel Sennott) and Josie (Ayo Edebiri), a couple of out and proud lesbians, are hoping to lose their virginity this year as school starts. PJ is full of unearned confidence as she has her eyes set on cheerleader Brittany (Kaia Gerber) despite having never spoken with her. Josie is enamored with another cheerleader, Isabel (Havana Rose Liu), but feels hopeless at them ever hooking up as Isabel is the girlfriend of the star quarterback of the Rockwood Falls Vikings, Jeff (Nicholas Galitzine), a full-of-himself stud with a roaming eye. At the fair preceding the start of school, Isabel catches Jeff flirting with an older woman, leading to a fight in the parking lot, just as PJ and Josie are leaving. Isabel jumps in their car, but Jeff stands in front of it, keeping them from leaving. Josie moves forward slightly, barely touching Jeff’s knees, but he acts as if his legs are broken and falls back screaming and crying where he’s cradled in the arms of Tim (Miles Fowler), a teammate. The next morning, PJ and Josie are called to the principal’s office where their time in juvenile detention is brought up. The girls were never in juvie, that was a story they made up to make them sound tougher. Josie suggests to the principal instead of suspension, the girls could set up a club to support female empowerment. Not understanding the concept, the principal asks if she means a female fight club and PJ says enthusiastically says yes. Josie is against the idea, but PJ thinks it’s a way to bring in attractive girls, including Isabel and Brittany, and perhaps have sex. Despite not knowing anything about self-defense, PJ and Josie start the club with a few girls that gradually grows to include Isabel and Brittany. Soon, the girls go around school with the bruises and cuts from the fight club like badges of honor, and the girls at the bottom of the social hierarchy are beginning to move up. After Jeff is caught cheating on Isabel with one of the mothers of a club member, Josie has a chance of hooking up with Isabel. But there are those in the school that see the club as a threat to their own social status and begin plotting to bring PJ and Josie down.

On its face, “Bottoms” doesn’t seem like everyone’s favorite movie. And it won’t be as there are no car chases, no superheroes, and no strapping leading man swooping in to save the damsel in distress. It’s a film that will find its niche in bigger cities with more open and accepting audiences as in the opening scene, our two leads announce they are lesbians hoping to lose their virginity. The language is raw and at times raunchy, the characters are not always likable and tell lies to further their goal having sex. If this was a traditional film featuring a straight male using the same tactics to attract women, we’d be shocked and offended and rightly so. In “Bottoms,” we’re more forgiving the tactics used by PJ and Josie as they are so inept and so far down the social hierarchy of their school, the chances of success are almost nil. That’s what makes this movie such an easy watch as we are rooting for these ladies to succeed despite their tactics since they are introduced and quickly proven to be such losers.

Star and co-writer Rachel Sennott is the unstoppable force that has yet to meet an immovable object in her performance as PJ. Sennott embraces PJ’s enthusiasm for her hale-baked ideas and forges ahead with every bad decision as if her life depended on it. Sennott is unafraid of being obnoxious and generally unlikable for most of the film. Her bravery in playing a conniving and duplicitous character that still retains a few redeeming qualities is to be admired. PJ is a memorable character due to Sennott showing us both her ugly and beautiful qualities.

Ayo Edebiri’s Josie is the reluctant accomplice to PJ’s plans and schemes. Josie tries to steer her out of control friend on a path that is less risky, and always fails. That the pair stumbles into the occasional success is a minor miracle. Josie is sweet and kind, a good friend to PJ that just wants someone to love and to love her. Her sights are set high on Isabel and despite success being unlikely, Josie keeps a positive attitude. That’s a difficult task as PJ’s plots and schemes appear headed for disaster, but Josie sticks with her friend. Josie isn’t above using manipulation to further her quest to bed Isabel, so she isn’t perfect. That’s what makes her an interesting character as she’s flawed like the rest of us.

The rest of the cast is terrific, with special kudos to Ruby Cruz as fight club member Hazel Callahan who has an affinity for explosives, and a surprisingly funny turn from former pro football running back Marshawn Lynch. Though it really shouldn’t be a surprise about Lynch as I’ve seen him in several other comedic roles including the Netflix improv series “Murderville.” Lynch plays a checked-out teacher named Mr. G who becomes the fight club’s faculty adviser. Lynch is naturally funny and seems at ease in front of the camera. What he says throughout the film is always something of a surprise as it’s often wildly inappropriate.

“Bottoms” is rated R for crude sexual content, pervasive language and some violence. The discussions of sex are crude but there is no on-screen sex. There is also no nudity, but women are shown with plunging necklines, in lingerie and one character is shown in her bra. We hear sex between a couple, but don’t see anything. The violence is mostly comical with one disturbing fight scene between a member of the fight club and a shirtless football player that is usually kept in a cage. One person is shown impaled on a sword with the assumption being that person dies. There are numerous bloody noses, bleeding cuts and bruises shown. A car and a tree were blown up by a student with another student threatening to blow up the school. Foul language is common throughout the film.

