Category Archives: Drama

‘The Tax Collector’ Review

And so, David Ayer continues to have a baffling filmography…

“The Tax Collector” is the latest film from writer-director David Ayer, and marks a return to his gritty roots after big-budget studio blockbusters like “Bright” and “Suicide Squad.” The film follows two enforcers for a drug lord (Bobby Soto and Shia LaBeouf) as they find themselves on the wrong end of a rivalry; Cinthya Carmona and George Lopez also star.

I have a hot and cold relationship with David Ayer as a filmmaker. I really enjoy “Street Kings,” “Fury,” and “End of Watch” (and even “Sabotage” has some fun action), however “Suicide Squad” and “Bright” are both pretty ugly-looking messes. He seems to be at this best when his stories focus more police and gangs in South Central Los Angeles (he also wrote “Training Day” and the first “The Fast and the Furious” film), which makes it all-the-more baffling that “The Tax Collector” is his most bland film to-date.

I really like Shia LaBeouf as an actor, always have dating back to growing up with him on “Even Stevens” and “Holes,” and have enjoyed his more adult work in Ayer’s “Fury” and last year’s semi-biopic “Honey Boy.” Here LaBeouf (who, for the uninitiated, is white) is playing a (seemingly) Hispanic gang member and his performance is… I really don’t even know how to describe it. Like much of the film he kind of just exists, sometimes awkwardly doing a Mexican accent (and sometimes speaking normal), and plays the no-nonsense tough guy enforcer card. He and George Lopez are the only recognizable names on the poster (although Ayer staples like Cle Sloan and Noel Gugliemi pop up), so much of the lifting is done by relative newcomers like Bobby Soto (who, to his credit, is fine enough).

Ayer has been vocal about wanting to give Hispanics more presence in Hollywood with this film, and in the past has been accused of portraying minorities in a bad light. I’m not sure this film about gangs will help change that perception of him around town, but he deserves the credit for giving no-names a chance to star.

Ayer’s films, even the bad ones like “Bright” or “Sabotage,” at least have decent action sequences, which makes me shocked that this film is seemingly devoid of much action. For the first 45 minutes of this 90 minute film, it is just LaBeouf and Soto driving around Los Angeles intimidating people into paying their dues. The film has some very poor and confusing editing choices as well, and I’m not sure if it was Ayer trying to be artsy or editor Geoffrey O’Brien (who cut together “Bright” and assisted on several other Ayer films) was just feeling frisky and random when he sat down at his laptop.

“The Tax Collector” is set to be a VOD release, and even if we weren’t in the middle of a pandemic it still never feels like it is anything more than your typical Bruce Willis/Nic Cage Walmart bargain bin thriller. There are so many more films out right now, new and old, that depict gang life in Los Angeles (just scroll Ayer’s filmography or open Netflix), and this one should be so far down the list that even the IRS wouldn’t bother to check it.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Greyhound’ Review

Another day, another film that was meant for theaters going to streaming.

“Greyhound” is set during the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942, and follows an American escort ship captained by Tom Hanks (who also wrote the script) as it faces off with German U-boats. Rob Morgan and Stephen Graham also star as Aaron Schneider directs.

Originally slated for a May theatrical release, this film was sold to Apple TV for a whopping $70 million after coronavirus hit (if you think that is a lot of cash to pay just for distribution rights, this week Apple spent $105 million to acquire the Will Smith slavery film “Emancipation”). Apple is hoping this increases the worth of their digital library (their subscriber base is tracking behind what they initially hoped), and while “Greyhound” is not the next “Saving Private Ryan” I thought it was a very effective, tautly paced war picture.

Everyone loves Tom Hanks, and this was clearly somewhat of a passion project for him as it’s just the third feature script he’s ever written. Based on C.S. Forester’s 1955 novel “The Good Shepard,” this isn’t necessarily based on a true story, however it does depict a World War II conflict that doesn’t always get the screen time that its Western Front and Pacific Theater counterparts do. Hanks plays Ernest Krause, the commander of a destroyer, who is on his in the middle of his first command. Hanks, like everyone else here, doesn’t have much character development (there is a single flashback scene with Elisabeth Shue to try and add any amount of depth, and it was surely the easiest paycheck of her career), but his Everyday Joe likability makes us root for him.

