‘The Lovebirds’ Review

Biggest Summer Box Office Flops Ever

Since 2020 will have an (at best) abridged summer movie season, and blockbusters typically go hand-in-hand with this time of year, I thought it would be fun to do a list of the biggest bombs in the history of Hollywood’s biggest season. For this list, I will be exposing the biggest money losers released between May and August (the typically-accepted “summer movie season”), and ranking them by how big of a financial bath they took after inflation is taken into account (although the original losses will be noted). There are even some films that lost over a hundred million dollars that weren’t even bad enough to make this list, such as: “Ben-Hur” ($121 million in 2016; $128 million after inflation), “Windtalkers” ($81 million in 2002; $115 million), “Evan Almighty” ($88 million in 2007; $109 million), “Battlefield Earth” ($73 million in 2000; $109 million), and “Fantastic Four” ($100 million in 2015; $108 million).

As with most box office bombs, these films failed because they were over-budgeted and just poor quality, but if you happen to like anything you see here then don’t get offended; I liked “Solo: A Star Wars Story” and that thing sunk like a stone to the tune of $76 million in losses. Each figure listed is the finances from its year of release, with the (inflation figure) also given. Let’s get into it.

10. Stealth (July 2005)

Budget: $135 million ($177 million)

Gross: $79 million ($103 million)

Losses: $96 million ($126 million)

9. Dark Phoenix (June 2019)

Budget: $200 million

Gross: $252 million

Losses: $133 million (N/A)

8. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (July 2001)

Budget: $137 million ($198 million)

Gross: $85 million ($123 million)

Losses: $94 million ($136 million)

7. The Adventures of Pluto Nash (August 2002)

Budget: $100 million ($142 million)

Gross: $7 million ($10 million)

Losses: $96 million ($136 million)

6. Titan A.E. (June 2000)

Budget: $75 million ($111 million)

Gross: $36 million ($53 million)

Losses: $100 million ($148 million)

5. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (May 2017)

Budget: $175 million ($183 million)

Gross: $148 million ($154 million)

Losses: $153 million ($160 million)

4. Tomorrowland (May 2015)

Budget: $190 million ($205 million)

Gross: $209 million ($226 million)

Losses: $150 million ($162 million)

3. Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (July 2003)

Budget: $60 million ($83 million)

Gross: $87 million ($121 million)

Losses: $125 million ($174 million)

2. The 13th Warrior (August 1999)

Budget: $160 million ($246 million)

Gross: $61 million ($93 million)

Losses: $129 million ($198 million)

1. The Lone Ranger (July 2013)

Budget: $250 million ($275 million)

Gross: $260 million ($286 million)

Losses: $190 million ($209 million)

Thanks for giving this a glance! I don’t know about you, but I miss sitting around in the sun reading about the summer box office, much less actually going to the theater. Hopefully “Tenet” and “Mulan” are here soon. Stay safe out there!

*all box office figures provided by Box Office Mojo

‘Scoob!’ Review (and everything I thought about while watching it)

OK so instead of a traditional review, I thought it would be for for me to keep track of everything I thought about while watching “Scoob!,” the new animated film from Warner Bros. based on the classic cartoon. There will be massive spoilers ahead, so only read this if you have seen the film or do not care about ruining the surprises (of which there are randomly many). Overall, long story short, I enjoyed the hell out of this film, both actually and ironically, and recommend it, especially for kids or fans of Scooby-Doo like myself. I’d give it a 7/10. Anyways, on with the post!

-this kids movie starts with “California Love”, an explicit song from gangster rappers Tupac and Dr. Dre

-kid bullies care about blood sugar and steal Shaggy and Scooby’s candy to… help them?

-this bad guy is hanging out in a closet in his own house dressed as a ghost in order to scare people on the off chance someone comes in?

