Category Archives: Movie Review

SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE movie review

Posted on by
3

Oh, what a tangled web [they] weave…with this cacophony of story threads. The highly anticipated sequel to the Best Animated Feature Oscar-winning Into the Spider-verse opens this week, but unfortunately, it suffers from a bad case of sequelitis brought on by a gluttonous consumption of excess. Spider-man: Across the Spider-verse works in title only–and all too well, as it were. The title says it all, and that is precisely what audiences get in this comic philhar-tragic symphony in the key of overindulgence.

After reuniting with Gwen Stacy, Brooklyn’s full-time, friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is catapulted across the Multiverse, where he encounters a team of Spider-People charged with protecting its very existence. However, when the heroes clash on how to handle a new threat, Miles finds himself pitted against the other Spiders. He must soon redefine what it means to be a hero so he can save the people he loves most.

Across the Spider-verse is what happens when a story idea doesn’t pass the elevator pitch litmus test (wherein an idea can be explained sufficiently enough in three-minutes or less). Quite simply, there is such a proliferation of story webs that there is virtually no plot–there is certainly no resolution before the (and this isn’t a spoiler) cliffhanger ending. Story webs lead into story webs that leads into even more story webs. Suffice it to say, it’s as if writers and producers took every incarnation of Spider-man comic series, threw them into a blender, and served the concoction o audiences. Unless you are read up on decades of Spider-man comics, you will be hard-pressed to follow any storyline. Perhaps the better expression of a collision of Spider-verses would have been in a television series that could have explored a different thread of comics each season.

Clearly, Sony took the extremely positive reception of the first one, focussed on recurring praises, and amplified those to the nth degree. Never mind that more than the visual expression of the story, plotting is crucial to structure, pacing, and coherency. The animators and artists are showcasing brilliance in animated filmmaking, but the clear evidence of screenwriting is nowhere to be found. Without a well-defined central character, a well-defined external goal, and a well-defined character of opposition between the central character and the goal, there is no plot–merely a sequence of loosely connected scenes or fragments of ideas. A fever dream, if you will.

While Across the Spider-verse suffers narratively, it certainly excels in the art of animation. The stylistic animation and editing is outstanding! Much like with the first movie, this one takes the emotive detail found in a single frame of a comic book (or graphic novel) and combines that approach with hand-drawn inspired motion picture animation. There are certainly problems with the story (or stories, as it were), but Sony Pictures Animation has demonstrably shown commitment to the boundless imagination and capabilities of animation. Across the Spider-verse, in how it is expressed in this movie, can only happen within the world of animation. In no way could this movie be expressed in a live-action way. Perhaps the writers were asleep at the wheel, but the animators gave each universe of Spider-man characters its own color palate and animation style.

Make sure to watch Across the Spider-verse in a premium format at your cinema, because the strength in this animated movie has little to do with the story as much as it does the stylistic animation. When a film, animated or live action, strikes a balance between style and substance, it can be enjoyed on the big or small screen without detracting from the storytelling; but when the movie struggles narratively but excels in form, then experiencing it on the big screen is the best approach.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

THE BOOGEYMAN (2023) horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

By Kurt Feigelis

Neither fun nor scary enough. This adaptation of Stephen King’s The Boogeyman takes a short story and builds just enough tension that struggles to justify a 90 minute run time. Beautiful cinematography and wonderful performances, particularly by Vivien Lyra Blair and Sophie Thatcer. But in the end, the film leaves you wanting and waiting for just once more scare. 

After the death of his wife, psychiatrist Will Harper (Chris Messina) struggles with his loss and the responsibility of being a single father. Daughters Sadie Harper (Sophie Thatcher) and Sawyer Harper (Vivien Lyra Harper) are left to care and raise each other while their father continues to work and see patients. The same day the daughters return to school after the death of their mother Lester Billings appears on Dr. Harpers’s door step seeking help. He tells the story of the death of his three children and how he believes “something” is responsible, he calls it “the Boogeyman.” Believing this man is unstable, Dr. Harper removes himself to call the police. We soon find Lester wondering the house where the Boogeyman has found him and now attaches himself to a new family. Now it is up to the daughters to fight for survival and try to convince everyone else that the Boogeyman is real. 