Somewhat like “Dunkirk,” I think that we don’t get much detail or backstory on these characters because it is meant to drop us into that world and have the “this could be me, my son, or anyone” mentality. The supporting players, including Rob Morgan, Stephen Graham, and Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, all do solid work filling out this 1942 world, even if you don’t really bother to remember their names.

But who cares about character development; this is a war film! We’re here to see things go boom! And luckily the ship battle sequences deliver. This thing was shot on about a $50 million budget, pretty modest for the genre, and besides some wonky greenscreen sequences early on the staging and the effects are pretty effective. There are points you feel the emotional impact and scale of the events taking place (Hanks remarks after sinking a U-boat that those weren’t simply Germans they killed, it was “75 souls”), and one intense sequence racing against the clock and a leaking oil tanker really had me getting anxious.

Aside from the thin characters, the only real issue I have here is the leader of the German submarines continuously radios into Hanks’ ship to scold the Americans, and he comes off like a cartoon character in an otherwise moderately somber film.

“Greyhound” is certainly worth checking out if you have Apple TV, and at just 91 minutes it is refreshing to have a war film (or any movie, for that matter) that wastes no time getting into things and chooses not draw out its runtime for the sake of self-indulgence. In what has been a weird year overall and solid-but-not-great year at the movies, I think this film ranks among the best we’ve gotten in the first half of things, and at this point, like the Americans in World War II, we’ll take a win anyplace we can get one.

Critics Rating: 8/10  

‘Irresistible’ Review

In case you didn’t have enough politics in your daily life, here comes Jon Stewart with a movie about it.

“Irresistible” stars Steve Carell as a top-Democratic strategist who takes interest in a small right-wing Wisconsin town’s mayoral race. Chris Cooper, Mackenzie Davis, Topher Grace, Natasha Lyonne, and Rose Byrne also star as Jon Stewart writes and directs.

It goes without saying, but it’s hard to avoid politics in our modern lives. When you’re not watching the news you’re on Twitter or Facebook, either reading articles that take place in your echo chamber or seeing contrasting views from that old friend you went to high school with pop up on your feed. It’s become a lot for many people to handle, so the idea of watching an entire film that revolves around red-vs-blue may not exactly be the idea of entertainment. And while Stewart’s second directorial outing has some interesting and entertaining takes on our current political climate, it isn’t sharp, funny, or consistent enough to be worthy of a recommendation.

I’ll start with the cast, as they all are solid. Led by quirky and bubbly as usual Steve Carell, and with supporting work from the likes of Will Sasso and Chris Cooper, the characters in this film make the setting feel lived-in and genuine with small town charm, while Carell and Rose Byrne pass as the out-of-touch big city pundits who pander and spew BS for a living.

After spending years running “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart is no stranger to politics. He has even spoken on Capital Hill and called out elected officials, so it makes sense that he would want to make a film that satirizes our increasingly corrupt (but also parody-friendly) political system. And there are more than a few good jokes and bits of commentary here (there is one quick shot of an NRA information booth shutting down when they get approached by an inquisitive group of Black Lives Matter activists that had me chuckling hard). However, for every one of those bits that works, there is an off-putting, tone-deaf, and/or tonally jarring attempt at humor that just does not land at all (Byrne licks pasty crumbs off Carell’s face and I was deadpan staring at the screen).

Stewart clearly watched “The Big Short” and “Vice” in back-to-back viewings, taking inspiration for some on-the-nose analogies and a few cutaways to B-roll footage. Just like Adam McKay, Stewart isn’t shy about which way his politics (and ipso facto, his film) lean, and his message at the end is admirable but somewhat shallow.

“Irresistible” is fine, and if it didn’t have one or two completely random sequences then I would say it may be worth checking out. But it doesn’t really say anything most Americans don’t already know and agree upon (there’s too much big money in politics, the mainstream media is a joke, the flyover states feel disenfranchised), and the comedy isn’t any better than what you can find for free on YouTube. Fans of Carell or Stewart may get their kicks, but the rest of us are better off sitting this race out.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Capone’ Review

For better or worse, a mumbling and incoherent Al Capone is the role that Tom Hardy was born to play.