-Simon Cowell is here

-oh god, Shaggy and Scooby are singing “Shallow” from “A Star Is Born” (keeping it in the Warner Bros. family, I see)

-Daphne says to Shaggy “wait, have you not been paying your taxes?” to which Scooby replies “I handle our books” (I laughed)

-“he’s not smart, he just sounds intelligent because he’s British” “good point, Shaggy” (I laughed again)

-I really don’t like Will Forte’s Shaggy voice

-Mark Wahlberg’s Blue Falcon character is introduced to “All I Do Is Win” by DJ Khaled and I. am. CACKLING.

-there’s a line about how Shaggy says “like” in every other sentence because that’s how middle aged writers think teenage hipsters talk. Meta or lazy, you decide

-the bad guy Dick Dastardly has a bunch of little tiny cute minions who only he can understand (yeah yeah, I have also seen “Despicable Me”)

-the bad guy’s plan is to get the three skulls of Cerberus aka Fluffy from Harry Potter

-seriously, why couldn’t they invite Matthew Lillard back to voice Shaggy?

-“stop right there you filthy animal! And your dog too!” (I laughed again)

-they just said “hashtag” out loud.

-this script was written by a kids YouTube algorithm

-Shaggy told Wahlberg to drop a meth bomb and Wahlberg goes “whoa whoa man, let’s keep it PG!” and I let out the UGLIEST cackle

-the bad guy said “I’m a Dick” cuz it’s his name

-“meters, Velma? I don’t even know what that means. What are we, in Europe?”

-there’s a hot California Highway Patrol officer. Reminds me how awful “CHIPS” was

-the bad guy was the hot officer in disguise and Fred is disappointed; nice reference to “Scooby-Doo 2”

-Wahlberg’s robot dog is being hacked by Velma and he says “stay out of my search history!”

-90% of this film’s budget went to the hair design

-as an ancestor of Alexander the Great’s dog, Scooby-Doo has a genetic ability to open the Gates of Hell

-Bad guy kidnaps Fred and goes “Poor man’s Hemsworth stays with me!” and Fred goes “no let go of me-wait, Chris or Liam?”

-they’re in the center of the earth Jurassic Park place from “Aquaman”

-Scooby got scared and tried to jump into Wahlberg’s arms to be caught like he does to Shaggy and Wahlberg just stood there. I wheezed.

-Tracy Morgan voices a caveman and it’s just the most obvious Tracy Morgan appearance ever

-scientifically accurate dinosaur poop

-someone shouted “toxic masculinity!” whileWahlberg and Fred were fighting, who is this movie for lmaoo

-Shaggy said “let’s get out of middle earth!” and Wahlberg said “copyright infringement”. This film is simultaneously meta and oblivious to itself.

-opening the Gates to Hell also rebuilds ancient Greece

-demon Fluffy is here

-Shaggy got locked in the underworld, big dramatic moment, blah blah, but Scooby just says “come home” to a statue of Alexander the Great and Shaggy comes back

-the bad guy Dick Dastardly was Simon Cowell in disguise all along

-oh just kidding, it was Dick Dastardly disguised as Simon Cowell disguised as Dick Dastardly

-Wahlberg is a DJ now

-Wahlberg’s female partner said she needs a raise; who is paying their superhero salaries?

-this film was written by four different people

-this film is so random, I loved it

‘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

‘Extraction’ Review

It is always refreshing when a movie is exactly the thing the trailer promises it will be.

“Extraction” is the latest vehicle for Chris Hemsworth to attempt and establish himself outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and follows a black ops mercenary who must rescue a drug lord’s kidnapped son from a rival dealer in Bangladesh. Rudhraksh Jaiswal, Pankaj Tripathi, Randeep Hooda, Golshifteh Farahani, Suraj Rikame and David Harbour also star. Career stuntman Sam Hargrave makes his directorial debut, as “Avengers” directors Joe and Anthony Russo produce.

