“The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” stars Henry Cavill, Eiza González, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, Babs Olusanmokun, Henrique Zaga, Til Schweiger, Henry Golding, and Cary Elwes. Releasing on April 19, 2024, the film depicts the Special Operations Executive and their war against the Nazis during World War II. The film is directed by Guy Ritchie, who also directed films such as “Snatch”, “Sherlock Holmes”, “The Gentlemen”, and “Wrath of Man”. It is based on the 2014 book Churchill’s Secret Warriors: The Explosive True Story of the Special Forces Desperadoes of WWII by Damien Lewis. The Black Ops have been known for their secrecy and performance under our radar. However, its unattributed association with any organization gives this covert operation the advantage of deceiving its enemies. But how did this secretive operation come to be, you may ask? Well, it all started back in the 1940s, when a British organization performed a seemingly impossible task to sabotage the dreadful Nazis. This crucial part of Britain’s war against Nazi Germany gave birth to modern-day black operations and irregular warfare, and now it’s been turned into an action comedy led by Guy Ritchie and Superman himself, Henry Cavill. This film seeks to attract more audiences seeking R-rated fun outside the horror genre, especially those familiar with Ritchie’s stylized and fast-paced presentation. Does it deliver another offbeat shoot-em-up worthy of the big-screen treatment? Let’s find out. The story is a heavily fictionalized depiction of Operation Postmaster, a British special operation during the Second World War. It was conducted by the Special Operations Executive, a covert organization formed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to perform espionage and sabotage in Nazi-occupied Europe. To combat the Nazis, the SOE conjured up a solution to gain the upper hand: hiring a group of highly-skilled soldiers outside its premises, including Gus March-Phillipps (Cavill). Known as the Small Scale Raiding Force, Gus and his team, including Marjorie Stewart (Gonzalez) and Anders Lassen (Ritchson), are tasked to invade enemy territory and sabotage the Nazis’ plot for world domination. Unsurprisingly, any movie directed by Ritchie will always spark my interest, with this film being one of them. Some of his recent movies didn’t impress me as much as everyone else regarding their executions. However, a few of his films have made me admire his unique presentation and British humor, including “The Gentlemen” and “The Covenant”, which I thought was one of his best in recent memory. “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” looks to be another Ritchie movie seeking to deliver the fun and high-octane energy from its action and comedy aspects as shown in the marketing. In short, it’d be more like “The Gentlemen” than “Wrath of Man” and “The Covenant”. After watching the film early, thanks to its advanced screening, I’m pleased to say I was right. It’s no crowned jewel of war movies or even spy films in general, but the film proves that Guy Ritchie hasn’t lost his touch regarding his approach to popcorn entertainment. If you’re going into “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” expecting it to be a groundbreaking and serious fact-based action drama, you’ll quickly be disappointed with the result. Besides, Ritchie already made a dramatic action movie last year, so I don’t think he needs to take that approach twice in a row. Instead, the film is a straightforward, action-packed shoot-em-up that also functions as a race-against-the-clock boat trip to Nazi territory. Of course, since this is a Guy Ritchie movie, it’s not without a few instances of charisma-driven British humor to liven up its tone amid its adult-rated violence. If you come to this film for that, I will gladly say that “Ungentlemanly Warfare” will satisfy your needs. While specific plot and character moments felt lost underneath its colorful carnage, it easily compensates for it by delivering a healthy dose of entertainment and energy in its storytelling, direction, and cast. I know I've been saying this a lot, but Guy Ritchie is a solid filmmaker with an innate understanding of making fun, stylish movies. His style, writing skills, and tone perfectly align with his vision, providing a unique and captivating flavor to the action and spy genres. Despite the occasional hit-or-miss narratives, Ritchie's films are irresistibly charming and vibrant, making for exciting and engaging cinematic experiences. “Ungentlemanly Warfare” is no exception, with Ritchie incorporating his usual fast-cutting technique and energetic presentation into its 1940s production design and action sequences. As a result, it delivered some brutal yet satisfying instances of violence and a suitably paced spy adventure where each character plays a role in carrying its weight. This includes the humor and the chemistry between the cast, both of which successfully shoot down its naysayers, like how Henry Cavill shoots down the Nazis, with the comedy providing some delightful laughs through its dialogue. Henry Cavill has been working nonstop to make himself known outside the DC universe, and I don’t blame him. Some of his non-Superman roles were decent at best, including