“Capone” follows the notorious bootlegging gangster Al Capone in the final year of his life, now retired in Florida with his mind rotting from syphilis. Tom Hardy stars in the title role, alongside Linda Cardellini, Jack Lowden, Noel Fisher, Kyle MacLachlan, and Matt Dillon, while Josh Trank writes, edits, and directs.

In 2015, Josh Trank directed “Fantastic Four” and the results were notably poor. Not only was the film a critical dud and box office bomb, but even before the film’s release Trank (who had reportedly been difficult to deal with while filming) disowned the project and has since spoken out against the studio system. “Capone” is his first film since that (he was supposed to direct a “Star Wars” spin-off but left/was fired), and the passion behind it is clear. Trank must have been a fan of the famous gangster and wanted to give his own take on the genre beyond the classic “rise-and-fall” formula, and while the results are middling, that doesn’t mean the film is not worth checking out on a rainy afternoon.

Tom Hardy has had an interesting but successful career, starring in seemingly every Christopher Nolan film from “Dark Knight Rises” to “Dunkirk,” as well as an Oscar-nominated turn in “The Revenant,” mumbling and grunting his way through each role. Here, he plays Al Capone, a grown man with the mental capacity of a 12-year-old. Capone is physically and mentally falling apart due to disease, while his soul is being eaten alive by the guilt of his crimes. Hardy seems to be having a good time making nonsensical threats to gardeners and shooting confused glances at hallucinations, and even if this isn’t an attempt at an Oscar, the performance is a decent-enough look at a single year of an infamous man’s life.

The plot of the film is pretty straight-forward, and could be best described as “Bugsy” meets the final act of “The Irishman.” A once bigger-than-life criminal has retired to a quiet life but his past still haunts him, and his actions that made him who he is have left him alienated and alone. Josh Trank, to no fault of his own, is no Martin Scorsese (who is?) and he doesn’t have three-plus hours to have us grow with these characters, so the pondering thoughts and themes he tries to convey don’t hit as much as they do in “Irishman.” It is all surface-level, but much like Hardy’s performance it gets the job done just-enough to be worthy of praising the effort.

Shot in Louisiana on a $20 million budget the film looks pretty competent, and that is the word that best describes “Capone” as a whole: totally competent. There is nothing extraordinary about it, however nothing completely damning, either. Things just progress as you expect them to (save for a bonkers finale where you have no idea what is going on), and while I may not remember the film in a few months, I think that its desire to be a more personal take on a genre that all-too-often focuses on the flashy excess make it worth checking out for period piece fans like myself.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Marriage Story’ Review

Who knew that arguably both the best war film and the best comedy of 2019 would be a divorce drama?

“Marriage Story” follows a divorcing couple (Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson), and the struggles they face while going through the process from different sides of the country. Laura Dern, Alan Alda, Ray Liotta, Azhy Robertson, Julie Hagerty and Merritt Wever also star as Noah Baumbach writes and directs.

I’ve been big fan of Adam Driver’s for a while and it was really nice to see him earn an Academy Award nomination last year for his work in “BlacKkKlansman.” Most people know him for his work as Kylo Ren in the new Star Wars trilogy, but this is his fourth collaboration with Baumbach and he gives a career-best performance. Like the film itself, Driver jumps from happy to confused to angry at the drop of a hat, and perfectly conveys all the emotions that one goes through when getting a divorce. He has one scene where he finally explodes and it is one of those sequences that you simply feel drained watching unfold, because of how raw it comes across as.

Scarlett Johansson also gives arguably a career-best turn, and gets to show some actual humor and emotion that the likes of the Avengers films may not allow her. She has one monologue in particular that will likely be used as her Oscar reel where she recounts her marriage to Driver and where things fell apart. We haven’t known these characters for all of 20 minutes and already we feel let down alongside her. I think that at the end of the day this is Driver’s movie, but Johansson gets plenty of scenes that she commands.