While they long-ago perfected the television binge and seem to have a grasp on Oscar movies, Netflix has been trying to compete in the big-budget blockbuster game for a while now. Their first attempt back in 2017, “Bright” starring Will Smith, was a critical failure but a hit with the views. Other attempts, the overly expensive but solid adult actioneer “Triple Frontier” or the brainless “6 Underground” from Michael Bay, have also failed to make a lasting impression. “Extraction” may not stay on the mind for very long after watching it, but while you’re on the ride it provides several standout action sequences.

I have long been a fan of Chris Hemsworth, and really want him to find his niche outside playing Thor. He seems to be enjoying the character now that it was reinvented by (Oscar winner) Taika Waititi, but I have always thought he was at his best and most-natural as the supporting player in comedies, like the “Vacation” and “Ghostbuster” reboots. He has tried his hand at dramas and lighter action pieces before, but this is the first time I think he was able to really find something that worked for him. His character development is pretty thin, but Hemsworth is able to get one emotional scene in that he does a pretty good job with. But, for the most part, he is running around with a gun, and for the sake of the story he does a convincing job doing that.

Since this follows in the footsteps of “John Wick” and has a stuntman in the director’s chair, the action sequences here are all very well put together. For the most part the camera isn’t too close or shaky, allowing the audience to take in the fights and the actors to actually put on a convincing bout. There is a sequence in the middle of the film that includes several car chases, a shootout and a knife fight, and it is shot and is edited to look like one continuous eight-minute take. The individual moments in the scene are very impressive entertaining, but unlike a “Revenant” or “1917” the spots where they stitch the (at least four) separate shots together are a bit obvious, if not distracting. I love a one-take, but feel it must have some sort of purpose, not just to show off.

The script by Joe Russo is, fine. I don’t think he set out to write the next “Social Network” or anything, just need excuses to get characters from A to B. There are some awkward bits of dialogue (although also a couple entertaining quips), and the ending is, well, something. There is also a lot of violence and a comically high bodycount, and while I’m fine with that since this is, well, an action movie, I know some people have lines even with R-rated films, so just a heads up.

“Extraction” is certainly a take-it-or-leave-it movie, in a “you’re stuck at home right now anyways, so how picky can you really be about the things you watch?” way. The actors all do a solid job, and the gunplay and hand-to-hand combat sequences are well put together. Could it use a little more meat on its bones? Sure. But for being locked in my house and going on nearly two months without movie theaters, “Extraction” was a welcome mindless treat.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘The Invisible Man’ Review

Well, Blumhouse Productions saved the “Halloween” franchise when it appeared DOA, so guess they’re here to resuscitate the Universal monsters, too.

“The Invisible Man” is a modern telling of the classic H.G. Wells novel, as well as the 1933 film. The reboot stars Elisabeth Moss as a woman who escapes from an abusive relationship, only to begin to believe her former partner (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) has found a way to make himself invisible and is stalking her. Aldis Hodge, Storm Reid and Harriet Dyer also star, as Leigh Whannell writes and directs.

Blumhouse is a fascinating beast because for every stinker they put out like “Black Christmas” they’ll create a gem like “Get Out.” However, I’ve written before how I admire and appreciate Blumhouse, as in a world of films becoming products and studios obsessing over creating shared universes they offer filmmakers complete creative control over $5 million budgets. “The Invisible Man” originally was going to be rebooted with Johnny Depp in the title role as part of Universal’s planned “Dark Universe,” however after “The Mummy” was terrible and bombed, that rendition was scrapped. In stepped Blumhouse, who gave the job to Leigh Whannell, who was fresh off the fantastically fun “Upgrade.” And honestly, for Universal, “The Mummy” bombing was the best thing that could have ever happened to their monsters.

Elisabeth Moss has always been one of those actors you know will turn in a solid performance no matter what she’s in (she was one the bright spots of last summer’s perfectly fine “The Kitchen”). Here she plays a woman trying to recover from a broken and abused past, and she portrays the character in such a way that even though we have just been dropped into her word we feel as if we’ve been mistreated, too. Whether it is struggling to step outside simply to get the mail in fear her ex will somehow find her to feeling she is being watched in an empty house, Moss’ facial expressions speak volumes here, and it really is a solid performance that if released later in the year could’ve gotten darkhorse award chatter.

