The MovieGage - A fan's take
You can't always trust the movie reviews from the professionals. So here's a fan's take on the latest motion picture and DVD releases with some less-recent winners mixed in. Maybe I can find you a gem or keep you from wasting time on a real dog. Let me know what you think. - Pat Lambert
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
F1 is cliché... and exhilarating
Monday, July 1, 2024
A Quite Place - Day One
A Quiet Place-Day One is the third installment of the A Quiet Place film series and was created as a prequel to the first film. It is also the first of the three to not have John Krasinski (The Office) in the Director’s chair or as a principal script writer. Whether it’s the change in direction (Michael Samoski (Pig) directed and wrote the script for Day One) or an intentional shift in the approach to telling this monster story, you can sense a difference in the feel of A Quiet Place-Day One right off the bat. And different doesn’t mean bad—there are good examples of action series that have changed pace or scope or purpose after their first installment and had great success—Aliens, Road Warrior, and Terminator Judgement Day come to mind. But in the case of Day One, different also doesn’t mean better. Day One is different than the first two films, but it’s not as good—it’s not as nifty, not has nuanced, not as gripping.
Krasinski had the benefit in the first installment of having an original and cool diegesis with surprising antagonists. His monsters were sightless creatures overrunning the planet. Their origin was untold. They were simply there, and everywhere, and they were wiping out humanity. The aliens were blind but with an acute sense of hearing, creating a new-born human environment in which survival required silence. It was a good gimmick. And Krasinski used it well in the first two Quiet Place installments, playing with sight and sound and non-sound to create unnerving tension in exercises in noiseless endurance.
Samoski, on the other hand, is challenged with spinning off a new story with a now familiar premise and players. The title of the new film portends a possible origin tale for the invaders and their prey. But Day One is not that. Day One is a race, a running of the gauntlet, with fresh-face participants simply trying to get from point A to point B under monstrous conditions.
Samoski’s first gauntlet runner is Samira (Lupita Nyong’o, 12 Years a Slave, Black Panther), a terminally ill cancer patient living in a hospice in New York City with her cat Frodo. That’s right. You heard me. Sam’s got a cat. And we all know that gauntlet runners always go back for the cat. And yes, you’ll be whispering to yourself, as you do during all such films with cats… “just leave the damn cat you idiot!” Eric (Joseph Quinn, Stranger Things) is the second runner, a stunned and frightened British law student who stumbles onto Sam, thanks to the cat of course, in a burned-out Manhattan. Sam is terminal, she is going to die regardless of how she navigates this apocalypse. She’d like one more piece of Patsy’s pizza in Harlem before it all goes away… she just wants to go home. Eric is just there, scared and desperately in need of another human to run with.
For the action side of this race, Day One relies heavily, with some effect, on jump scares, chases, and closeups of the film’s killer beasts to shock and frighten. The character study side of the film is more compelling, however. Sam and Eric’s odd partnership and desired finish line seem a foolish contrivance at first but slowly become a believable and even obvious goal of humans laid raw by eminent doom. Indeed, my favorite moments of the film were completely monster-less: a pre-invasion marionette play with a magical floating boy puppet that suddenly collapses in a heap—and allegory of the coming apocalypse; Eric and Sam’s silent but sanguine magic show in a deserted Harlem jazz club.
These two sides of the film never mesh completely, however, not in a meaningful way. The obstacles that our heroes face along the track could have been anything—zombies, plague, war—their story would be the same. The blind monsters become disconnected background; their newness worn away.
Nyong’o and Quin are good in this film, they do their best. And Day One is enough of a spectacle and story to be worth a watch in the theater. But we’ve seen this before, even though the pace and the people are different; the shininess of the whole thing is gone. 6 out of 10.
Monday, December 18, 2023
Wonka: Not as good as we’d hoped
A lot of hype around this movie. I was excited to see it on its opening night. I was hopeful, like the young Willy Wonka I was about to meet. I knew it would be difficult—the original having set such a venerated bar. I promised myself not to give into the temptation to compare. But the new Wonka seemed to want me to do just that, nudging me, as the film started, with those three notes—C, E-flat, B-flat… “Come with me… and you’ll be”—and I was back with Charlie in the chocolate factory. There were more ties to the classic 1971 film, sprinkled throughout. Unfortunately, those old sprinkles are the best parts of Wonka, the new treats underneath are much less memorable.