The supporting cast is all great, too. The scene-stealing, scenery-chewing duo of Laura Dern and Ray Liotta are great fun and they have some wonderful lawyer banter, and are two people you love to hate. Alan Alda also turns in a fantastic performance as one of Driver’s lawyers, who like Driver wants the divorce process to be as amicable as possible but Dern is out for blood; Alda’s mild-mannered old man is just so great because the character feels so *real*.

I really enjoyed Baumbach’s 2017 film “The Meyerowitz Stories” and thought the script there was great; this one is even better. Baumbach is an old-fashion director who likes to have actors follow his written word and action to the tee, and the end result is a film that both breaks your heart and makes your stomach hurt from laughing. Like “Annie Hall” there is a “Los Angeles vs New York City” storyline and how the cities compare and contrast (“you’d love it in LA, there’s just so much more space than New York!”). There are plenty of dramatic moments that may hit more at home for those who have been married, gotten divorced and/or are a child of divorce (I check none of the three boxes), but even for the casual young person the ideas of love, struggle and betrayal will resonate.

There really isn’t much wrong with this film. It is 136 minutes but it flies by; honestly the editing by Jennifer Lame (who also cut together this year’s brilliant “Midsommar”) is quick but also specific when it has to be. Mixing violins and flutes, the score by Randy Newman is whimsical and melancholic at some parts and thrilling at others, depending on which of the couple the film is focused on, and I kept thinking how the music reminded me of “Toy Story.”

“Marriage Story” is hands-down among 2019’s best films and it has everything a film should have: uncontrived drama, organic characters and genuine laughs. I can’t wait to be able to watch it whenever I want once it starts streaming on Netflix and for it to reach the biggest audience possible. Baumbach has made something truly special here, a film that is built to last and only grow more personal as time goes on.

Critic’s Rating: 9/10

‘The Irishman’ Review

“The Irishman” is the latest film from Martin Scorsese and has been anticipated as much for its cast and director as it was for its infamous budget issues, extensive use of de-aging technology and being Netflix’s biggest and most ambitious release to-date. The film follows Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), as he gets tied up in the Pennsylvania crime world (led by Joe Pesci) and the union war of Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino).

I feel that all three of the leading men in this film, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci, will have their own supporters as to who steals the show and who the film truly belongs to. For the most part, De Niro is “solid” in the film, not given too much to do or revealed about his inner thoughts for the first two acts. It is the film’s climax where he is finally given material he can work with, and he nails it. Despite being the titular character and the vehicle for the audience to experience the world (I think he’s in mostly every scene of the film), we don’t peel back the curtain until that third act.

Al Pacino will likely be most people’s favorite performance of the trio as the loud, angry and ego-driven Jimmy Hoffa. He gets the classic Pacino rants and raves to do, and at times (especially when first introduced) he may come off like a cartoon, but it is never not entertaining, and like De Niro, it all comes to a head in the film’s third act.

But for my money, it was the unofficially retired Joe Pesci that stole the show and broke my heart. Playing Russell Bufalino, head of the Pennsylvania crime family, Pesci has a presence about him in every scene he’s in that just says “I’m in control, I hold the strings” and there is one scene where he conveys this by just sitting and staring as a conversation between two other people plays out, it’s phenomenal. There is an underlying message about Bufalino and his desires to be a father, and the way it grows and is conveyed was devastating; Scorsese actually got me to feel sympathy for a criminal who sectioned the deaths of dozens of people, and that is his gift.

As far as the de-aging goes, it is a lukewarm but overall positive bag. When you first see De Niro (who is supposed to be about 35 in the scene but still comes across as 50, guess you can only de-age someone so far), the image is a little creepy and animated, but your brain quickly adjusts. If anything, the blue contacts they have him wear throughout the film are more distracting than the de-aging. The work on Joe Pesci is a little more subtle, his problem is he’s a 76-year-old asked to move around like a 50-year-old, and like Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel” you can’t hide slow movements of old joints. Al Pacino’s de-aging is actually brilliant, I never once questioned it.

Now, the elephant in the room and the reason this film took so long to get made. It is 209 minutes long (three and a half hours for those who don’t want to do the math). Does the film justify its runtime? I mean, no, there are some repetitive story beats and plenty of scenes where characters are simply sitting around talking. It is a lot to ask for from a theater audience (I didn’t consume liquids after noon to prepare), which again maybe that is why Netflix was so willing to finance, they know folks at home can pause it. There are a few slow parts, especially leading up to that third act, and then the film takes its time wrapping up. To give you context of the scale and duration: there are 320 scenes in this movie; the average film has around 60.