“Bottoms” is a little movie with not much promotion, coming from a small studio, Orion, and getting limited distribution from MGM, a subsidiary of Amazon. The fact a comedy about two queer high schoolers was made at all considering the current political environment in some states (including my own home state of Tennessee) is a small miracle. While I understand a film like “Bottoms” has a limited appeal and serves the studio best as a limited release, the film should be seen by as many people as possible. While it may be considered offensive by the pearl clutching set, “Bottoms” is a statement on the issues of teenagers, straight or queer, and how much of a struggle figuring out what you are and how to move through life can be. Parents and their teens should see the film whether their kids are queer or not. Some scenes might make both sides feel a little uncomfortable, but the conversation after would be important.

“Bottoms” gets five stars.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter (or if you prefer, X) @moviemanstan.

Review of “Fast X”

Dedication to one’s family is often played for laughs in movies and TV shows. The father intent on being at every little league and peewee football game is often seen as weak and pathetic by unmarried or childless characters. Moms volunteering for various committees at a child’s school are sometimes portrayed as having an ulterior motive, such as trying to impress the wealthy parent or as a bid for power within the clique of the PTA. This goes both ways as those parents completely uninvolved in their kid’s activities frequently are viewed as slackers and a point of comedic derision. It seems that there’s no pleasing everyone, no matter how involved or hands off parents are. Family has been a big motivator in the various storylines in “The Fast and the Furious” films, except the first three. In the original, Dom says he lives life a quarter mile at a time and when he’s behind the wheel, there’s nothing else, not even family. Since the first film in 2001, the franchise has evolved from a movie about street racers making their money by stealing truckloads of home electronics to a globetrotting group of superspies saving the world in sequel after sequel. At the heart of the later films was Dominic Toretto’s mantra about it all being about family. If you attack one member of his crew, you are attacking his family. Now, in “Fast X,” Dom’s family is facing a threat to every member from a villain that’s lost his family at the hands of Dom and his crew. Thankfully, all the cars are still running and full of nitrous oxide tanks.

Dominic “Dom” Toretto (Vin Diesel) is surrounded by all the ones he loves, including Abuelita Toretto (Rita Moreno), for one of the famous family cookouts. After they eat, Roman, Tej and Ramsey (Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris and Nathalie Emmanuel) are headed to Rome on a mission for The Agency to steal a computer chip. Dom is sitting this one out to stay home with Letty and Brian (Michelle Rogriguez and Leo Abelo Perry) and Roman is in charge, much to Tej’ chagrin. That night, Cipher (Charlize Theron) shows up bleeding at Dom’s door. She tells him how Dante Reyes (Jason Momoa), son of Brazilian drug kingpin Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), killed during one of Dom’s missions 10 years ago, is looking to exact revenge on Dom by killing everyone in his family/crew then killing Dom. Agents of The Agency show up to take Cipher to one of their black site prisons. The next day, Little Nobody (Scott Eastwood) arrives to tell Dom and Letty about Cipher’s imprisonment. Dom asks about Roman and his crew as he can’t get in touch with them. Little Nobody doesn’t know what Dom is talking about as they have no operations in Rome. Dom realizes they’ve been sent on a fake mission by Dante and The Agency gets Dom and Letty to Rome to try and save them. Dante takes over the truck carrying not a computer chip, but a massive bomb, drives the vehicle remotely, and releases the bomb trying to blow up the Vatican and frame Dom and his people as terrorists. Dom diverts the bomb into a river, but it still causes death and destruction, putting all of them on the Most Wanted list worldwide. Letty is captured and sent to the same black site prison as Cipher. Dom, Roman, Tej and Ramsey escape, but Dom is separated from the others and Dante has hacked into their bank accounts, leaving them broke. Mr. Nobody’s daughter Tess (Brie Larson), who also works for The Agency, visits new Agency head Aimes (Alan Ritchson) to argue on Dom and his crew’s behalf, but Aimes is unmoved and puts the full force of The Agency into finding them all. Tess quietly vows to help them on her own. Dom has few options and a scattered crew, and Dante has evil plans for all of Dom’s family.

No one has ever accused the “Fast and Furious” films of being too subtle or logical. The soundtrack is loud, filled with thumping hip hop beats, explosions, screeching tires and the roar of supercharged, NOS-boosted engines. The plot is convoluted, requiring insertion of a new character or two into 2011’s “Fast Five” and the McGuffin of “Furious Seven” from 2015. The laws of physics and gravity are broken regularly, cars and their drivers survive massive crashes and explosions to drive off to the next action scene. Characters make perplexing decisions that puts everyone at risk and Dom still says it’s all for “family.” We’ve seen this all before, perhaps done better in “Fast Seven” with the emotional farewell to the late Paul Walker, but what cannot be said about “Fast X” is it’s boring.

The plot races along, violating the usual filmic speed limit that is in place, so the audience doesn’t get confused about where characters are and what they are doing. In the “Fast and Furious” films, the more audience confusion the better, so no one notices how little sense this all makes. Both the good guys and bad guys predict exactly what the other is going to do and plan accordingly. Fortunately, law enforcement is clueless and always seems to be caught off guard, otherwise none of these films would be more than 10 minutes long.

Director Louis Leterrier just barely manages to keep all the plates spinning while also juggling a dozen balls as the film abruptly cuts from one European locale to a shot of the Christ The Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro to Los Angeles to the middle of nowhere, and another of our scattered Toretto family.

No one goes to a “Fast and Furious” film expecting deep introspection and serious stories. We want to see the action, the races, the cars, the beautiful women, the fights, the exotic locales and the scenery chewing villain. “Fast X” has all that in spades, especially Jason Momoa as Dante Reyes. Momoa is clearly having a great time hamming it up as the big bad that is wrapping up the franchise. Dante is the “Fast” universe version of Batman’s Joker. He’s flamboyant, flippant, brilliant, and effortlessly homicidal. Dante dresses and paints his fingernails in a color that compliments his car. He’s as funny as he is dangerous. Momoa is the best addition to the franchise possibly ever.

The rest of the actors all take a back seat to the action (and Momoa), doing what they can with what they are given in the script written by Dan Mazeau and Justin Lin. Vin Diesel does appear to squeeze out a tear during a scene about midway through the film in a scene set in Rio. The emotion is fleeting, and the rest of his performance is vintage Diesel: Gravelly growling dialog with the occasional barked commands into a walkie-talkie. Charlize Theron is again under-utilized. Of course, with a cast this size, 19 actors credited on the film’s Wikipedia page not counting cameos, even Academy Award winners are going to have a minimal presence to allow the main villain and the long-time stars to shine. I enjoyed Brie Larson’s Tess (Larson is also an Academy Award winner) but found her performance very similar in tone to her recent Nissan car ads. Tyrese Gibson is put slightly more out front leading the Italian mission despite it being a red herring and takes on some responsibility for its failure. He’s also still the film’s comic relief so some things never change. Perhaps the producers are looking at making Roman the next team leader when Dom, Letty and some of the others join Brian in retirement. There’s nothing movie studios love more than beating the same dead money horse if they think there’s another billion dollars to be made.

“Fast X” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, language and some suggestive material. The car crashes are too numerous to count as some are recycled from “Fast Five” as well as a brief montage of other films in the series. There are countless fist fights, shootings and stabbings. There is one impalement. None of the violence is as bloody as it should be to keep the rating where it is. The suggestive comment is a brief scene of Dom and Letty apparently preparing to have sex, along with the obligatory close ups of women’s behinds at the street race. Foul language is scattered and relatively mild.

“Fast X’ is the very definition of a summer popcorn film. While it is technically not summer, it is late May and movie studios are beginning to return to their pre-pandemic release habits. Big, loud, bombastic crowd pleasers starting in May and running until Labor Day. “Fast X” continues the series trend of ignoring reality and physics to create giant action set pieces and cars that survive practically everything, including giant bomb blasts, driving through concrete walls, dropping out the back of a flying airplane and zooming down the face of a massive dam. Is it a good movie? No. Is it a fun movie filled with humor, action, likable characters and a villain you almost want to win? Yes. Like I said it’s the definition of a summer popcorn movie.

“Fast X” gets four stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “John Wick: Chapter4”

I don’t know about your workplace, but mine is thankfully free of interoffice politics. There aren’t any cliques or work BFF’s that try to horde all the power and glory to themselves at the exclusion of anyone that doesn’t fit their criteria. I’ve heard of such places, even within my industry, but having worked at the same place for 28 years, I haven’t been forced to deal with such a thing. I guess I should consider myself lucky, both for having the longevity that I do and for working somewhere people know we all succeed or fail as a group, no individuals. Sadly, over the course of four films, John Wick has had to survive the whims and vendettas of various mobs, contract killers and the High Table. Going into “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I hoped that our hero would finally find the peace and freedom he has killed so many nameless bad guys to achieve, while also entertainingly killing a bunch more nameless bad guys. The body count is high in the film, but does it accomplish its ultimate goal?