The script by Whannell is basic at some aspects (not too much of the dialogue pops) but in structure I thought it was great. The film opens with Moss’ escape from the abusive home, and from there we get a slowburn of her slow decent into (apparent) madness. Whannell allows the string to tighten before he snaps it, sometimes having his camera linger on a corner or have large spaces on the side of the frame to make our minds wonder if the Invisible Man is watching the characters or not. There are also a handful of great twists, even if some require some more explanation than the film wants to give us, including one that had the woman next to me cover her mouth and gasp. Whannell is quickly making a name for himself as a director to reckoned with, and just like Jordan Peele I can’t wait to see what he does next.

“The Invisible Man” may not be as thought-provoking as other Blumhouse pics like “Get Out” or even “BlacKkKlansman” but it does offer an insight to the struggles of abusive relationships, and how much control one person can have over another. But perhaps more importantly, it is a horror-thriller film that remembers to be unnerving and thrilling, as well as creative, and that is something that Hollywood seems to forget we like to see in our scary movies. The year wasn’t looking great for the genre early on (both “The Turning” and “The Grudge” earned F CinemaScores from audiences), but here is a film that we didn’t see coming to save the day (you didn’t think I’d go this entire review without an invisible pun, did you?). And with “Candyman,” “A Quiet Place: Part II” and the latest “Halloween” sequel on the horizon, the sun seems to be shining down on us horror fans once again.

Critic’s Rating: 8/10

‘Birds of Prey’ Review

When your film franchise continues to be “that one good one and everything else,” maybe it’s time to call it quits while you’re behind.

“Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” (the only time I will be typing that entire title) is the eighth installment of the DCEU and a spin-off to 2016’s “Suicide Squad.” Focusing on the titular Harley Quinn (played again by Margot Robbie), the film follows her as she goes on the run from a crime boss (Ewan McGregor) in search of a diamond stolen by a young pick-pocketer (Ella Jay Basco). Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ali Wong also star as Cathy Yan directs.

I have had a lukewarm-at-best reaction to the DC Extended Universe. I will defend “Batman v Superman” and think 90% of “Wonder Woman” is fantastic, but that’s about it. “Man of Steel” is a slog and “Aquaman,” “Suicide Squad” and “Justice League” are all ugly messes (“Shazam!” is fine, but the fact its climax lasts two hours is too much to bear). When “Birds of Prey” was announced I was mildly intrigued, mostly because it would be rated R and I am big fan of Black Mask, the villain that McGregor plays. I should have known this would just be another DCEU mess, and one that doesn’t even have big special effects or well-known heroes to distract us.

Margot Robbie’s rise to stardom was solidified in 2016 with her portrayal of Harley Quinn in “Suicide Squad,” and even those who did not much enjoy the film praised her performance. So naturally, just like with Rebel Wilson in the first “Pitch Perfect” or the Minions in “Despicable Me,” the studio saw a little side character that audiences enjoyed and thought it would be smart to give them their own two-hour movie. Robbie is so annoying and dumb in this film that it hurts. Her character is a former psychiatrist (meaning she went to school and has an MD) but she just speaks and makes decisions like trailer trash. I know that the character of Harley Quinn is that she became deranged and is unpredictable because the Joker brainwashed her, but you don’t lose IQ points when you give into your inhibitions (the script even has her ramble off a sentence full of big words at one point to demonstrate that she is in-fact still smart in an attempt to have its cake and eat it, too). Her voice is also very grating at points, mixing Robbie’s Bronx-ish accent with a high-pitched cartoon twist, so the fact she narrates the entire film gets old quick.

The rest of the cast is, fine, although I don’t think any of them have any sort of characteristics outside the one trait the film needs from them. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is Deadpan Assassin, Jurnee Smollett-Bell is Singing Fighter, Rosie Perez is a Cliché Cop; we get it. Ewan McGregor starts out fine as Black Mask, injecting some flamboyant life into his scenes, but then something switches and he becomes almost a completely different character from a separate film. He, too, really only has one characteristic (he’s the bad guy so he’s evil!) and has no real motivation. People knock the MCU for having cookie-cutter villains, but they also gave us Killmonger and Thanos, two bad guys who have plans the audience can relate to and see why they are doing what they do. Here, Black Mask (who wears his mask in just one scene, because god-forbid we cover the McGregor face for the trailers) wants a diamond to get rich and wants to kill Harley because… reasons.

The actions scenes are passable, there is one set piece in a police station where Harley rampages with a non-lethal grenade launcher that had me chuckle a few times. But the ending is just quick edits of punching masked disposable bad guys, and the stakes feel so low you just want to go home.

Also, and this is a personal complaint but I had the same issue with Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy: Gotham City has no distinctive (or consistent) feel. This film was shot around Los Angeles, while “Suicide Squad” was filmed in Canada and “Batman v. Superman” in Detroit (and, for what it’s worth, “Joker” in New York City). The color palette is bright and sunny, but the whole city feels like it’s just several blocks; the entire film essentially takes place in three locations.

I’ll quickly touch on the script, and if you haven’t guessed, I was not a fan. On top of thin characters and contradictory logic, the screenplay is just lazy. The film is rated-R but that is barely for the violence; it’s more because this is one of those movies that acts like a 13 year old who just discovered the f-word and awkwardly shoves it into every sentence it can (a grown man and professional business owner shouting “what the f*ckety-f*ck?!” is amusing maybe once, but then just looks foolish). Also, every single male character in the film is either a jerk, a rapist or an idiot, and pretty much every woman is a saint (despite Harley self-proclaiming herself as “a pretty terrible person”). This isn’t even me being a triggered straight white male, as I’m sure Twitter will label anyone who doesn’t like this film. We criticize Michael Bay for having exclusively one-dimensional female characters in his films, or Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan for having them only serve the plot, so I’m calling out the sheer laziness and one-sided nature of this film.

“Birds of Prey” is not a female-empowerment film like “Wonder Woman” or even simply a fun female-led one like “Captain Marvel.” It is an ugly-looking, thinly-written and overly-acted mess that offers only the occasional chuckle or moment of intrigue. Margot Robbie tries, and this was surely a passion project for her, but it is just nowhere near good enough. I continue to think the DCEU peaked in 2017 with “Wonder Woman” (let’s hope that sequel lives up to the hype) and Warner Bros. needs to go back to the drawing board. Say what you want about Zack Snyder’s Superman quasi-trilogy, at least those films had ambition and weight, and tried to be something different in the superhero genre. Here, we are left with a wannabe “Deadpool” dressed in “Suicide Squad” clothing, and it fails to clear even the basement-level bar set by its predecessors.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’ Review

Remember in 2015 when we were all excited about where a new Star Wars film by Disney could go? Oh, that was fun…

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” is the third film of the sequel trilogy and the ninth and final installment of the main Star Wars saga. J.J. Abrams, who directed and co-wrote “The Force Awakens,” returns to both jobs here, while Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac reprise their roles from the first two installments of the trilogy. Among other returning players are Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Domhnall Gleeson, Lupita Nyong’o, Kelly Marie Tran, Ian McDiarmid and Billy Dee Williams, while Richard E. Grant and Keri Russell join the cast. In the film, the remainder of the Resistance as they prepare for the final face-off against the First Order and the return of Emperor Palpatine.

Overall I have enjoyed Disney’s Star Wars films, with “Rogue One” being one of the best films in the franchise to-date and “The Force Awakens” and “Solo” both being fun, if not familiar romps. I was mixed on “The Last Jedi” and have watched it at least three times in an attempt to see the universal praise that it received from people, but can’t fully get past all its plot holes and cringe moments (however it is hard to fault its ambition and better scenes). “The Rise of Skywalker” is more of the same from “The Last Jedi” in that it has a few good moments but also trips over itself too often for its own good.