“The Irishman” is the quintessential Martin Scorsese movie, for better or worse. It has the pacing of “Silence,” the dark humor of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and the mafia intrigue of “Goodfellas.” Will it go down in history for more than its behind-the-scenes drama? Time will tell. But it’s one of those films that leaves you with so much to think about and has just so much to digest (guys, it’s 3.5 hours!) that it almost feels unfair to properly discuss it after one viewing.

‘Jojo Rabbit’ Review

“Jojo Rabbit” tells the tale of a 10-year-old Hitler Youth (played by Roman Griffith Davis) who discovers his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. Taika Waititi stars as an imaginary version of Adolf Hitler, while also writing and directing; Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen also star.

This film has been subject of anticipation, skepticism and criticism for quite some time, and its light portrayal of Nazi Germany has led some to make comparisons to 1997’s “Life Is Beautiful” (a great film in its own right). Folk need to get a grip, because as Waititi has spoken on, trying to complain about and shut down a film that uses a dark subject matter for comedy is playing into the very mindset that those people are upset about in the first place. “Jojo Rabbit” may not break new ground (Nazis are bad, 1940s were a dark time for certain people, no one needs that refresher course) but what it lacks in true danger it makes up for in heart.

Children actors can be hit or miss, and this is one of those times where it is a straight bullseye. As the titular Jojo, Roman Griffith Davis is a star in the making, with a cute face and tousled hair, and enough facial expressions he could fill an emoji board. Asked to carry most every single scene of the film, and sometimes act alongside his director, a grown man in a Hitler outfit, Davis does a near-masterful job, giving us fantastic deadpan delivery, emotional glances or heart-breaking reactions. There were times his delivery of Waititi’s script was so sharp the audience laughed over the succeeding lines of dialogue, including one phrase that had people in actual tears.

The supporting cast all turn in great work, too, including Archie Yates as Jojo’s fellow Hitler Youth friend, Sam Rockwell as his scene-stealing SS Captain and Scarlett Johansson as the sympathetic “stop-and-smell-the-roses” mother. They are all given great lines from Waititi and don’t step on each other’s toes, and you get excited whenever they show up on screen. As imaginary friend Hitler, Waititi is essentially playing the Führer if he was mixed with “Mean Girls’” Regina George, and if the idea of Adolf Hitler looking at a 10-year-old boy after an argument and saying “well… that was intense!” is not funny (or worse, offensive) to you then I don’t want to be friends with you anyways.

The production and costume designs of 1940s Germany are also commendable, full of color and detail. We’ve see war-torn Europe in film dozens of times before, and “Jojo Rabbit” gets its chance to flash everything from open fields to obligatory post-bombed city squares, but it is always impressive when a filmmaker can transport you to a time period.

Now the area that may lose some people, beyond the light-hearted take on something as evil as the Nazis, is that the film is pretty cut-and-dry. Very few, if any, of the characters are shades of grey; you’re either a good guy or a bad one, and even the evolution of Jojo out of his indoctrination at times does not feel earned. Sam Rockwell’s character is really the only one who gets any real arc or a sense of “there’s more to this character than we see in the 110 minutes we’re with them,” and it’s probably why (on top of being incredible in everything he touches, sans “Vice”) Rockwell was my favorite part of the film.

“Jojo Rabbit” was a festival darling and time will tell if it is an awards contender, too; but I don’t think it truly needs hardware to justify itself. It manages to deliver numerous laughs in spite of a potentially dark subject matter, and at the same time lets the audience laugh at the expense of some of the worst humans that ever walked the earth. Does it play things too safe and contrive some drama? Sure. But the film is feel-good and funny, and in 2019 that’s not something I for one am going to turn away.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Joker’ Review

“Joker” is an original origin story for Batman’s archenemy, and stars Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role. Todd Phillips directs and co-writes, while Zazie Beetz and Robert De Niro also star.