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is trying to free himself from the revenge and obligations of the High Table. He’s been hiding in the underground, protected by the Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne), since Winston (Ian McShane) shot him off the roof of the Continental Hotel. Wick goes to Morocco to ask the Elder (George Georgiou), who is above the High Table, to grant his freedom. When the Elder refuses, John kills him. The death causes the High Table, under the leadership of the Marquis Vincent de Gramont (Bill Skarsgard) to deconsecrate and demolish the New York Continental and declare Winston persona non grata. Wick has a bounty of tens of millions of dollars put on his head. Heading to Japan, Wick seeks help from the manager of the Osaka Continental, Shimazu Koji (Hiroyuki Sanada), an old friend of Wick’s. But the High Table sends a team to kill Wick while also pulling another Wick friend, blind assassin Caine (Donnie Yen), out of retirement to track and kill him as well. There is another killer, Mr. Nobody (Shamier Anderson), along with his trained German Sheppard support animal, that isn’t part of the High Table and is protecting Wick, waiting for the bounty to get big enough to interest him. Winston comes up with an idea to free Wick of the High Table and get the Continental rebuilt, and himself reinstated as manager, but Wick must go through a gauntlet of trained assassins, troops in head-to-toe body armor, and the ever changing politics of the High Table.

Keanu Reeves is, again, a man of few words in “John Wick: Chapter 4.” He lets his fighting and shooting do most of the talking. Reeves is the reason this series works as well as it does. While any leading man could be taught to do the choreography required to film the action scenes, Reeves is able to make the audience care about the fate of John Wick. Wick is a tragic character, doomed to an existence of violence and killing, while only wishing to have his wife and dog back. In case you forgot, or didn’t know, in the first film, Wick’s wife dies of an unnamed illness that takes her without warning. She had arranged for a beagle puppy to be delivered for him to pour his love and grief into after her death. An encounter with some Russian mob guys at a gas station, and their home invasion where the puppy is killed, leads Wick to pick up his guns and start killing again. As several people ask in most of the films, yes, this started because of a puppy. A dog is a big part of the action in “John Wick: Chapter 4” and leads to the development of a new ally.

What most people going to see “John Wick: Chapter 4” are interested in are the action scenes. This sequel delivers the action in spades. Fist fights, shootouts, sword fights and a very long series of falls down a very long set of stairs makes “John Wick: Chapter 4” one of the most action-packed films in history. Even with several long scenes with plot and dialog always feel as if a brawl or shootout could erupt at any moment. Reeves, and what appears to be several hundred stunt performers, put on a ballet of violent mayhem. There are a few moments when, after several people have swung a fist, sword and foot over the top of John Wick’s head, one wonders why they don’t aim lower? And after shooting him numerous times in the torse covered by his Kevlar-infused suit, why don’t they aim for the head? Of course, no one sees a “John Wick” film because of the logic of the action. The audience wants to see a bunch of bad guys dispatched in numerous entertaining ways, especially the one henchman that is the biggest thorn in Wick’s side. On that level, “John Wick: Chapter 4” delivers.

I suppose the question that could be asked about “John Wick: Chapter 4” and the entire film series is what does it all mean? What has Wick accomplished with all the death he’s inflicted on the world? Is it a better place due to the number of people willing to take a life being eliminated from it? Is the cheapness of life in the “John Wick” universe supposed to make the audience reconsider how we look at others and how we take them for granted? I guess there’s a philosophical debate to be had about what the ”John Wick” movies mean within our society. The amplification of violence to the point of it being mind-numbing for the audience may bring out the pop culture and entertainment commentators to complain about the influence of violent media on society. This despite numerous studies that find no correlation between violent entertainment and crime. A troubled person is going to do something horrific whether he’s watched the “John Wick” films or not. Some people are just broken.

“John Wick: Chapter 4” is rated R for pervasive strong violence and some language. I could not begin to list all the ways people are killed in the film. In a nutshell, they are shot, stabbed and, in probably the most graphic death, land on their head after being thrown off a balcony. They also are struck by cars, sending them flying through the air, and killed by a trained attack dog. Foul language is relatively scattered with limited uses of the “F-bomb.”

I have enjoyed all the “John Wick” films. The first established the bare bones of Wick’s assassins’ world. The universe has grown and become more complex from film to film. One wonders just how many hired killers there are in the world as the films have shown text messaging networks and, in the fourth film, a radio station, all the hit people are connected to. Also, considering the number of deaths in these movies, the recruitment effort must be enormous to keep their numbers up. As we see wave after wave of killers coming after Wick and being neutralized in short order, I can’t imagine there being much incentive to train for a career in assassination, unless they include health, vision and dental insurance at no cost, but that seems unlikely. However, this movie isn’t created for the characters in it, it is meant for the audience to enjoy all 169 minutes of it, including a post-credits scene for the first time in the series. Fans of the series will find no complaint about this possibly final installment.

