Sam Raimi hasn't directed a horror movie since 2009's Drag Me to Hell, and while Send Help isn't strictly horror, it definitely dips its toe into the genre more than once. Call it perhaps, Drag Me to Paradise.
Rachel McAdams stars as Linda Liddle, a smart and eager, but also frequently off-putting, analyst at a consulting firm. She's been promised a promotion, but when the head of the company (Bruce Campbell, in a painted portrait cameo) dies, his smarmy and overly confident son Bradley (Dylan O'Brien) takes over, and he does not take to Linda, denying her that promotion. But when they end up the sole survivors of a plane crash, deserted on an island together, roles are reversed, and Linda proves all the studying she's done with hopes of getting cast on a season of Survivor has finally paid off.
Casting McAdams in an "ugly girl" role probably seems like it would require the usual bit of Hollywood disbelief, but I don't think Linda is supposed to be ugly, per se. It's more that she's clueless when it comes to matters of fashion and hygiene, and has a problem with personal space. You can understand why people might find her annoying, but you still sympathize with her because her coworkers and boss are such assholes.
But the tides turn, and that's where I had a bit of a problem. There's no doubt Bradley is a total tool and remains one even when it's obvious he needs Linda to survive. But Linda ends up doing some really terrible things, so it becomes a story about two horrible people battling for survival, and I found it hard to root for anyone.
But I have a feeling that may just be a me problem, and most will be comfortably Team Linda the entire time. And all that aside, I still enjoyed seeing Sam Raimi getting back to some of his fun old tricks, with the kinds of comedic gore and jump scares he's a master of.
The 28 Years franchise has never been my favorite horror franchise, mainly because zombies - or whatever we want to call the victims of the "rage" virus here - aren't my favorite kind of monster; they're pretty boring! And gross! So that means zombie movies need to lean heavily on the personalities of those fighting the zombies, a little more so than in other horror genres.
I liked last year's 28 Years Later more than 28 Weeks Later, though probably not as much as 28 Days Later. I just had so many questions! After 28 years, where are all the raging zombies on the quarantined isle of England coming from? Do they age? If they can give birth, do the babies turn into zombies? Why would the rest of the world not provide those survivors on the uninfected islands with more goods and services? Where did the doctor get all that iodine? And how'd he get those bone temples so tall?
I suppose thinking about such things is the definition of overthinking it, but if I found the rest of the movie more engaging I don't think my mind would have wandered so much. So, I wasn't particularly excited to learn a sequel would be coming out - and not even a year later.
Picking up immediately where the 28 Years Later left us, Spike (Alfie Williams) has been captured by Jimmy Savile looking gang of blonde-wigged, tracksuit-wearing hooligans, led by Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell, seen last year as the lead vampire in Sinners). They are looking to include Spike in the gang, if he survives their initiation. Spike soon learns it's not a gang anyone in their sound mind would want to join, as Jimmy Crystal is, in a nutshell, a sadistic Satanist, and his gang is there to carry out his torturous requests.
Meanwhile, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), continues his solitary existence, building his temple of bones, and reminiscing in his bunker filled with old photos and Duran Duran records. But he is also experimenting on the "alpha" zombie he's dubbed Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry), and he thinks he may have found a cure for the virus, or if not a cure, at least a kind of "treatment," that may calm the rage that drives the afflicted. That Jimmy Crystal and Dr. Kelson will meet is inevitable, and that meeting is a glorious heavy metal fueled spectacle of fire and brimstone.
Director Nia DaCosta has had an eclectic career, split between big budget genre films (Candyman; The Marvels) and low budget dramas (Little Woods; Hedda). The Bone Temple is equal parts horrifying - some of the violence is so brutal, it almost derails the movies - and beautiful. Costa attempts to mimic Danny Boyle's kinetic filmmaking style near the beginning of the film does not work - it was so jerky and ugly that I feared the whole movie may become unwatchable. Thankfully, that doesn't last long, and DaCosta calms down enough to capture some gorgeous imagery. Alex Garland's screenplay ventures into some surprising territory for the franchise, and the ending provides some definite fan service.
Danny Boyle is set to direct the third entry in this trilogy, but I have to admit, after seeing The Bone Temple, I'd welcome more of Nia DaCosta's vision.
I don't think Amanda Seyfried gets the respect she deserves. She's one of the best actresses working right now, and if there was any doubt about that, they should be dispelled this month. She gives a truly riveting performances in The Testament of Ann Lee, which is also one of the most memorable movies of the year (it opens next week). And this week, she is easily the most entertaining thing in the unabashedly trashy and fun The Housemaid.
The film also stars Sydney Sweeney, and while I don't tend to agree with those who consider her a terrible actress (she was great in HBO's The White Lotus and Euphoria), when paired with Seyfried, her limitations are amplified. Seyfried plays Nina, a rich housewife who hires Millie (Sweeney) to be a live-in maid. Millie has some secrets, and soon, Millie learns Nina has some secrets of her own, as Nina soon demonstrates she may not have a complete grip on reality, something her husband (Brandon Sklenar) and daughter (Indiana Elle) do their best to handle. And it's in the scenes where we see Nina's sanity fracture that Seyfried really shines.
One doesn't normally expect a performance as good as Seyfried's in a film that, while fun, has all the earmarks of something that would normally go straight to streaming. (Paul Feig also directed the similar A Simple Favor, and if you liked that one, you'll probably like this one too.)