I am a big Batman fanboy so I grew up with the Joker, and have been treated to some great ones over the years, namely from Jack Nicholson in the 1989 live-action film and Mark Hamill voicing the character in the animated series and games. Heath Ledger gave a great performance in “The Dark Knight” but wasn’t a good portrayal of the actual character (more a fanboy comic fan problem than a criticism) while Jared Leto already seems forgotten about from his laughably bad turn in “Suicide Squad.” Joaquin Phoenix gets more meat to chew than any of these previous portrayals, and I would say he ranks in the middle of the pack as far as both loyalty to the comics and acting go.

We get to see a fair amount of growth (or rather, recession) from Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck and for the most part it is subtle and well-done. He becomes more confident and gutsier as the film progresses and he begins to fall more-and-more into madness, and up until the final act Phillips is able to keep it in control. I’m not sure I buy into the “career best” talk here for Phoenix but it is a very well-done performance that is knowingly uncomfortable, and balances sympathetic and pity.

As far as direction goes, it was the area surely most folk were hesitant about coming in. As a director, Todd Phillips is best known for, and has almost exclusively done, dumb comedies (“Old School” and “The Hangover”), however rarely are his films very good (I think I named the only two that are). Here he has some nice moments of refined direction and symbolism that are the acts of a mature talent, however there are also moments, especially in the third act, where he is basically looking at the camera and saying “hey guys, check *this* out!”.

There is a point where Phoenix says that he used to think his life was a tragedy, but now he realizes it’s a comedy. And there is a lot of truth to that, that two people can look at the same event and see it as two different things (“humor is tragedy plus time”). There are points in this film that are so uncomfortable or unnerving that several members of my audience had no choice but to laugh, and I think that is a compliment to Phillips and his team.

Speaking of the third act, it is an interesting conundrum. For most of the film, Phillips refuses to take sides with or against Phoenix and his crimes, essentially presenting us with the events and letting us decide for ourselves when enough is enough. However when the climax comes, Phillips decides it would be more fun to laugh with and root for the Joker, so the score, soundtrack and script get away from the uncomfortable and awkward nature of mental illness and lean into dark comedy.

“Joker” is one of those films that seems to think it is more revolutionary than it actually is, but it features a semi-layered performance from Joaquin Phoenix, in a type of role that normally wouldn’t be done by an actor with his resume. It somewhat loses its footing in the third act (more that it abandons what it was setting up, not that it gets bad) but “Joker” is worth seeing and talking about, and the fact a comic book movie has gotten people talking about more than capes and spandex after the credits roll is worth commending, for better or worse.

Critic’s Rating: 7/10

‘The Lion King’ (2019) Review

Earlier this year we had “Pet Semetary.” A remake about burying your family pet and having it come back to life ugly and without a soul. Now we have “The Lion King,” which is like what would happen if there was a Movie Semetary that played by the same rules.

“The Lion King” is a remake of the 1994 classic Disney animation, and follows a lion named Simba who must take his rightful place as king of his African plains home. Jon Favreau directs an ensemble cast, including Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter and James Earl Jones.

As far as the actual animal designs go here, it’s incredible. Being just 24 hours removed from seeing (the meh) “Crawl” and some wonky alligator creature animations, this felt like I was watching a nature documentary. Lions’ ears twitch, smaller animals scratch their nose or lick their paws, the attention to detail by Favreau and his team cannot be sold short.

The songs are all great, too, but that is not surprise seeing as they were great when they win Oscars back in 1994. Where the film’s faults start to creep in is the way they present the songs. The film’s version of “Hakuna Matata,” instead of being done swinging off vines and leaping through flowers, is literally the characters trouncing in a straight line on a beaten path. No flair, no color. Say what you will about “Aladdin” and its numbers, but at least that film either tried to pay homage or even out-do the original. Not even comparing this directly to the 1994 film, there are just filmmaking choices that ruin entire moments. Like the classic Academy Award-winning “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” being sung, in broad daylight.

Other direction choices that just seem odd are the interactions between characters. When Simba first reunites with Nala, he literally takes one second to recognize here. No pondering, no questioning. Again, I’m not even saying this seems off compared to the original; it just feels poorly executed at all.