Over all, this movie is successful. With writers Scott Beck, Bryan Woods, and Mark Heyman, these guys know scary and can write a scare scene. They know how to build a story with interesting characters. But the inconsistencies come from Director Rob Savage. The movie is a more about waiting for the Boogeyman to appear, or wait for the characters to start talking about the monster they don’t know anything about yet. The parts in between don’t progress the story enough. 

The mythology of the Boogeyman comes in to question when you start to think about the movie as a whole. It is said the Boogeyman attacks when the parents aren’t paying attention to their children, but this mythology doesn’t stick true to the story. The father is closer to the younger daughter (Sawyer), who sleeps with multiple lights on, and is constantly overlooking the eldest daughter (Sadie) and even walks away from her when she says “I’m trying to talk to you.” But the Boogeyman goes after Sawyer first, despite not being able to be in the light, and her sleeping with multiple lights on. But the Boogeyman also attacks adults when they are alone as well. 

Granted the mystery of the Boogeyman is what would make him scary, and I don’t need all of the answers, but consistency is the story is what makes you feel satisfied. If the Boogeyman has been around for hundreds or thousands of years, why is the first time we heard of him. Where are the stories around the school yard, late at night during sleepovers? Where are the questionable videos online with today’s technology that all children have.  

Further inconstancies with the father come into question, early on we seem him taking pills leading us to believe he is struggling with the loss of his wife, but this never comes back. He isn’t there for his children, then he is, then he isn’t. He is there for one, not the other, then vise versa, then not there for either. Either he is trying to be a good single father or he isn’t. It feels as if there needed to be one more pass on the screen play, or too much was cut in editing to keep the film at 98 minutes.

In the end the movie is about the Boogeyman, and that is where this movie shines. There is true mystery behind this (possibly ancient) monster. The build up to his reveal is a fun and enjoyable ride, and the movie is worth seeing for that alone. But I sat there at the end thinking about the movie waiting for one more scene, one more scare, or a hint of character development or progress for the family we just sat with for 98 mins. 3.5 stars/ 5. Wait 45 for streaming.

This review is from contributor Kurt Feigelis.

THE LITTLE MERMAID (2023) movie review

Posted on by
Reply

written by Dr. Leo Genco

Some treasures are best left under the sea. This familiar Disney formula is only good for one thing: lining the coffers. The Little Mermaid has wonderful, bright, appealing visuals with a few new decent songs, that prove Disney is unable to capture the magic of their 2D animated films. This is unfortunate, because under the sea of this movie is the potential for a great innovative rendition of The Little Mermaid. Why? Well, Disney attempted to provide a newer telling of the original while pandering to the original material. This creates a dichotomy of moral themes in the movie, and it shows. There is a lot to unpack. If you want to skip to what the movie does right, you can skip to the end.

Let’s get the most obvious issues out the way, since they were consistently topics of discussion prior to the film’s release: race, ethnicity, and gender swapping of characters. These changes are typically common to improve diversity, and it can be done. You can look at Nick Fury in the Marvel Comics, or John Stewart as the Green Lantern in the DC Comics. One of the best race change movies is the Preacher’s Wife. The issue with the change here is how the director and writers tried to justify the change. Instead of changing the race of a whole group to maintain consistency, only individuals are changed and are rationalized through a simple bit of dialogue exhibition. Most of the human characters are an eclectic group of non-white ethnicities and races but Prince Eric is still white! The story justifies these differences by changing the location of the kingdom and having the queen adopt Eric into the family. The kingdom is not a port for the mainland but on an island, somewhere in the Americas, and this causes massive changes in the story. The whole scene with the chef and Sebastian was removed. Someone will wonder if the scene was cut because the chef was French. The essence of the original was stripped to justify the demographic changes, which would not be a problem if the movie did not pander to the original material.

The singing varies between songs and actors. The cast of a mix between stage and film actors would do that, but the main problem is how the songs were constructed. For some reason, the director added more characters into the script, but they did not contribute to the songs at all. It is very common in musicals to have the background and side characters sing the chorus and harmony for the lead singer. But this is not true for The Little Mermaid. People are expecting a chorus for Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl. This is not coming from a nostalgia perspective of the original songs. Under the Sea is a song about the sea living as a musical band of species. The dialogue before Kiss the Girl called for the various sounds of nature. For both songs we are expecting a strong sound, especially when the chorus hits. Sadly, both songs are reduced to two or three singers max and are sung as a solo piece for the majority. Overall, songs match the deaf tone of the movie.