One of the reliable things throughout this entire series (and there hasn’t been much consistency) has been the acting and again the cast does a solid job. Adam Driver (likely on his way to his second career Oscar nomination for his great work in “Marriage Story”) is a solid, emotionally conflicted villain as Kylo Ren, even if at this point it is hard to take him seriously as a super powerful bad guy after he lost to Daisy Ridley’s Rey on multiple occasions. Speaking of Ridley, she again conveys a lost girl desperate for answers, although she remains so overpowered that her arc isn’t so much of an arc as a continuously increasing line. John Boyega and Oscar Isaac share some amusing bromance moments and it’s also nice to see Billy Dee Williams return to his iconic Lando Calrissian.

Much like this year’s “Avengers: Endgame,” this film is the culmination of years of story-telling and world-building. However while that film worked its fan service into the plot (pretty much) seamlessly, “Skywalker” is a little more on-the-nose. Some of the appearances and Easter egg references are fun, others range from eye-rolling to cringe.

One of the complaints people had about “The Last Jedi” was that Kathleen Kennedy (the president of Lucasfilm and producer on the trilogy) gave Rian Johnson complete creative control of the sequel and he chose to throw out or ignore so much of what J.J. Abrams set up with “The Force Awakens.” With Abrams returning, he not only had to close out a trilogy and 42 years of a saga, but had to win back fans who felt betrayed by “The Last Jedi.” Abrams attempts to retcon much of the previous film but it only ends up making the whole thing feel disjointed. Palpatine is back despite appearing to die in “Return of the Jedi” and the way they introduce him into this trilogy is so forced it’s hilarious, just because they killed off Snoke unceremoniously. The introduction of Richard E. Grant’s bad guy general is because Domhnall Gleason’s character was made into a whiny cartoon and could no longer be taken seriously. And this isn’t bringing up the numerous bits of dialogue where the characters all but turn and wink to the camera about how they didn’t like the last film.

The first act of the film is full of a bit of exposition and forced catch-up (including that Palpatine intro) but the second act actually moves along at a quick pace and is quite enjoyable. The script by Chris Terrio and Abrams has some entertaining bits of dialogue (especially from the droid characters) and even though the plot is just hopping from place to place, it is fun. But the third act then hits a wall, mainly because it turns into a nonsensical CGI destruction festival that would have made George Lucas’ prequel films blush. It just keeps going and gets stupider and stupider before ending on a line that actually made the woman next to me laugh and shake her head.

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” may give enough fan service for diehards, but it will upset people who loved “The Last Jedi” because it doesn’t take many risks and turn off casual Star Wars fans because it’s an objectively sloppy film that doesn’t answer half the questions set up in 2015. I remember walking out of “The Force Awakens” thinking that it had flaws but it had laid the groundwork for the best Star Wars trilogy to-date; little did I know that we had already peaked. Overall, I would lean more negatively than positive here because the final 40 minutes are a mess, but there are enough entertaining character interactions and “that was cool” visuals to make your obligatory viewing of this anticlimactic final chapter worth at least some of your dollars.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Knives Out’ Review

Put “I read a tweet about a New Yorker article about you” on my gravestone and let me die a happy man.

“Knives Out” is a whodunit mystery that follows a dysfunctional family that comes together following the suicide, or possible murder, of their rich patriarchal father. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the film features an ensemble cast, including Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield, Katherine Langford, Jaeden Martell, and Christopher Plummer.

If you don’t know Rian Johnson’s name you surely are familiar with his work as the man who made Bruce Willis fight a younger version of himself (in the form of Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in “Looper” annnnnnd the guy who split the Star Wars fanbase in half with “The Last Jedi.” Some looked forward to his saga follow-up with great anticipation, others like myself with mostly indifference, which is par-for-the-course for Johnson, who has openly admitted he sets out to have his films cherished by half the audience and loathed by the other (a feat he certainly accomplished with “The Last Jedi”). Somehow, I don’t think “Knives Out” will have a rapturous divide among those who see it, as it is an overall enjoyable ride with enough quirky characters and humorous moments to offset some suspect writing.

When you get a cast this big, it is inevitable that some of them will be nothing more than extended cameos, but each actor gets a moment to shine. Daniel Craig talks like Colonel Sanders; Toni Callette is a tanning bed Barbie doll straight out of Buzzfeed; Katherine Langford vapes; Chris Evans wears incredible sweaters; each has a distinct moment that makes their characters feel real, if not at least entertaining.

Rian Johnson’s strengths lie mostly with his direction and not his writing (more on that in a second). From a director standpoint, this is a very solid job by Johnson, as he not only keeps the pace moving for most of the film (although at 130 minutes it could’ve used a final fat trimming) and gets fine performances out of his actors. The way Johnson plays with camera angles and moves it around puts us into the frame of minds of the characters, and with Bob Ducsay’s quick editing some scenes truly crackle.

However where Johnson sometimes stumbles are his scripts. Whether it is entirely unnecessary subplots or so many characters that motivations get muddled (problems that are prevalent here and in his previous works), Johnson seems to think his writing is smarter than it actually is. Having any word he types cut out would be a sin, and as we’ve seen with the likes of Quintin Tarantino and Judd Apatow, this can be killer for writer-director’s films.

The film features a few fun twists but I couldn’t help but feel the actual big reveal lost some of its impact because of events that had transpired earlier. I won’t go into spoilers, but I think the film took so many twists and turns that eventually they stopped being twists and had just turned back to a familiar direction.

“Knives Out” is the type of movie that “they just don’t make anymore” (whatever that old and clichéd expression means to you) and for most of the runtime I was really enjoying myself. Toni Callette delivers a handful of wonderfully stupid lines and Chris Evans begins his post-Marvel career with a [bleep]-eating grin, and although the landing could have been stronger, I think this is a mystery worth investigating.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Review

And so the “sequel that acts as a soft reboot” trend continues.

“Charlie’s Angels” is the latest installment in the titular spy franchise which began with the 1970s TV series followed by the two films in the early 2000s. This rendition stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska as the three new Angels, alongside Elizabeth Banks, Djimon Hounson, Sam Claflin, Noah Centineo and Patrick Stewart. Banks also directs and wrote the screenplay.

This is one of those films, one of those reviews, where it is just a light watch and there’s nothing wrong with that. The three main Angels, Stewart, Scott and Balinska, all have a nice energy about them, and Stewart, returning to studio tentpoles after a stint in the indie world, continues to show that she is capable of succeeding in any genre. Not all of her jokes land, and sometimes Banks’ script has her make these bad quips at the wrong time or on the wrong beat, but Stewart seems to be having a ball and manages to produce a few solid chuckles with her animated movement.

The action sequences are a bit of a mixed bag, as some of them are fun and seem like they were choreographed well, however the editing is so quick (like a cut a second) and the camera is held so close to the actors that it is hard to tell what is going on. I don’t get why movies do this, like why rehearse a fight scene if it’s just going to come across as random chaos, but that’s been a problem for a while so can’t expect this to be the last time we see it.

The plot is, serviceable. It is your classic “we have to find out who is trying to buy this new weapon before it’s too late” storyline, and the few twists that do come into play are pretty predictable. As I touched on with Stewart, Elizabeth Banks’ script (and she also produced, so all flaws on this project truly fall on her shoulders) feels lazy at times, many of the jokes are obvious or dialogue full of exposition (at one point a character explains a plot point we just learned to another, just to ensure the audience caught it).

“Charlie’s Angels” is perfectly sufficient entertainment, although the action is scattershot and the humor only lands every now and again. Based on the reactions from my audience I’m guessing there are Easter eggs sprinkled in for fans of the previous installments, and if you thought the trailers looked fun then I’m sure you’ll get exactly what you want out of this.