by Josh Sewell
Captain America: Brave New World
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some strong language. Opens in theaters on February 14.)
The premise: In this latest entry of the sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) – the new Captain America – finds himself in the middle of an international incident after meeting with newly elected U.S. President Thaddeus Ross (Harrison Ford, stepping in for the late William Hurt). He must discover the reason behind a nefarious global plot before the true mastermind has the entire world seeing red.
The verdict: After a brief uptick in quality with last summer’s Deadpool & Wolverine, Marvel returns to its post-Endgame slump with one of the worst movies the studio has made in quite some time. Mackie and Ford acquit themselves fairly well, doing all they can to salvage this troubled production.
However, despite their best efforts, Brave New World is pretty much a mess from top to bottom. The narrative – cobbled together by five(!) credited screenwriters – is incoherent, with various characters delivering pages of exposition every few minutes. There were reportedly three months of reshoots, including an entirely new subplot.
Giancarlo Esposito, giving his all in a villain role he can do in his sleep by now, wasn’t even hired until principal photography was done. Others in the supporting cast, including Danny Ramirez, Shira Haas and Carl Lumbly, are also solid, but they’re squandered in a story that leaves their characters twiddling their thumbs for large chunks of time.
As with most MCU flicks over the several few years, the visual effects are awful – likely due to the chaotic timeline and rushed nature of postproduction. It’s obvious that actors weren’t even on the same set in a lot of scenes. In fact, one actress who makes a brief cameo literally looks like a Pixar character.
It’s a shame considering director Julius Onah proved with his previous film Luce that he’s capable of tackling relevant, controversial issues in compelling ways. That seems to be what Marvel was aiming for with Wilson inheriting the shield from Steve Rogers. It’s too bad that some of the most intriguing aspects of his storyline feel like they’ve been watered down by focus groups and nervous studio execs.
Grade: D+
Heart Eyes
(Rated R for strong violence and gore, language and some sexual content. Now playing in theaters.)
The premise: For the past several years, the Heart Eyes Killer has stalked and murdered couples in various major cities on Valentine’s Day. This time around, Seattle is the unlucky city and the crazed killer has selected Ally (Olivia Holt) and Jay (Mason Gooding) as potential victims. To make matters even worse, they’re not even a real couple – they’re fighting for their lives due to a case of mistaken identity.
The verdict: I’m generally not a big slasher guy. It isn’t that I consider it a lesser genre – mostly it’s because I’m a giant wuss. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised to discover Heart Eyes is as much of a romantic comedy as it is a horror flick. The two genres seem like polar opposites on the surface, but they actually have a lot in common once you think about them for a bit.
Thanks to director Josh Ruben, along with screenwriters Phillip Murphy, Christopher Landon and Michael Kennedy, Heart Eyes is equally adept at both kinds of storytelling. In fact, there are large stretches without any gruesome kills, but it never gets boring because of the chemistry between Holt and Gooding.
Devon Sawa and Jordana Brewster are also fun as cynical Seattle cops investigating the latest slayings. Unfortunately, hardcore fans of the genre will probably figure out where the characters fit in the overall scheme of the story pretty fast – even though the flick tries to distract the audience with a lot of red herrings.
Overall, Heart Eyes ends up being a fun date movie that should please fans of both genres. While the plot ultimately gets too bogged down with mythology, the protagonists are engaging enough that I wouldn’t mind them showing up in a sequel.
Grade: B
I’m Still Here
(Rated PG-13 for thematic content, some strong language, drug use, smoking and brief nudity. Now playing in select theaters.)
The premise: In 1971, Brazil is in the grip of a military dictatorship. Eunice Paiva (Fernanda Torres), a mother of five children, is forced to face life anew after her family suffers a violent and arbitrary act by the government. Based on Marcelo Rubens Paiva’s book, this true story helped reconstruct an important part of Brazil’s hidden history.
The verdict: Thanks to rave reviews from critics and passionate advocates from its home country, I’m Still Here made a surprisingly strong showing when Oscar nominees were revealed last month. Its appearance in Best International Feature was expected, but now it’s also a legitimate contender for Best Picture. (It was the only film in the category I didn’t get a chance to see before the nominations were announced.)
Torres is also a strong underdog in the Best Actress category, which would’ve been a shock earlier this awards season. However, considering the goodwill her Golden Globe win generated just before the Academy’s nominations were due, along with the post-announcement dumpster fire involving fellow nominee Karla Sofía Gascón and her film Emilia Pérez, it’s no wonder Torres has picked up significant steam in the race.
That’s mostly Oscar politics, though. There’s also the more important fact she delivers an incredible performance in a devastating true story that feels more relevant than ever. I’m Still Here isn’t an easy watch for a number of reasons: it’s long, it’s a slow burn, it’s unabashedly political and it doesn’t offer easy answers or a happy ending.
Clearly, that means audiences aren’t going to flock to I’m Still Here like it’s a big studio blockbuster. But for those who appreciate smaller, more nuanced films, it’s a worthy Best Picture candidate. I hope it will lead to more people checking it out.
Grade: A-
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some strong language. Opens in theaters on February 14.)