While the animation of the under the sea creatures on par with the Lion King (take that as you will), I am not talking about the animals but the human actors who had little to not animated faces throughout their dialogue. Only three characters were animated, Queen Selina, Grimsby, and Ursula. When I say animated, I mean that their facial expression, voice, and body language spoke. Everyone seemed stiff, which is weird because Halle Bailey is a stage actor. You would think Ariel would have the most body expression because she can’t talk for half the movie. Ariel needs to be animated the most. Arial did not seem to be a curious, explorative person, but a blank manikin until a scene which required an over-the-top reaction. Luckily, this was not consistent throughout the movie. As I will mention later, the acting in the new scenes was great.

For some movie goers, background context to main characters is essential. I, on the other hand, prefer context to characters that is required to understand the journey of the main character. This means, that background context should progress information for the main character, not for the audience. The early introduction to multiple character’s background hurt the movie in two ways: (1) these small scenes for a backstory break up the pacing of the storytelling, creating jarring transitions between scenes, and (2) too many themes or messages were introduced into the film too fast. When you introduce a backstory, you need to follow through and close that story, and when you give too much information at once, people tend to forget or care about the small stories. On top of that, the movie told Ursula’s backstory but did not provide a satisfying delivery of her end. Overall, the introduction of the characters with backstory was not the best way to start the movie.

Two things carried the movie for me, the new scenes and songs and the queen and Grimsby. Adding new scenes and songs felt real. The acting in the scenes felt genuine, minus the random dancing scene halfway through the movie. These scenes had fresh magic Disney needed, but again, the director pandered to the original movie, and this created a lot of disconnect. The problem when recreating 2D animation as a real-life movie is the expression that comes from drawn imagery. This is why the drawings of human movement are different from how humans move. It allows the animator to create expressions you are physically unable to express but want to. The new scenes of the movie did not have a previous expectation of certain expressions. I believe this element allowed the actors more freedom to act.

God bless queen! Out of all the characters, the two actors who were able to pull it off throughout the whole movie was the queen and her trusty councilman, Grimsby. They were amazing. They had facial and body expressions. I had chills when the queen was on screen. Grimsby was played perfectly and became that comedy relief when the gender swapped bird, Scuttle, failed. I loved these characters, and I enjoyed every minute of screen time with them. While I would put Ursula in this category, her character was written incorrectly. While she was played very well, her lines were the least to be desired. She was written more as a grown woman who throws temper tantrums like a child than the cunning slimy sea witch, she was in the original 1991 movie. So, the queen and Grimsby saved the movie, at least for me.

Dr. Genco is a guest contributor and fellow university colleague. Follow him on Instagram at Leo.Genco.

40 YEARS OF FLASHDANCE…What a Feeling! a retrospective review

Posted on by
1

What a feeling! Grab your leg warmers and can of Aqua Net as we hit the dance floor to celebrate the cultural phenomenon that was and still is Flashdance.

The Oscar (and Grammy) winning dance movie Flashdance turns 40 this year on April 15th. Can you believe it’s been four decades since the iconic movie defined the music, dance, and fashion of the 1980s??? Forty years of electrifying music and dance that dazzles the senses. Winning the late Irene Cara and legendary composer Giorgio Moroder the Best Original Song Oscar and Grammy for Flashdance…What a Feeling! (Moroder was also nominated in the same year for his Scarface score) and earning Michael Sembello an Oscar nomination for Maniac, the titular 80s movie Flashdance remains an icon of music and dance that has transcended the decades and continues to be emulated in other media today. This is not a movie to be taken seriously; it’s a movie to be felt and experienced. And to its credit, it has remained popular. Take your passion and make it happen!

In case you are new to planet earth, Flashdance tells the story of Alex Owens (Jennifer Beals), a beautiful young woman who works a day job in a steel mill in Pittsburgh and dances in a bar at night. When Alex discovers that her handsome boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), is both interested in her and supportive of her performing career, she renews her efforts to get accepted into a prestigious dance conservatory. Although Alex is frightened of failure, she is cheered on by Nick, as well as by her mentor, former ballet performer Hanna Long (Lilia Skala).