And the vocal performances. Ok. How do I put this diplomatically? I think that Donald Glover and Beyoncé are both perfectly nice people who normally have talents in both singing and acting, and should not let one film disparage them! No, but seriously. Both of them often seem like they’re phoning in their lines and they share zero chemistry, romantic or otherwise. At times the voice coming out of their lion counterpart’s face just seems like it doesn’t synch up, or that there should be an echo or something; it is just too clear given their surrounding or circumstances.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, voicing our villain Scar (who either got stuck with a mean nickname after getting a mark or had a huge coincidence occur upon birth), is solid, but his grimmer take on the character cannot compare to the British wit of Jeremy Irons. Also worth noting: *that* scene involving Scar and Mufasa is almost laughable in its execution, again falling on Favreau.

“The Lion King” isn’t bad, but it just doesn’t seem like it has any reason to exist outside making Disney another cool billion. And sure, you could argue that is what this entire “let’s remake all our classic animations with real actors” trend is for, but at least with (most of) the other films I came out thinking at least kids nowadays will have their own take on the tale. “Aladdin” was a nice trip down memory lane for me and even “Dumbo” had some charm (and almost no restraints remaking a 75-year-old 64-minute cartoon). But not for one second watching this film did I feel a purpose, a heartbeat or a true sense of joy. Really the only two things really working here are the cool animal activities and the music, so you’re better off just playing the original film’s soundtrack over a NatGeo special.

Critic’s Rating: 5/10

‘Captive State’ Holds Audiences Hostage with its Boredom

Remember back in 2014 when Netflix was known for its cut-rate made-for-TV movies instead of helming Oscar contenders? Yeah, this film feels like it missed the queue by a few years…

“Captive State” takes place on Earth after an alien species has invaded and forced humanity’s surrender, and follows a small faction determined to start a revolution. John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, Machine Gun Kelly and Vera Farmiga star as Rupert Wyatt directs and co-writes.

When the trailer for this dropped, the few people who saw it (I bet most people don’t even know this film exists) believed it was another “Cloverfield” joint and that John Goodman was playing his character from “10 Cloverfield Lane” who was right about aliens after all. Unfortunately, instead of that possibly interesting story we get a pretty standard rebellion movie with some less-than-convincing effects and way less-than-entertaining alien encounters.

I love John Goodman and was part of the group of people who really wanted award voters to take notice of him back in 2016 with “Cloverfield Lane” because it was arguably a career-best turn from him. Here he is reuniting with “The Gambler” director Rupert Wyatt (who is best known for helming the first and best film of the “Planet of the Apes” reboot trilogy) and he just seems bored. He has a frown on his face the entire time and often seems as lost as the audience. Wyatt intentionally (or maybe not) gives us little information about Goodman’s character in an attempt to murky the waters and not let us know whether or not we can trust him, but the problem is Goodman isn’t the only person running around 2027 Chicago without an arc.

Ashton Sanders, Vera Farmiga, Machine Gun Kelly, all these people are given a job title and name and that is where their character development begins and ends. No personal demons to combat, no past they’re trying to run from or future they’re trying to embrace, just “character #14 in a sci-fi thriller.” Sanders has shown after his “Moonlight” turn that he has some acting chops and can even hold his own alongside Denzel Washington, but here he seems lost and his character literally does get lost for a good chunk of the film.

The alien designs are laughable at best (and just plain ugly and dumb at worst) but Wyatt doesn’t waste any time letting us get a good chuckle in. The aliens are shown in the very first scene, ruining any and all sense of wonder or suspense, and also confusing us the entire film with why the aliens are here and how they actually operate. Some of the other effects would be cheesy by 1977 standards and the climax to the film makes about as much sense as Rami Malek winning Best Actor this past year.

“Captive State” has all the makings of the next classic alien invasion thriller, except for the layered characters, creative creature designs, engaging plot, nail-biting tension and revolutionary special effects. It is the kind of film you would flip on Netflix and have going in the background, and if you were to randomly start watching at any point you would still know about as much as someone who had been paying attention since the opening credit crawl. Skip it. If you’re really jonesing for a movie, go see “Captain Marvel,” save your money for “Us” or go find John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

Critic’s Rating: 3/10