The premise: In this latest entry of the sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) – the new Captain America – finds himself in the middle of an international incident after meeting with newly elected U.S. President Thaddeus Ross (Harrison Ford, stepping in for the late William Hurt). He must discover the reason behind a nefarious global plot before the true mastermind has the entire world seeing red.
The verdict: After a brief uptick in quality with last summer’s Deadpool & Wolverine, Marvel returns to its post-Endgame slump with one of the worst movies the studio has made in quite some time. Mackie and Ford acquit themselves fairly well, doing all they can to salvage this troubled production.
However, despite their best efforts, Brave New World is pretty much a mess from top to bottom. The narrative – cobbled together by five(!) credited screenwriters – is incoherent, with various characters delivering pages of exposition every few minutes. There were reportedly three months of reshoots, including an entirely new subplot.
Giancarlo Esposito, giving his all in a villain role he can do in his sleep by now, wasn’t even hired until principal photography was done. Others in the supporting cast, including Danny Ramirez, Shira Haas and Carl Lumbly, are also solid, but they’re squandered in a story that leaves their characters twiddling their thumbs for large chunks of time.
As with most MCU flicks over the several few years, the visual effects are awful – likely due to the chaotic timeline and rushed nature of postproduction. It’s obvious that actors weren’t even on the same set in a lot of scenes. In fact, one actress who makes a brief cameo literally looks like a Pixar character.
It’s a shame considering director Julius Onah proved with his previous film Luce that he’s capable of tackling relevant, controversial issues in compelling ways. That seems to be what Marvel was aiming for with Wilson inheriting the shield from Steve Rogers. It’s too bad that some of the most intriguing aspects of his storyline feel like they’ve been watered down by focus groups and nervous studio execs.
Grade: D+
(Rated R for strong violence and gore, language and some sexual content. Now playing in theaters.)
The premise: For the past several years, the Heart Eyes Killer has stalked and murdered couples in various major cities on Valentine’s Day. This time around, Seattle is the unlucky city and the crazed killer has selected Ally (Olivia Holt) and Jay (Mason Gooding) as potential victims. To make matters even worse, they’re not even a real couple – they’re fighting for their lives due to a case of mistaken identity.
The verdict: I’m generally not a big slasher guy. It isn’t that I consider it a lesser genre – mostly it’s because I’m a giant wuss. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised to discover Heart Eyes is as much of a romantic comedy as it is a horror flick. The two genres seem like polar opposites on the surface, but they actually have a lot in common once you think about them for a bit.
Thanks to director Josh Ruben, along with screenwriters Phillip Murphy, Christopher Landon and Michael Kennedy, Heart Eyes is equally adept at both kinds of storytelling. In fact, there are large stretches without any gruesome kills, but it never gets boring because of the chemistry between Holt and Gooding.
Devon Sawa and Jordana Brewster are also fun as cynical Seattle cops investigating the latest slayings. Unfortunately, hardcore fans of the genre will probably figure out where the characters fit in the overall scheme of the story pretty fast – even though the flick tries to distract the audience with a lot of red herrings.
Overall, Heart Eyes ends up being a fun date movie that should please fans of both genres. While the plot ultimately gets too bogged down with mythology, the protagonists are engaging enough that I wouldn’t mind them showing up in a sequel.
Grade: B
(Rated PG-13 for thematic content, some strong language, drug use, smoking and brief nudity. Now playing in select theaters.)
The premise: In 1971, Brazil is in the grip of a military dictatorship. Eunice Paiva (Fernanda Torres), a mother of five children, is forced to face life anew after her family suffers a violent and arbitrary act by the government. Based on Marcelo Rubens Paiva’s book, this true story helped reconstruct an important part of Brazil’s hidden history.
The verdict: Thanks to rave reviews from critics and passionate advocates from its home country, I’m Still Here made a surprisingly strong showing when Oscar nominees were revealed last month. Its appearance in Best International Feature was expected, but now it’s also a legitimate contender for Best Picture. (It was the only film in the category I didn’t get a chance to see before the nominations were announced.)
Torres is also a strong underdog in the Best Actress category, which would’ve been a shock earlier this awards season. However, considering the goodwill her Golden Globe win generated just before the Academy’s nominations were due, along with the post-announcement dumpster fire involving fellow nominee Karla Sofía Gascón and her film Emilia Pérez, it’s no wonder Torres has picked up significant steam in the race.
That’s mostly Oscar politics, though. There’s also the more important fact she delivers an incredible performance in a devastating true story that feels more relevant than ever. I’m Still Here isn’t an easy watch for a number of reasons: it’s long, it’s a slow burn, it’s unabashedly political and it doesn’t offer easy answers or a happy ending.
Clearly, that means audiences aren’t going to flock to I’m Still Here like it’s a big studio blockbuster. But for those who appreciate smaller, more nuanced films, it’s a worthy Best Picture candidate. I hope it will lead to more people checking it out.
Grade: A-
Reach out to Josh Sewell at joshsewell81@gmail.com or on BlueSky @joshsewell.bsky.social
Comments
Post a Comment