More than a cultural smash hit, it was a tremendous success at the box offie too, because Flashdance is the third highest grossing film of 1983 behind Return of the Jedi and Terms of Endearment. In retrospect, this movie is veritably responsible for reviving the modern movie musical with its sexy complex dance sequences, bold fashion, and use of popular music.

Not many films can be recognized by a single shot, this is expressly true with those that may not have even seen the film, but Flashdance is instantly recognized by Beals’ silhouette leaning back on the chair with water dousing her. That cinematic moment has been parodied and paid tribute to in dozens of movies and TV shows from Elvira: Mistress of the Dark to Family Guy and even Deadpool 2. From Beals’ off-the-shoulder grey sweatshirt in the famous bra-removal scene to her knee-high leg warmers, bikini bottoms, and taut physique, many scenes in this movie will forever be engrained in our minds. It’s remarkable how this cheesy, low-budget dance film influenced the culture of an entire decade and continues to reassert itself in popular culture to this day. The incomparable footprint left by this movie can be felt everywhere.

It’s funny, whenever critics and fans talk about Flashdance, it’s almost never about the plot. Is there anything inordinately wrong with the plot–no–but there is nothing particularly remarkable or subversive about it either. It’s a simple variation of the rags to riches story or simply realizing a dream despite obstacles. At the intersection of performance art and motion pictures is where this movie lies, and lies there incredibly comfortably and confidently.

Flashdance is a movie which uses a paper-thin plot to connect sequences of montages and dance numbers, one right after the other–yet–somehow audiences, for forty years, are raptured by the music and dance. I cannot think of another movie that defied the odds of success and became a legitimate classic in the way Flashdance did.

It’s as if Bruckheimer and Adrian Lyne studied the elements of what makes a movie successful in the box office (and in popular culture), and then took those basic elements and loosely connected them together. Catchy music, bold fashion, sexy or provocative dances, mild/brief nudity, and relatable characters, these are the elements that Bruckheimer and Lyne put together in order to create movie magic and fantastic success. Then cap it all off with pure, unfiltered triumph in front of those that once looked down upon, and were skeptical of the central character.

Never once do you buy that Alex is a welder; furthermore, in retrospect, it’s clear that there are multiple people serving as the dancing Alex (which is something that is film is widely known and yet rocks it!). But it doesn’t matter. Why? Because it’s nearly impossible to watch this movie and not get drawn into its glitzy fantasy! But while we are on the topic of the Alex’ dancing in the film, I feel it’s important to highlight the talent that brought the exotic dancing to life! Working as Beals’ dancing body-doubles were accomplished dancers Marine Jahan, Sharon Shapiro, and breakdancer Richard “Crazy Legs” Colón.

Despite the contrived plot, the movie is not without deeper meaning. Some of the themes that can be closely read in Flashdance concern ideas such as identity, class, and cultural norms/expectations whether or not there is any absolution. Without stooping to pedantic commentary, the movie provides thoughtful content for those that seek a greater understanding of what the film has to say about the human experience. “When you give up your dream, you die.” A bit cliche perhaps, but still serves as the reminder that we do need our dreams in order to have something toward which we strive. We may never experience or realize that dream, but it’s the pursuit that is most meaningful.

We witness that there are many layers to Alex; she is a complex individual with multiple interests. She is just as confident and comfortable on a dance floor as she is welding as she is at a fine dining restaurant. This is such an important message that continues to be relevant–if not even more so–today! Flashdance is a reminder that diversity within a given group is so very important. Often times, popular culture projects prejudices, behaviors, and expectations onto a given group of people (or onto an individual within a group). Diversity of groups of people should never mean uniformity of thought within that group, it means there are a variety of individuals within any given group of people that have their own fears, beliefs, goals, and dreams. Alex may be a woman, but she is by no means obligated to only behave like a typical woman. Neither does she disparage those that would behave more typically; this movie celebrates variety! Variety of dance, variety of music, variety of people.