“John Wick: Chapter 4” gets five stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “Cocaine Bear”

My hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee is a pretty quiet place. We have our share of crime, as any midsize city does. Most of it is usually property or drug related. There are murders as well. Back in the 1970’s, a mutilated torso was found with that murder still unsolved. In 1986, another torso was found and over the course of a few weeks, the rest of the body parts and the implements of dismemberment were discovered. An ID of the victim led to his roommates who were later convicted of the grisly crime. But in 1985, one of the most bizarre deaths in the city’s history took place on the driveway of an 85-year-old man. The body of Andrew C. Thornton II was found by the elderly homeowner on the morning of September 11. Thornton was flying packaged cocaine from Columbia into the United States. He dumped the load of drugs because the plane of overweight and having a hard time staying in the air. Thornton strapped on a parachute, and about 75 lbs. of cocaine, and jumped. The parachute malfunctioned and Thornton died on impact in the driveway of 85-year-old Fred Myers. His unpiloted plane crashed 60 miles away in the mountains of North Carolina. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured by the falling cocaine, the doomed pilot and the unoccupied aircraft. Actually, that’s not exactly true, as a dead black bear was discovered two months later. His demise was caused by a massive cocaine overdose. The bear discovered the discarded drugs and had a one-creature party. A necropsy on the bear found his stomach was stuffed to the brim with the powdered drug. The bear was taxidermied and, after a multi-decade circuitous route, is now on display in the Kentucky for Kentucky Fun Mall in Lexington. Aside from the infrequent remembrances on the anniversary the discovery of Thornton’s body, not many would remember the events of that day or the death of a coked-up bruin. However, director Elizabeth Banks and writer Jimmy Warden want us all to remember a slightly different version in the new film “Cocaine Bear.”

Andrew C. Thornton II (Matthew Rhys) abandons his airplane after dumping his load of cocaine over northern Georgia. While jumping out, he bangs his head on the doorframe and is rendered unconscious, falling uncontrollably to his death in a driveway in Knoxville, TN. A Knoxville police detective named Bob (Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) knows Thornton works for a St. Louis-based drug dealer named Syd (Ray Liotta). He also knows the drug pilots dump their loads over the Chattahoochee National Forest. He decides to travel there and try to catch Syd or his people gathering up their product. Syd sends Daveed (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.) along with Syd’s son Eddie (Alden Ehrenreich) to retrieve the drugs and not get in trouble with the cartel. Nurse Sari (Keri Russell) is picking up extra shifts at the hospital, much to the annoyance of her 12-year-old daughter Dee Dee (Brooklynn Prince). Dee Dee wants to see the waterfalls in the nearby Chattahoochee National Park. She skips school with her friend Henry (Christian Convery) and they walk to the park. Ranger Liz (Margo Martindale) is preparing for a visit from Peter (Jesse Tyler Ferguson), a park inspector and someone on whom she has a crush. Sari comes home after her shift and gets a phone call from the school telling her Dee Dee is absent. She quickly figures out where her daughter is going and sets off to find her. Everyone is heading into the path of a black bear that has discovered the discarded drugs, consumed a great deal of them, and is on a coke-fueled rampage.

I don’t think anyone going to see “Cocaine Bear” is expecting art. It’s a silly action/comedy/gore film about a drug-addicted bear and the death and mayhem it causes. Still, director Elizabeth Banks has managed to deliver something a bit more in the film. We get foul-mouthed kids, a mourning drug dealer, familial strife, corruption, romance and dismemberments. This mix shouldn’t work, and sometimes it doesn’t, but “Cocaine Bear” manages to be a very entertaining film.

The large ensemble cast is a diverse bunch, from cute kids to and an overworked single mom to hardened drug dealers. The group, split into subgroups as they go about their intertwining missions, are never far removed from the titular bear. It makes frequent, usually violent but sometimes also funny, appearances at regular enough intervals to keep the audience’s attention. A section of the film devoted to the search for one of the kids is split up enough with bear scenes to keep it from dragging the pace of the film to a crawl. A subplot involving one character’s dog is kept to a minimum, preventing unnecessary delays to the next scene of bear carnage. The film is structured in nice, compact segments that are neither too long nor too short.

Not everything in “Cocaine Bear” works to perfection. O’Shea Jackson, Jr.’s Daveed starts the film hard but softens over the course of the story. This doesn’t feel like an earned redemption. Working for Syd the drug kingpin feels like it should be the kind of job that could get you killed at any time, making for a personality that looks to strike the first blow and murder at the slightest provocation. Daveed, while tough, takes pity on several characters he should kill without a second thought.

Ray Liotta’s Syd also doesn’t feel like a fully thought-out character. He enlists his son, Ehrenreich’s Eddie, to go with Daveed to gather the drugs, despite Eddie leaving the family business after his wife dies. Syd should also be willing to eliminate even his own son if he’s not going to follow orders. For a film filled with violent deaths at the hands, or paws, of a bear, the humans don’t live up to their character’s reputations. While Syd does kill one person, it’s from a distance and does more to move the story forward than it makes sense for the character. These are minor quibbles, but the movie could have risen even further above its exploitative roots with more attention paid to the characters.

“Cocaine Bear” is rated R for bloody violence and gore, drug content and language throughout. There are numerous dismemberments, at least one beheading, people being dragged screaming into bushes and more by the bear. A wrist of a person is broken so badly by the bear the hand is only connected by skin. There is also a stabbing, beatings and shootings by humans. One character is shot in the head with their brains and blood splattering on others in the room. Another character is shot in the belly. Children are shown experimenting with cocaine, but it is entirely for comic effect. The bear is the biggest user in the movie. Foul language is common throughout.

No one will walk away from “Cocaine Bear” with a new outlook on life. It is meant to be an escapist popcorn movie that will only live on in your memory for as long as it takes you to leave the theater and walk to your car. Seeing it with a group of likeminded friends is probably the best way to get the most enjoyment out of it. While the ending may give a small tug on the heartstrings, “Cocaine Bear” is mostly about the gore and the laughs. In that aspect, the film is an acceptable high.

“Cocaine Bear” gets four stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “Knock at the Cabin”

It seems the end of the world is always right around the corner. When I was a child in the 1960’s and 1970’s, nuclear war with the Soviet Union was the big fear. Nuclear winter and radiation sickness were bandied about in news articles and opinion pieces. It even became the subject of a couple of TV movies. The one I most remember is “The Day After.” It showed the attacks by both sides and the devastation afterward. It didn’t look like a lot of fun. Other methods of worldwide destruction that have been made into entertainment include massive comets or asteroids wiping out most of humanity. Attacks by aliens are always a staple of disaster cinema. Recently, the fear of mutated viruses we have no defense against leading to a zombie apocalypse has been all the rage. Climate change is probably the most likely of all the scenarios put forth by Hollywood to cause us the most trouble. Rising sea levels, increasing average temperatures, more extremes in areas of drought and too much rainfall, longer lasting hurricanes and dying species of animals all combine to make life on Earth for humans more difficult. To fight climate change, we must make difficult choices in the short term so we can have more sustainability in the long term. A difficult choice is what faces a family in the latest film from M. Night Shyamalan, “Knock at the Cabin,” and the survival of the world’s population may be at stake.

Eric, Andrew and their daughter Wen (Jonathan Groff, Ben Aldridge and Kristen Cui) are taking a vacation at an isolated cabin in the woods near a lake. It is a beautiful setting, perfect for a time for relaxation. The peace and quiet is short lived however, as while catching grasshoppers outside the cabin, Wen is approached by a giant, tattoo-covered, but gentle man named Leonard (Dave Bautista). Initially afraid, Leonard quickly makes friends with Wen and helps her catch more grasshoppers. As they talk, Leonard explains that Wen must convince her fathers to let Lenard and his friends Sabrina (Nikki Amuka-Bird), Adriane (Abby Quinn) and Redmond (Rupert Grint) into the cabin so they can save the world. Freaked out, Wen runs inside and locks the doors, telling her fathers there are people outside with weapons made from farm implements and begging them to not let the strangers in. The four intruders manage to gain access to the house and, after a brief struggle where Eric receives a concussion, the fathers are tied to chairs. Leonard explains the family wasn’t targeted because the men are gay, that it was only fate that led them all to be there on this day. Leonard and the other three intruders explain they are from various parts of the country, have very different lives and didn’t know each other before, but each experienced the same visions about the end of the world. The sea will rise and wipe the land clean, a plague will spread uncontrollably, the sky will crack and rain down on the land like glass and the world will be in perpetual darkness. Only the people in the cabin can stop this from happening. Eric and Andrew must select which of the couple will be sacrificed. The other then must kill them. If they don’t, one of the massive disasters will occur. If they never decide which of them to kill, Eric, Andrew and Wen will be left to wander the decimated Earth as the last people alive. Believing they are religious zealots, Eric and Andrew refuse to choose. Redmond gets on his knees, covers his head in a cloth, and the others beat him to death, saying a portion of humanity must now die. On the TV, the group watches as news reports of a massive earthquake off the Pacific northwest of the US has led to a tsunami that killed untold numbers of people. Andrew believes the news report is just a prepackaged show that the intruders have somehow beamed into their TV. Eric is not so sure. Could these intruders be telling the truth?

Based on the trailer, my hopes were high for “Knock at the Cabin.” While Shyamalan’s most recent work has been hit or miss (“Old” and “Glass” were both a miss for me while “Split” and “The Visit” were both hits), but I didn’t see how “Knock…” could go wrong. A fantastic premise, terrific cast, claustrophobic setting, the fate of the world possibly on the line: What could go wrong? Yet, something did as “Knock at the Cabin” is fine…just fine.

My first issue with the movie is the lack of any real peril for the family. It is up to them to decide who is sacrificed as the intruders can’t cause them any significant harm. If one of the intruders kills one or all the family, the end of the world will still come according to their visions. The choice of who dies must be willingly made and carried out. While there is violence and blood, it never feels consequential.

The film also quiets down after the initial intruder is sacrificed. There are long scenes of discussion between the captive spouses and their captors. Aside from an escape attempt by Wen, not much happens in the middle section of the film. Andrew continues to be the aggravated voice of reason while Eric is beginning to sway in his conviction their captors are delusional. That must be taken with a grain of salt as Eric has a severe concussion and his thinking may be altered, however the possibility they are telling the truth becomes stronger. Still, Eric doesn’t do much about his change in beliefs. It’s like Andrew is bullying him into agreeing and not expressing his views. It isn’t overt, but there are flashes of it. This middle section of the film is what really drags down “Knock at the Cabin,” which is a shame as there are some beautiful performances that go to waste.

Dave Bautista is a real surprise as the hulking Leonard. Quiet, intelligent, rarely threatening, kind to Wen, Bautista is playing against his physicality, keeping his performance small and compact. Despite his appearance, Bautista plays the role as a meek but desperate man. He’s on a mission that sounds crazy, even to him, but he feels it is the most important thing he has or will ever do. I know this film will be forgotten by next Oscars season, but I believe Bautista should at least be considered for an acting nomination.

Another standout is Kristen Cui as Wen. Sweet and smart, Cui plays Wen as anything but a stereotypical, too-smart-for-her-age child. Naturally Wen is afraid of what might happen to her dads and the world. As she sees the destruction playing out around the planet, Wen is also beginning to believe the strangers. Cui never overplays her cuteness and keeps Wen grounded in the reality of a very unreal situation.

Jonathan Groff and Ben Aldridge are both excellent at Eric and Andrew. Fighting to protect their family while trying to protect each other, the pair plays a far from stereotypical gay couple. There is warmth and compassion, along with a righteous amount of anger on Andrew’s part, as they try to figure out the best way to survive. We see early moments of their relationship: From a tense meeting of parents, to deciding to adopt, to picking up Wen at the Chinese orphanage, to a gay bashing at a bar, we are given a better look at not just where they are now, but where they came from. Groff and Aldridge play the pair in a way to make you forget they are men. They are just a married couple.

“Knock at the Cabin” is rated R for violence and language. There are a couple of fights that result in bloody injuries. The beating deaths of the sacrifices are mostly suggested with sounds and blood running down the victims. We see a character shot in the stomach. Another character is stabbed a couple of times. Foul language is scattered and mostly mild.

“Knock at the Cabin” has an intriguing premise based on the book “The Cabin at the End of the World” by Paul Tremblay (the ending of which is significantly altered by Shyamalan’s script). It would easy for any of us to see the dilemma Eric and Andrew find themselves in having to make a choice for one to kill the other based on the delusional sounding words of four strangers. If I had to choose between saving the world or killing my wife (or her killing me), I would say “no” immediately. I too would be suspicious of the alleged proof provided by the TV newscast. Still, despite everything going for it, “Knock at the Cabin” never gels into something truly amazing. As I said earlier, it’s fine but that’s about it.

“Knock at the Cabin” gets three stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “Infinity Pool”

Have you ever thought to yourself, “I’m so busy, I wish there were two of me”? It would be handy to have an identical version of you, with all your memories and experiences, that could help you in doing the mundane tasks of life. One of you could be at work while the other is mowing the yard, cleaning the house or doing repairs. You could send your duplicate with your spouse to the boring functions required by family or work. For those with nefarious ideas, one of you could commit a crime while the other provides a very public and airtight alibi. Of course, if your duplicate has all your memories, the question becomes which of you is the original? Does the duplicate have the right to go out on its own and live a separate life? Would you share the affections of your spouse with the clone? Is that infidelity or an alternate lifestyle? The possibilities and complications are endless. In the film, “Infinity Pool,” a man faces a similar situation that is further complicated by a new group of questionable friends.