A movie like this is no fun if you know what's coming, so I won't say any more about the plot. But it does make me wonder if anyone who has read the (apparently wildly popular) book this was based on will get as much enjoyment from it as those coming in cold.
I haven't seen Ella McCay, the new movie from James L. Brooks, but reviews and word of mouth have not been good, to put it mildly. Meanwhile, Bradley Cooper's new movie Is This Thing On? feels like the kind of movie James L. Brooks would make, thus making it a better James L. Brooks movie than the actual James L. Brooks movie that's out right now.
And to be fair, it's closer to something like Spanglish than Broadcast News in terms of quality. Will Arnett and Laura Dern are Alex and Tess Novak, a couple on the verge of divorce. While living apart, Alex, almost on accident, performs some stand-up during an open mic night and finds a new passion in comedy. Meanwhile Tess, a former volleyball team Olympian, decides to get back into the game via coaching.
Is This Thing On? is a lot smaller than Cooper's previous directorial efforts, but as in A Star Is Born and Maestro, the story is focused on a relationship, and how the pursuits of individual passions affect those relationships. Will Arnett and Laura Dern both give solid performances, even if Arnett's stand-up routines are a little...rough. And I can't say I'm wild about Cooper's use of extreme close-ups throughout; I'm not sure I really need to see anyone's face that close for that long, especially in a theater. James L. Brooks would never.
It seems like an odd time of year to release a movie like Roofman. We're in the middle of spooky season, and getting towards the end of the year, when all the real Oscar hopefuls tend to get their theatrical runs. Roofman fits into neither of those categories. Instead, it's a pleasant enough romantic crime comedy, the kind that makes you smile more than it makes you laugh.
Based on a true story, Channing Tatum stars as Jeffrey Manchester, a serial thief who breaks into a series of McDonald's restaurants by chopping holes in their roofs, locking the staff in the cooler - though not before making sure they all have their coats on - and stealing from the safe. He is ostensibly doing this to support his wife and three kids, but once he's arrested and jailed, they break ties with him. Upon escaping from prison, he hides out in a Toys R Us, and eventually develops a romantic relationship with Leigh (Kirsten Dunst), an employee who has no idea who he really is.
Channing Tatum is quite good as Manchester, able to meet both the emotional and physical aspects of the part - he's a guy living in a toy store, so of course there are scenes of him kicking balls around, crawling around to remain undetected, and bashing Tickle Me Elmos in rage. But he also has to garner audience sympathy since he is ultimately a guy who, in the course of multiple armed robberies, threatened the lives dozens of people, even if his goal every time was to avoid any physical harm.
Dunst plays well against him as a single mom charmed by this mysterious stranger. And thankfully, she never comes off as naive or desperate for believing everything he tells her about his life. She's just a good person who chooses to believe in the good in others. The last third or so of the film takes place during Christmas, which is really when it should have been released. I can easily see this becoming one of those unoffensive cinematic diversions you put on during the holidays when trying to find something the entire family can enjoy.
The documentary John Candy: I Like Me, now streaming on Prime Video, looks at the life and career of the comedic actor probably best know for his roles in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, though I first became familiar with him as a kid watching syndicated re-runs of SCTV. And I will never forget seeing the opening of the sketch below for the first time; it cracks me up to this day.
I bring this up because it's somewhat unfathomable to me that there may be people out there who are not familiar with John Candy or his career, and I suppose one goal of this doc is to rectify that a bit. Which is why I was a little disappointed that there weren't more extended clips from his TV and movie work illustrating just how hilarious he was.
The bulk of the documentary features interviews with his children, his widow, and those who worked with him, and they all paint him as a very kind and lovable man. (Bill Murray opens the film trying to think of one bad thing to say about Candy, and comes up short.) But he was also a man who faced terrible trauma as a child - his father died at the age 35 from a heart attack, ON Candy's fifth birthday - and it's clear he never fully came to terms with that.
There are also plenty of clips from TV interviews, the bulk of which feature interviewers commenting on Candy's size and weight, and those are pretty brutal to watch. Director Colin Hanks also chooses to open the film with Candy's death and funeral in 1994, then bounces back in time to his youth, while using a kind of countdown clock that ticks off the years, which just creates a sense of dread as those years get closer to 1994. It's a weird and off-putting gimmick. As a tribute to John Candy, the doc is fine. But as an in depth look into what made him special, it's lacking.
In other words, Coyotes is like a lot of scary movies that have come before, but it doesn't bring much new to the table, aside from...coyotes. And obviously CG and AI coyotes at that.
Real life couple Justin Long and Kate Bosworth star as a parents living in the Hollywood hills with their teenager daughter (Mila Harris). When a storm knocks out power and sparks wild fires, the family find themselves surrounded by a pack of angry coyotes, and must try and find a way out.
Long's character is a comic book artist, which explains the comic book panel introductions of the film's characters, which also include a drugged out neighbor (Norbert Leo Butz) and his paid companion (Brittany Allen). The movie could use more of the comic book feel, since it would help play up that this movie is essentially a horror comedy.
Justin Long is playing the same type of character he usually plays, most recently in various horror movies, and it's a character I do tend to enjoy. And I do here. But it's not enough to hold up a movie with such a predictable story. I also wonder if whoever cut the trailer had anything to do with the final cut of the movie. I suspect not, because the trailer has better comedic timing than the film itself. Might want to just give that trailer a watch and maybe save the movie for streaming.