The degree to which this movie influenced virtually every area of popular culture is incalculable. Even exercise videos changed overnight. I posit that it’s entirely possible that 80s and 90s aerobics videos wouldn’t be the same if it wasn’t for Flashdance. For example, the footprint of this movie can be seen in the music, movements, and fashion of those Jane Fonda style aerobics videos. Even descendants of this stylistic athletic fashion can be observed in nearly every downtown and suburban area today; but we now refer to it as athleisure apparel.

Flashdance is the very definition of a crowd-pleasing film that defied the expectations of critics in 1983 and continues to be beloved by contemporary critics and audiences of all walks of life. The legacy of this movie is felt throughout media of all kinds! Even those that have never seen the movie recognize it by the music or iconic water dance shot. It’s a light-hearted melodrama that you cannot help but love. Just close your eyes, and feel the timeless rhythm of Flashdance!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

RENFIELD horror comedy review

Posted on by
Reply

Fangtastic! John Wick meets Van Helsing meets Warm Bodies in this imaginary adaptation of the Dracula mythos inspired by the original Universal Monster classic. While that may sound like the most unusual combination of movies, it works surprisingly well in Renfield from the birthplace of the American horror film.

Renfield, the tortured aide to his narcissistic boss, Dracula, is forced to procure his master’s prey and do his every bidding. However, after centuries of servitude, he’s ready to see if there’s a life outside the shadow of the Prince of Darkness.

Just like Dracula and Renfield, in the original Dracula, metaphorically exist in two realms simultaneously, this movie also exists in two realms: horror and comedy. And these two genres are both satisfied in the characterization and conflicts of this highly entertaining movie. Suffice it to say, it’s a really good movie–shocking–I know.

After the questionable trailers (which I try to avoid as much as possible; a practice of mine since marketing companies don’t usually know when to hold the cards back), I went into this movie with tempered expectations at best. Moreover, I honestly went in with low expectations for what I thought was going to be a ‘we set out to make a movie that is so bad that it’s good.’ The problem with that is that a filmmaker cannot intentionally create a so bad it’s good movie. It’s lightning in a bottle when it happens because the intention was to create a good movie, that just happened to turn out (to usually be) campy.

Spiritual sequels often struggle to find that place wherein the legacy film and new, reimagined approach intersect in ways that don’t rewrite or retcon the past yet provide a new experience. There have been countless official and unofficial adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, not to mention, hundreds of vampire movies that are directly inspired by the Dracula mythos. Therein lies the challenge: how to craft something new from that which is proliferated. Renfield works because the writers selected a character that factors significantly into the original material, yet has never been truly explored as a character following the events of Dracula.

Oh yeah, the recreations of the original Dracula, complete with (what looks to be) non-CGI gothic sets and lighting, made for a fantastic way to open the film.

Nicolas Cage, Nicholas Hoult, and Awkwafina were excellent casting choices, especially Cage’s Dracula, whom resembles Bela Lugosi even more than Walter Matthou’s in Ed Wood. Cage and Hoult demonstrate fantastic chemistry, and they scenes are among the best in the film. Hoult and Awkwafina may not have the chemistry that he has with Cage, but they still manage to play off one another well enough. Hoult not only looks like our original Renfield, but he finds an exemplary balance between tragedy and comedy. This film certainly provides him with a vessel to showcase his outstanding acting chops. Awkwafina brings a subdued version of her comedic brand, and it works great! Often times, her characters have annoyed me because they are often obnoxious, but not this time.

The violence is amped up to the nth degree! And it is wildly campy! I was reminded of the level of laughable violence and gore in Tucker and Dale vs Evil! While it could have been so easy for the violence and gore to be tasteless and gratuitous, it never crosses that line. Why? Because it is on a comic levels that is designed to elicit laugher instead of wincing, visceral, uncomfortable pain. Every sequence with kills is going for a laugh and not a scare or provocation. And the kills are wonderfully creative and on-brand for the tone of the film.

Renfield successfully connects the original film to this new adaptation in ways that pay respectful homage to the original but craft new expressions that are sure to please audiences. Perhaps the original isn’t a prerequisite for this one, BUT you will have far greater appreciation for the flashbacks and references to the original. If you’re a horror fan, particularly of the original Universal Monsters, then you definitely don’t want to miss Renfield!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry