THE FLASH movie review

Posted on by
1

Electrifying! From beginning to end, The Flash is a highly entertaining, funny, well-written thrill ride with a tremendous amount of heart! In an oversaturated superhero/CBM (comic book movie) live-action cinema landscape, dominated by MCU (and MCU-adjacent) movies, comes a breath of fresh air that works both visually and narratively.

Worlds collide when the Flash uses his superpowers to travel back in time to change the events of the past. However, when his attempt to save his family inadvertently alters the future, he becomes trapped in a reality in which General Zod has returned, threatening annihilation. With no other superheroes to turn to, the Flash looks to coax a very different Batman out of retirement and rescue an imprisoned Kryptonian — albeit not the one he’s looking for.

Andy Muschietti delivers a superb superhero motion picture that defies expectations set for anything the DCEU had to offer audiences. Christina Hodson’s fantastic screenwriting paired with John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein, and Joby Harold’s story, provides a solid foundation upon which Muschiette crafts the motion picture for the screen. Nearly everything about this picture works incredibly well, except the CGI battle sequence at the end that felt right out of an early 2010s video game. In addition to the compelling visual storytelling, Muschietti and Hodson successfully, and organically) pay homage to Tim Burton, Zach Snyder, and even Richard Donner. Never before has a superhero multiverse been explored so well! Where other multiverse movies struggle narratively, this one excels in both form and function. And of course, the movie features THE definitive Batman Michael Keaton in a triumphant return to the screen as the Burton-verse caped crusader! While many other films in recent times have placed far less emphasis on plotting than visual composition, The Flash delivers on both.

Just when the general public and critics alike were genuinely wondering if there was anything left in the DCEU, The Flash is the strongest cinematic story to come out of this universe of characters since Wonder Woman, and perhaps the most fun superhero movie since Batman Returns. I know, positively using The Flash in the same statement as Batman Returns is high praise, as it’s my opinion that Batman Returns is the best comic book (or superhero) movie of all time. While The Flash isn’t as campy as the Batman 1960s TV series or the Schumacher movies, it strikes a balance between camp and melodrama in the same vein as Batman Returns struck a brilliant balance between camp and gothic romance. Wherein character expression may lean into camp. The Flash delivers heartfelt thoughtfulness in character interpersonal dynamics and plot. We empathize with Barry Allen’s obsessive plight to save the life of both his mother and father.

Simple plot, complex characters. That is precisely what you get in this movie. I know, what must he be thinking equating a multiverse setup with simple plot. That’s because the plot can be boiled down to when Barry Allen realizes that he has the ability to travel back in time, he returns to stop the death of his mother, but in doing so, unleashes a cataclysm of effects throughout the space-time continuum that must be corrected. There is one plot: save the life of his mother and father, whom is on trial for the death of his mother. Everything that Barry/The Flash does revolves around the central plot of stopping the death of his mother which will keep his father from being accused of her murder. No matter where we go in the multiverse, the external goal motivated by the internal need never changes.

The complexities in the narrative are character-driven. Barry Allen (Sr.) is hyper-focused on stopping the murder of his mother, no matter the cost, Bruce Wayne/Batman is wrestling with his identity as the caped crusader in a world that doesn’t need him anymore (or so it seems), and Barry Allen (Jr.) is struggling to find his place in the world as he is caught between childhood and adulthood. And the central plot connects all these characters and forces them to grow emotionally and psychologically. Apart from the central plot, none of the character growth would occur. Never once does the focus of the story shift, but the central themes of identity, overcoming trauma, and the dangers of obsession with control allow the movie to explore deeper meanings in the otherwise high concept story.

The central cast is fantastic! Never having seen The Flash TV show, I cannot comment on that expression of Barry Allen/The Flash, but Ezra Miller delivers a compelling performance of the lightning-fast superhero struggling with anxiety. We haven’t has a superhero that feels this genuinely human and vulnerable since Tim Burton’s Bruce Wayne/Batman played by Keaton. While they express their humanity differently, both play their respective everyman identities and super-alter egos with equal charisma and authenticity that is maintains its own identity depending on if they are wearing their respective masks. The idea of and meaning of the masque is something that entire books have been written on, but for the sake of argument, the masque represents a different identity and should be expressed differently unless, for dramatic purposes, the character’s humanity peaks through the superhero masque.

Miller’s portrayal of Allen/Flash is one that is unapologetically relatable and without pretense. Furthermore, I appreciate the inclusion of an individual struggling with anxiety, social awkwardness, and comes from average beginnings with no superhuman characteristics other than the ones bestowed through the electrical/chemical accident.

Many articles and podcasts have been published on Michael Keaton’s Batman, so I won’t spend too much time on him; however, we cannot talk The Flash without acknowledging the impact of the definitive Batman and Bruce Wayne returning to the big screen in a big way! At very first sights of Keaton, the Batcave, and the iconic Burton Batmobile, there were waves of applause and cheering from the audience, but nothing compares to the sheer deluge of cheering, shouting, and applauding for Michael Keaton when he appears in his Batman uniform for the first time since 1992. If this was a live performance in front of a studio audience, then all action would have stopped on stage for several minutes as the audience showed their affection for Keaton’s Batman. Even though he is not the central character, he factors heavily into the second and third acts of the movie. And you know what? He’s still got it!

Where the film simultaneously delivers and falters is in the integration of heavy CGI. The CGI works very well in the various effects of The Flash’s super speed and when exploring the multiverse; where the CGI is conspicuously unrealistic is in the final battle scenes. This is where and why the Tim Burton Batman movies will forever be timeless, but prolific use of CGI will date a film. You cannot replace the way real light bounces off real objects into the camera lens. There is a sense of real danger when practical effects, stunts, and pyro is used–it’s REAL–the danger is real. There is a dimension to practical sets and effects that CGI will never be able to replicate. Simply stating, the CGI in the battle sequences at the end takes the audience out of the film. However, the film doesn’t cheapen out on anything at Wayne Manor, the Batcave, Batmobile, or Batplane.

The score for The Flash is excellent, especially when Danny Elfman’s iconic Batman theme is integrated into the original score for this film. While I could have gone for the film to lean a little more heavily into the Elfman Batman theme, I appreciate the nuance of the theme when anything Burton-verse is on the screen. Outside of the Elfman Batman theme, the orchestration feels like an extension of each scene that never becomes the center of attention, but is always present.

About the cameos. Yes, there are some great cameos, but I am not going to disclose them as you need to experience them for yourself. What I will divulge on that subject is the conspicuous absence of Michelle Pfeiffer’s definitive Catwoman. Even though she’s stated in interviews that she hasn’t been asked to reprise her career-defining role, even thought she admittedly would love to wield the whip again, I thought that perhaps is was all a ruse and she would surprise us in this movie. But with the unparalleled positive response from audiences concerning Keaton’s return to the Batsuit, then perhaps we will get the incomparable Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman one last time.

Thrilling and fun for the whole family, I highly recommend watching The Flash. It was certainly the most fun I’ve had at the cinema all year.

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

FLAMIN’ HOT movie mini review

Posted on by
1

Uplifting! Flamin’ Hot is a thoroughly enjoyable, motivational biopic that captivates audiences with the compelling story of Richard Montañez, the man who invented Flamin’ Hot Cheetos (and other Flamin’ Hot line items) and ostensibly saved his Southern California FritoLay plant from closure in the 90s. Directed by Eva Longoria and written by Lewis Colick and Linda Yvette Chávez, this movie delivers a more compelling story than AIR; however, Flamin Hot does not deliver as highly in the performative dimension. This is a movie for anyone that has ever felt like an underdog. Richard’s inspirational story serves as evidence that prayer, determination, resiliency, and refusal to allow one’s origin to determine one’s personal and professional destination, truly do work! Although the movie is tonally upbeat and even funny, it still affords intimate character moments. Structurally, the movie is well-paced and never hangs out in any scene longer than it needs. And it’s incredibly interesting! Just like AIR so successfully made the origin of a shoe captivating, the same can be said for Flamin’ Hot Cheetos.

If you’re seeking a picture that is inspirational, lean, and funny, then checkout Flamin’ Hot on Hulu and Disney+ starting June 9th.

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

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.