James Foster (Alexander Skarsgard) and his wife Em (Cleopatra Coleman) are in an exclusive seaside resort in the country of Latoka. James is a struggling author looking for inspiration for his second novel after the first was little read and poorly reviewed. At the resort, James meets Gabi Bauer (Mia Goth) and her husband Alban (Jalil Lespert). They come to the resort every year while this is James and Em’s first time. The country of Latoka is poor and violent with the resort behind locked gates and high fences. Despite this, Gabi and Alban invite James and Em for an excursion in the countryside, stopping at a beautiful hidden beach. While there, the two couples chat, eat and drink wine. James goes off to urinate when he’s approached by Gabi who performs a sex act on him. As night falls, the four get into the car borrowed from a member of the resort staff to return. James is driving when the headlights begin to flicker and fail, popping back on just as a peasant walks across the road. The car hits and kills him. Fearing retribution from the local corrupt police, Gabi convinces them to hide the car and walk back to the resort. The next day, James is arrested by Detective Thresh (Thomas Kretschmann) and brought to police headquarter. Thresh explains the penalty for James’ crime is to be killed by the oldest son, who is 13, of the victim. Another option is James can pay a large sum of money and have a duplicate of himself made that share all his memories and the duplicate is killed by the boy. James and Em will also be forced to watch the execution. James opts for the duplicate and, after a process that takes an undetermined amount of time, James and Em are seated in a concrete room with the family of the man who was killed. James’ duplicate is tied to a post and the boy, carrying a large knife, is brought in. The boy stabs the double a dozen or so times, killing him. James and Em are then released. Em is disgusted by the display and by James watching emotionless, not noticing his slight smile as his clone dies. She plans on leaving as soon as possible, but James can’t find his passport, so he must stay until a replacement can be arranged by the US Embassy. Gabi and Alban approach James and invite him to a gathering of their friends. This group all share a secret: They have committed crimes in Latoka and had their death sentences carried out on their clones. Since they are wealthy, they feel untouchable, as there is no limit to the number of times they can be cloned. Soon James is participating in activities the group considers fun, like breaking into the house of a local official and stealing a recently presented medal. This new group of friends has no qualms about killing, using drugs, engaging in orgies or any other anti-social behavior as they can buy their way out of punishment. Is there a limit to what depravity James will do?

Directed and written by Brandon Cronenberg, son of David Cronenberg, I went into “Infinity Pool” expecting a dense, disturbing and mind-bending story, filled with vivid images and graphic violence. On that front, “Infinity Pool” doesn’t disappoint. There are murders carried out in various brutal ways, beatings, orgies and more. The process creating the clones is a psychedelic trip of flashing lights, fleeting glimpses of images and deafening sound. The characters are dense and complex, showing sides of themselves only because they know they can buy their way out of trouble. It’s a rollercoaster ride of debauchery on every level.

However, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take away as the meaning or message of “Infinity Pool.” Are we merely supposed to learn that a lack of real consequences leads humans to behave in abominable ways? Is that all there is? Exposing this dark underbelly of psychotic behavior should have some deeper, darker message. We already know there are two sets of rules, two types of justice for the wealthy and the poor. The rich can afford the best lawyers, the best experts and the most delays to avoid punishment. The poor must use overworked and underpaid public defenders and don’t have the resources for extra genetic testing or outside experts to advocate on their behalf. The inequities of our judicial system are on display every time we watch the news.

Perhaps we’re merely supposed to enjoy the spectacle of excess and debauchery, all the while expecting this group of mostly horrible people will get their comeuppance in the end. Those wanting the cinematic universal gods to balance the scales of Right and Wrong will be disappointed by the outcome. We are left with some puzzling decisions by James as the film comes to an end. It all amounts to an odd “See you next year.”

The performances by Alexander Skarsgard, Mia Goth, an underutilized Cleopatra Coleman and the rest of the cast are appropriately ethereal and disturbing. Skarsgard’s character gets put through the emotional wringer, while Goth is at time angelic and completely unhinged. Coleman is supposed to be the moral anchor of the film but she’s in less than half of it. Skarsgard’s decent into depravity quickly becomes the feature we’re supposed to pay attention to. While his performance is great, I would have liked to see more of a counterpoint, showing how his falling for this Bacchanalian lifestyle has negative effects on his wife Em. Perhaps Cronenberg was more interested in including another scene of violence or sex than showing any judgement for James’ actions. While the rancid behavior eventually wears on James, there isn’t any significant punishment.

“Infinity Pool” is rated R for graphic violence, disturbing material, strong sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and some language. There are so many instances of graphic violence I won’t try to list them all. There is a scene of implied sexual activity with no nudity. There are flashes of nudity in the making of James’ duplicate. There is a scene of an orgy showing sex acts between men, women and all combinations. There is also a scene of a character suckling a bare breast. Foul language is surprisingly scattered.

I knew I wouldn’t fully understand “Infinity Pool” before I went in. Brandon Cronenberg, much like his father, operates on a level all his own. He’s not going to spoon feed you stories and meaning. You are supposed to work it out on your own. I appreciate a filmmaker that challenges the audience, but give us a fighting chance to understand “The Point” of your creation. With “Infinity Pool,” the meaninglessness may be the point, but I’m thinking I just don’t grasp what the Cronenberg is trying to say. That doesn’t mean the movie is bad, but that it’s just not completely for me. It is an engrossing work but doesn’t quite provide what I needed from it.

“Infinity Pool” gets three stars out of five.

Follow, rate, review and download the podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or loath it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.