by Josh Sewell
The Life of Chuck
(Rated R for language. Opens in theaters on June 13.)
The premise: Based on the novella from Stephen King, this is the extraordinarily told story of an ordinary man. It focuses on the life of Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) as he experiences the wonder of love, the heartbreak of loss and the multitudes contained in all of us.
The verdict: Although The Life of Chuck is a King story, it’s closer to the poignant themes of Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile than the legendary author’s horror stuff. Combine that with the brilliant screenwriting and direction of Mike Flanagan (who previously adapted the seemingly un-makeable Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep, as well as the Netflix masterpieces The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass) and you’ve got one of the year’s best films.
Playing out over three acts, in reverse order, The Life of Chuck might seem confusing at first. That’s because the trailers and marketing focus on Hiddleston, yet viewers are first introduced to Chiwetel Ejiofor’s teacher and Karen Gillan’s nurse characters, in an apocalyptic story that feels kind of random. Don’t worry – those familiar with Flanagan’s work know to trust the process, so everything eventually clicks into place.
Performances are terrific all around, from Hiddleston as Chuck (as well as Jacob Tremblay and Benjamin Pajak, who play his childhood iterations) and the aforementioned Ejiofor and Gillan, to Mark Hamill and Mia Sara as his grandparents, along with Matthew Lillard in a brief but powerful role. Nick Offerman is also great as the complex story’s unseen narrator.
The less you know about The Life of Chuck before going in, the better. Fans of the author’s excellent novella can rest assured this is yet another faithful adaptation from die-hard King admirer Flanagan, which means it also doesn’t shy away from the story’s weird vibes. Ultimately, everything will make sense and leave you staggering at the adventurous story’s emotional power.
Grade: A-
Materialists
(Rated R for language and brief sexual material. Opens in theaters on June 13.)
The premise: Ambitious New York City matchmaker Lucy (Dakota Johnson) finds herself torn between suave rich guy Harry (Pedro Pascal) and her imperfect, financially struggling ex John (Chris Evans).
The verdict: Writer-director Celine Song’s debut film, the achingly beautiful Past Lives, was darn near perfect. Materialists, her sophomore effort, proves that wasn’t a fluke. While the romantic dramedy has a glossier shine and more famous faces, Strong still creates characters with depth and realistic flaws instead of relying on the usual genre clichés to manufacture artificial drama.
Johnson does some of her best work as the protagonist at the center of the story. She’s deeply unlikable for large stretches of the movie, but the character is unapologetic about her goals and the behavior it takes to accomplish them.
As such, when she begins to change later in the film, the growth feels earned. Evans and Pascal are solid as well, though they’re essentially there to serve as the metaphorical paths in Lucy’s future.
However, there are a couple of aspects that took me out of the film. For example, it’s tough to buy Evans (even at peak handsome charisma) as a broke, struggling actor and Johnson’s character talks about her past as a failed actress in the middle of a high-profile summer movie, etc. However, those are minor quibbles. Overall, Materialists is a refreshingly grown-up movie that offers a frank, honest look at love in the modern era.
Grade: B
Ballerina
(Rated R for strong/bloody violence throughout, and language. Now playing in theaters.)
The premise: This John Wick spinoff takes place during the events of the third film, when Keanu Reeves’ character is dealing with the Ruska Roma tribe of assassins led by The Director (Anjelica Huston). Ballerina follows Eve Macarro (Ana de Armas), who is beginning her training in the tribe’s traditions, but goes rogue when she learns the location of the man (Gabriel Byrne) who murdered her father (David Castañeda).
The verdict: As someone who was happy the John Wick series finished strong, I can’t say I’m overjoyed that Lionsgate is trying to bleed the franchise dry. The studio already attempted a mediocre prequel series for Peacock, which pop culture immediately forgot about, and now they’re going for a spinoff since Reeves is aging out of action hero status.
Ballerina is fine for what it is, but anyone who saw de Armas’ incredible, all-too-brief sequence in Daniel Craig’s final 007 flick No Time to Die knows the talented actress is capable of so much more. She demonstrates great chemistry with Reeves – who appears briefly as Wick – which makes sense considering they’ve worked together twice already in less-than-stellar thrillers (2015’s Knock Knock and 2016’s Exposed), but that doesn’t make up for the sluggish movie’s other 100 minutes.
While the fight scenes are inspired (understandable, considering Wick architect Chad Stahelski returned to assist credited director Len Wiseman), the story itself is paper thin and unnecessary to the world’s overarching mythology. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Ballerina gets bogged down in the series’ complicated lore while taking place during the movie in which I realized we needed to wrap this whole thing up.
As long as there’s money to be made, we haven’t seen the last of John Wick (and possibly his new protégé, Eve). But considering the mediocre performance of Ballerina at the box office last weekend, that time might be approaching sooner rather than later.
Grade: B-
(Rated R for language. Opens in theaters on June 13.)
The premise: Based on the novella from Stephen King, this is the extraordinarily told story of an ordinary man. It focuses on the life of Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) as he experiences the wonder of love, the heartbreak of loss and the multitudes contained in all of us.
The verdict: Although The Life of Chuck is a King story, it’s closer to the poignant themes of Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile than the legendary author’s horror stuff. Combine that with the brilliant screenwriting and direction of Mike Flanagan (who previously adapted the seemingly un-makeable Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep, as well as the Netflix masterpieces The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass) and you’ve got one of the year’s best films.
Playing out over three acts, in reverse order, The Life of Chuck might seem confusing at first. That’s because the trailers and marketing focus on Hiddleston, yet viewers are first introduced to Chiwetel Ejiofor’s teacher and Karen Gillan’s nurse characters, in an apocalyptic story that feels kind of random. Don’t worry – those familiar with Flanagan’s work know to trust the process, so everything eventually clicks into place.
Performances are terrific all around, from Hiddleston as Chuck (as well as Jacob Tremblay and Benjamin Pajak, who play his childhood iterations) and the aforementioned Ejiofor and Gillan, to Mark Hamill and Mia Sara as his grandparents, along with Matthew Lillard in a brief but powerful role. Nick Offerman is also great as the complex story’s unseen narrator.
The less you know about The Life of Chuck before going in, the better. Fans of the author’s excellent novella can rest assured this is yet another faithful adaptation from die-hard King admirer Flanagan, which means it also doesn’t shy away from the story’s weird vibes. Ultimately, everything will make sense and leave you staggering at the adventurous story’s emotional power.
Grade: A-
(Rated R for language and brief sexual material. Opens in theaters on June 13.)
The premise: Ambitious New York City matchmaker Lucy (Dakota Johnson) finds herself torn between suave rich guy Harry (Pedro Pascal) and her imperfect, financially struggling ex John (Chris Evans).
The verdict: Writer-director Celine Song’s debut film, the achingly beautiful Past Lives, was darn near perfect. Materialists, her sophomore effort, proves that wasn’t a fluke. While the romantic dramedy has a glossier shine and more famous faces, Strong still creates characters with depth and realistic flaws instead of relying on the usual genre clichés to manufacture artificial drama.
Johnson does some of her best work as the protagonist at the center of the story. She’s deeply unlikable for large stretches of the movie, but the character is unapologetic about her goals and the behavior it takes to accomplish them.
As such, when she begins to change later in the film, the growth feels earned. Evans and Pascal are solid as well, though they’re essentially there to serve as the metaphorical paths in Lucy’s future.
However, there are a couple of aspects that took me out of the film. For example, it’s tough to buy Evans (even at peak handsome charisma) as a broke, struggling actor and Johnson’s character talks about her past as a failed actress in the middle of a high-profile summer movie, etc. However, those are minor quibbles. Overall, Materialists is a refreshingly grown-up movie that offers a frank, honest look at love in the modern era.
Grade: B
(Rated R for strong/bloody violence throughout, and language. Now playing in theaters.)
The premise: This John Wick spinoff takes place during the events of the third film, when Keanu Reeves’ character is dealing with the Ruska Roma tribe of assassins led by The Director (Anjelica Huston). Ballerina follows Eve Macarro (Ana de Armas), who is beginning her training in the tribe’s traditions, but goes rogue when she learns the location of the man (Gabriel Byrne) who murdered her father (David Castañeda).
The verdict: As someone who was happy the John Wick series finished strong, I can’t say I’m overjoyed that Lionsgate is trying to bleed the franchise dry. The studio already attempted a mediocre prequel series for Peacock, which pop culture immediately forgot about, and now they’re going for a spinoff since Reeves is aging out of action hero status.
Ballerina is fine for what it is, but anyone who saw de Armas’ incredible, all-too-brief sequence in Daniel Craig’s final 007 flick No Time to Die knows the talented actress is capable of so much more. She demonstrates great chemistry with Reeves – who appears briefly as Wick – which makes sense considering they’ve worked together twice already in less-than-stellar thrillers (2015’s Knock Knock and 2016’s Exposed), but that doesn’t make up for the sluggish movie’s other 100 minutes.
While the fight scenes are inspired (understandable, considering Wick architect Chad Stahelski returned to assist credited director Len Wiseman), the story itself is paper thin and unnecessary to the world’s overarching mythology. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Ballerina gets bogged down in the series’ complicated lore while taking place during the movie in which I realized we needed to wrap this whole thing up.
As long as there’s money to be made, we haven’t seen the last of John Wick (and possibly his new protégé, Eve). But considering the mediocre performance of Ballerina at the box office last weekend, that time might be approaching sooner rather than later.
Grade: B-
Reach out to Josh Sewell at joshsewell81@gmail.com or on BlueSky @joshsewell.bsky.social
Comments
Post a Comment