Notwithstanding the clear attempts to maintain a connection to the original film’s older Wonka, this origin story presents a very different chocolate maker than Gene Wilder’s recluse. Young Willy, played enthusiastically by Timothee Chalamet, has yet to create his great chocolate factory as this tale begins. He is outgoing, generous, hopeful, whimsical. He’s a dreamer and buoyed in his dream by a lost mother’s promise to be with him when he shares his gifts as a great chocolatier. Missing from this youthful version is the jadedness of the older Wonka; the snarkiness, and the mistrust created by years of the covetous trying to steal his genius. He has yet to learn, as his new band of downtrodden friends will try to teach him, that “the greedy hurt the needy every time”.
There’s nothing wrong with this take on Wonka’s origin, although numerous big-media critics dislike this more-sugary Willy. It’s not the idea of this story that misses, it’s the telling of it.
At first, the stage, the music, and the story’s many characters and strong cast seem well positioned to make things interesting. Young Wonka encounters a duo of swindlers and winds up in servitude along with a small group of other unfortunates. These members of Team Wonka, however, are duller than their first impression would indicate and are given little to work from the film’s script. Their evil counterparts in the “Chocolate Cartel” are equally flat; a trio of one-gag melodrama villains. Even the excellent effort from Chalamet, who plays Wonka with great verve, is not enough to move the needle much off the half-full mark. Chalamet seems to put everything he as into his new Wonka. This includes his execution of the film's song and dance which is delightful and endearing. But the dances are minor and the tunes unmemorable. His excellent performance makes the mediocrity that surrounds it that much more frustrating.
I should make clear here that Wonka is not an unpleasant film. I suspect most of the younger patrons will give the film a thumbs up—the bones are good as they say. And all will enjoy Hugh Grant’s Oompa-Loompa (we could have used more of Hugh Grant… and a lot more Oompa-Loompas). But that magic was missing. I was patient. I kept waiting for Wonka to kick in… but it never did. 5.5 out of 10.
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Fresh Flash is Better Than Most
I do give one caveat here right up front—The Flash is another multi-verse thing. And I understand you may feel completely alternative-universed out. But this time it’s not colliders, or worm holes, or magic… it’s speed. The dang Flash runs so fast (and we find out he’s still learning to run faster) that he can run through space-time creating some sort of ‘speed force”. And he has an idea. Barry Allen (The Flash played by Ezra Miller) lost his mother in his youth and his father was blamed for her death. Allen now believes that he can use his speed to travel back in time and change the one thing that resulted in his mother's death and his father incarceration. Allen’s universe’s Batman (Ben Affleck), a Flash Justice League colleague, warns against such an attempt, reminding Allen that any change he makes to the past may destroy his present and future. The possibility of bringing her back is too much for Allen, however, and he travels back to the day of his mother’s death and prevents it. But as he returns, he is pushed out of the Speed Force by an unknown being and into an alternative 1983 where he finds a younger version of himself and his mother alive.
It is in this new place that Ezra Miller and the film find something special. Miller shines when portraying, simultaneously, the glitchy Flash alongside his goofball, 18-year-old self. The interaction of the two Flashes (the younger Barry obtains Flash superpowers also) is the best part of the show. Not only are there two Flashes because of Allen’s time-meddling, but there are also two Batmen--the Affleck Batman from Allen’s home universe and a Michael Keaton Batman from the 1983 alternative universe. Affleck is necessary, Keaton in memorable. Keaton plays, with gusto, an aging crimefighter with no more crime to fight, invigorated by the task of helping Allen fix the mess he has made—his obligatory revelation that “I’m Batman” gave me a quick nostalgia chill. He also gives a great explanation of the film’s multiverse using a pile of spaghetti which is a seriously needed primer as the film and its infinite alternatives get confusing near the end.
Although The Flash does fall prey to the usual superhero movie motif of jamming just too much stuff in, it still is able to maintain a thread of uniqueness. Its story is sound, and it sticks with it to the end. There is a sort of Ground-Hog-Day moment in the final scenes of The Flash where our heroes must face the possibility that no matter how hard they try, bad things happen, or must happen. There is a lot of ties-that-bind stuff that comes out in this dilemma that is moving without being too corny or overly sentimental, and the cast was excellent, especially Miller, in projecting those feelings to the audience.
Still, lots of criticism out there. The kids say the special effects were bad. The movies’ creators, in a recent interview, explained that the different feel of the special effects was intentional as they wanted to portray a slightly distorted imagery for the Flash’s speed world. Everything did look a little bit off to me--shinny. Whether that was their true intent of not, I was fine with the graphics–they were different… and in the world of superhero movies, different is good.
The Flash felt fresh to me. And most of that came from Miller giving us a different type of hero. I am not familiar with the details of Ezra Miller’s significant struggles, including recent run-ins with the law. I can understand if people don’t want to see the show because of that. I hope he finds himself and can make the corrections he needs to be better and continue in a positive direction—as I have read he says he is doing. I’d like to see another Flash–and I can’t say that for most superhero films. 7.5 out of 10.
Monday, July 4, 2022
Jurassic Park/World Mash Up Yields Only Average Results In World Dominion
Monday, June 20, 2022
Older "Maverick" Soars in New Top Gun
Friday, February 18, 2022
The latest shot at Death on the Nile
Pleasantly surprised, I believe, is a good description of my feeling after watching Kenneth Branagh’s (Henry V) latest take on Agatha Christie’s 1937 whodunit. The new Death on the Nile is a sequel to his 2017 Murder on the Orient Express with Branagh returning to both direct and again portray Christie’s supreme detective Hercule Poirot: this time he’s sleuthing on a boat instead of a train. Branagh’s Orient Express (2017) was a true yawner. Google “disappointingly dull” and you’ll get a link to a trailer for Murder on the Orient Express—go ahead, try it… it’ll be right at the top. So, maybe Branagh just got better with practice, or maybe it was the presence of Ridley Scott as a producer of this film, but Death on the Nile is much better, more attractive, better paced, sharper, snappier, crisper than its prequel; and the surprising result was a satisfying Tuesday afternoon at the theater.
For all settings… including sailing vessels, the Agatha Christie murder-mystery formula is constant—assemble a diverse group with members connected by at least one of the seven cardinal sins, then kill somebody and let the fun begin. This time our potential murderers and victims are gathered to celebrate the marriage of the wealthy and beautiful Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot, aka Wonder Woman) to the handsome but jobless Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). Riches and beauty are usually surrounded by jealousy and greed and the Nile wedding party is chuck full of both—it’s not long after the group embarks on their river cruise that folks start to drop dead. Fortunately for all, Hercule Poirot is on board. Branagh sparkles in his portrayal of the eccentric Belgian super sleuth and his subtle deductions and ruthless examinations of those he suspects… which is everyone. The other pieces in this cloak-and-dagger are also well played with standout performances by a nigh-unrecognizable Annette Benning as a wealthy artist and family friend of the bride, and from newer-comer Emma Mackey (Netflix’ Sex Education) as the obligatory women scorned. Motives mount and suspicions shift and turn, but it’s never clear to you, until the bitter end, who is killing whom… unless you’ve read the book or have seen one the myriad previous screen depictions, or you overhear some yahoo in the seat in front of you who has done one or the other give the killer away to his wife while noshing popcorn… come on!
Poirot is possibly Christie's most famous character. He is certainly the longest running, appearing in more than 30 of her novels. But the fictitious detective himself has always been a bit of mystery—Christie did not spend much time on his origin. Gratefully, and with great benefit to the film, Michael Green’s screenplay gives a bit of a back story—a glimpse at a pivot point in Poirot’s life that has, in part, shaped him into the genius but emotionally dethatched crime solver that he is. The reveal is effectively leveraged throughout the film providing heart to Poirot’s cold path to solving the mystery of Death on the Nile and to Poirot himself. Such value add-on’s do not make Death on the Nile any sort of award winner—and I doubt that was what the film’s creators were shooting for here. But the film is nicely put together and entertaining. You may forget the experience quickly, but you’ll enjoy the few hours of mystery while you’re in it. Death on the Nile gets 6.5 out of 10.