Agent Argylle in the recently released “Argylle”, but sadly, he has yet to truly shine regarding his box office returns outside the DC Cinematic Universe. Based on what I saw from “Ungentlemanly Warfare”, I really hope his role will break that losing streak. Cavill’s take on Gus March-Phillipps was a joy to witness on screen, not just because of his distinctive performance. It’s also due to Cavill’s charm and radiant appeal that made Gus a stimulating protagonist who shoots first and obeys orders never. He may be serviceable as a dramatic Superman, but when it comes to his light-hearted and comical roles like Gus, Henry Cavill is a real-life superhero we didn’t know we needed. Alan Ritchson also continues to deliver the goods in the action department regarding his role as Anders Lassen. His scenes involving his bow and arrow were surprisingly impressive. It’s as if Robin Hood was a sniper in World War II instead of leading his band of Merry Men in Sherwood Forest. Eiza González was also decent as Marjorie Stewart, an SOE agent sent undercover in a Nazi-occupied area. Even though Marjorie’s scenes without Gus’s gang were a bit concerning at first regarding the pacing, González managed to surprise me with her attempt to drive these scenes through her performance and her character’s significance to the mission. Overall, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” doesn’t provide many gentlemanly affairs, and it’s all the better because of it. It may not break any barriers in the action and spy genres regarding its simplistic narrative and straightforward characters. However, when it comes to Guy Ritchie himself, it hardly needs to. This is another stylish and entertaining action comedy that benefitted from Ritchie’s energetic vision and colorful cast of characters, which is enough to satisfy the director’s fans and the Nazi haters. With its charismatic cast, dynamic presentation, and action sequences exciting enough to carry a flawed yet serviceable story, the movie is a war-infested blast from start to finish. B-
0 Comments
“Road House” stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Daniela Melchior, Billy Magnussen, Jessica Williams, Joaquim de Almeida, and Conor McGregor. Released on Prime Video on March 21, 2024, the film has a former UFC fighter working at a roadhouse. The film was directed by Doug Liman, who also directed films such as “Go”, “The Bourne Identity”, “Edge of Tomorrow”, “American Made”, and “Chaos Walking”. It is a remake of the 1989 film written by David Lee Henry and Hilary Henkin. If there’s one thing I learned from watching wrestlers and MMA fighters battle in the ring, their skills are also helpful for other jobs. Most of them hone their expertise on the big screen, while others use them for…something else that doesn’t involve standing in front of a camera for the sake of fan service. For this particular fighter, his skillfulness is used to protect people at a country road tavern. Rowdy Herrington’s action film “Road House”, which involved a bouncer punishing unruly guests at a bar, didn’t make much of an impact financially and critically when released in 1989. However, it eventually became known as a classic “so bad, it’s good” film that features Patrick Swayze being handsomely muscular for under two hours. Its popularity spawned a direct-to-video sequel in 2006 that everyone loves to forget about. With how iconic the movie is despite the mixed reception, Hollywood thought now was the best time to reintroduce it via a remake starring another muscular actor, Jake Gyllenhaal. Unfortunately, instead of being released in theaters as director Doug Liman had planned, it went straight to Prime Video, much to the filmmaker’s frustration. Besides that, did the film have enough muscles to justify its existence and throw out its unruly flaws? Let’s find out. The story centers on Elwood Dalton (Gyllenhaal), a troubled former UFC middleweight fighter. After retiring from the sport, Elwood makes a living scamming fighters on the underground circuit. He is then approached by Frankie (Williams), the owner of a roadhouse in Glass Key, who offers Elwood a job as the bar’s head bouncer. While hesitant at first, Elwood accepts the position. Following his arrival, Elwood is tasked with protecting the roadhouse from its unruly guests while befriending several people, including teenage bookstore owner Charlie (Hannah Lanier) and a doctor named Ellie (Melchior). When a crime boss named Ben Brandt (Magnussen) sends his men to ruin its business, including a mentally unstable enforcer Knox (McGregor), Elwood must rely on his skills to protect the roadhouse and its guests. My experience with “Road House” is equivalent to my experience with an actual roadhouse: nonexistent. Despite its action-packed concept, I hadn’t gotten the time to watch the 1989 cult classic that maintained Patrick Swayze’s career until recently. With the remake being out on Prime Video, I decided to watch the original on the same streaming service for the first time. It wasn’t a masterpiece, but I enjoyed several moments from 1989's “Road House”, including Swayze beating the crud out of rowdy customers. Since the remake offered more of the same as the original, I didn’t have much expectations from it other than for it to be watchable despite its unnecessary existence. If you’re wondering why it took me this long to review this film, it’s because I had plenty of stuff I was taking care of that shouldn’t be ignored. In short, I’m sort of a bouncer myself, except I’m removing my personal issues from my premises instead of the short-tempered idiots wrecking the place. So, now that I have finally found the time to watch it, how did I feel about the 2024 update? Well, I can tell you this: it’s far from a disastrous night at the most dangerous tavern in Florida, but I wouldn’t call it a groundbreaking party. The 2024 remake of “Road House” offers plenty of moments that benefit from its action and style, which may be enough to make it watchable as its own film. However, when it comes to everything else, it plays off what you expect from an action-packed showdown between a troubled protagonist and the forces of corruption, for better or worse. If you’ve watched the original “Road House”, you’ll immediately know what you’ll get from the remake regarding its plot. Both movies follow a similar narrative: a man haunted by his violent past is hired as a bouncer at a roadhouse and tangles with a corrupt businessman controlling the town. However, the remake provided a few differences to prevent it from being a derivative copy of the original, including making Dalton a former mixed martial arts fighter. These changes may depend on what the original’s fans prefer, but to me, some of these changes gave the classic troubling-drifter narrative a modern makeover. Unfortunately, other cases came off as something we’ve seen many times before and a hit-and-miss attempt at replicating the original’s cheesy tone. Regarding the screenplay by Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry, “Road House” is a straightforward yet familiar punch-em-up experience that’s heavy on mindless brawn instead of storytelling brains. Those who don’t mind a straightforward action flick would find something to enjoy from “Road House”, especially its presentation. However, if you’re hoping for something more out of its characters and themes, such as Dalton’s past, you might want to try a different bar because this one doesn’t serve that order. From my perspective, its middling narrative doesn’t hit as hard as the characters’ punches, but I can easily admit that “Road House” is one of the better-looking remakes I’ve seen. This is due to director Doug Liman, whose style delivered an immersive and brutally fun display of roadhouse violence and manly abs, and the impressive cinematography by Henry Braham. The wide-angle shots, panning effects, and handheld camera techniques are essential aspects that make the presentation as slick and attractive as Gyllenhaal’s muscular body. The only issue with these sequences is that some of the CGI effects don’t look as polished as the real deal. Otherwise, the action scenes were pretty much what I expected: brutal yet entertaining. However, despite Liman’s best efforts to deliver some fun and decently shot R-rated violence, his approach to the film’s tone was a bit of a mess. The "Road House" remake takes a grittier approach to the story while incorporating charm and levity into its characters and corny dialogue, similar to the 1989 original. Although some of those moments were mildly amusing, the rest struggled to maintain that momentum. Finding the right balance between seriousness and cheesiness can be challenging, as it risks creating a tone that misleads or alienates the audience. In the case of "Road House", the tone exhibits a relentless and unyielding demeanor, evocative of a tough-as-nails attitude. However, the incorporation of humor into the film results in a forced or lackluster delivery that fails to resonate with the audience. Jake Gyllenhaal made some effort to make Dalton’s cool-headed yet mentally troubling personality its brightest moment, but there were a few occasions when his delivery came up short of my expectations. The only person who was able to make its tone somewhat watchable was professional UFC fighter Conor McGregor, who made his feature film debut as Knox. I haven’t watched enough UFC matches to know who McGregor was, but I was impressed by his attempt to make Knox’s psychotic personality mildly endearing. The fact that this was McGregor’s first acting gig makes it all the more welcoming. As for the rest of the cast, they did pretty well in helping Gyllenhaal carry the film. Daniela Melchior was decent as Dalton’s love interest, Ellie, and Billy Magnussen was hit-and-miss as Ben Brandt regarding the direction of the villain’s personality. Overall, “Road House” delivered a satisfying punch in its presentation and action but struggled to take its substance outside its limitations, like how Gyllenhaal takes the fight outside the establishment. It’s a well-shot and enjoyably brutal remake with enough moments to maintain my attention, including its cast and Liman’s direction for the fight sequences. Unfortunately, they couldn’t prevent it from being knocked down repeatedly by its tone, middling storytelling, and iffy CGI effects. It’s far from a knockout, but as far as remakes go, it’s definitely one of the more tolerable ones we have, regardless of its flaws. If you’re familiar with the 1989 cult classic, it’s worth watching on Prime Video, but don’t expect anything more than what it offered. C“Civil War” stars Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, and Nick Offerman. Released on April 12, 2024, the film has a group of journalists caught in the middle of a second civil war. The film is written and directed by Alex Garland, who also directed “Ex Machina”, “Annihilation”, and “Men”. Many wars have decimated the world throughout history because we just don’t know how to get along. But despite all this senseless violence, we’re still able to see tomorrow. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the world is safe from more impending wars creeping around every corner, even in today’s society. This one, in particular, is anything but civil. No, I’m not talking about the one where Captain America and Iron Man beat the crap out of one another. This type of civil war is much more real and haunting than the one from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, both of them provoke the question: What the heck is wrong with using our words instead of our fists or guns? This latest dystopian film from Alex Garland seeks to warn us of our impending future and provide indie jewel A24 its first step into blockbuster territory regarding the studio’s expensive budget. Does it succeed on both fronts or does it make us prefer escapism over realistic agendas in filmmaking? Let’s find out. The story is set in the near future when the United States is engulfed by an escalating multiparty civil war. The country has become a dystopian dictatorship under its President (Offerman), currently in his third term. Among the population affected by the war is a team of journalists: war photojournalist Lee Smith (Dunst), young photographer Jessie (Spaeny), Lee’s colleague Joel (Moura), and veteran reporter Sammy (Henderson). Despite the dangers and violence coming from the war, Lee leads the team across the country to Washington, D.C. in an attempt to interview the President about the current situation. They encounter multiple perils in a race against the clock to arrive at their destination before the rebel factions get to the capital first. Not many films this year have garnered more attention and conversations than “Civil War”, and with good reason. The movie depicted the horrors of what could’ve been if society hadn’t changed its current behavior for the better. While it’s portrayed more as a fictional tale than a full-length documentary, it’s hard to ignore how it somehow resembles the recent acts of violence we got, including the January 6 incident. It’s one of the reasons I was looking forward to “Civil War”, with the other being Alex Garland’s involvement. While his movies after “Ex Machina” were more alienating than brilliant, I appreciated his bold attempts to provide complex conversations within the horror and thriller genres. However, I can also admit his execution of specific narrative elements was pretty iffy. “Civil War” looks to be another example of a conversation starter based on its marketing. However, the other challenge it needs to excel at is attracting audiences outside those preferring “thinking movies”. While “Civil War” may seem like an action-packed war movie from the marketing, there’s more to it than just another standard blockbuster. It’s more along the lines of a horror suspense drama that uses the war between different factions as a source of terror. It doesn’t explain what caused this war to occur or expand upon its political significance. Instead, it immediately puts the audience right into the chaos, with no idea how it happened other than divided factions killing each other. This lack of world-building may not work for those needing to know what the heck’s up with America, but based on what I saw, I found it effective in that it provides the fear of being in the dark about it. But does it make the movie a gripping experience? Yeah, it does. Packed with unsettling moments of violence and characters that are more humane than traditional, “Civil War” is a bold and visually stunning tale of modern warfare that benefited from Garland’s audacious vision. Regarding Garland’s direction and screenplay, the film faithfully depicts the horrors of war and the discomfort of imagining its possibility while avoiding its commercialized and political agendas. However, that’s not the only element that made “Civil War” a striking piece of war cinema. It’s also a realistic and haunting display of war journalism that doesn’t hold back on its dreadful merits. While it may be cool to see the action up close, it’s not something people should take as their first job because, as we said countless times, war is hell. Not only do they run the risk of getting caught in the crossfire if they are not careful, but they can also see things they might be unprepared to witness, such as the lifeless bodies left behind. The movie's decision to center its narrative solely around the journalists was an excellent choice, as it effectively captured the palpable tension that arose from their fears and defenselessness. Moreover, the characters Lee and Jessie added another layer of depth and complexity to the film's overall story. Lee is described as a famed yet hardened photojournalist who’s an expert at her job, but that doesn’t make her invincible regarding her past experiences. She’s focused on the task at hand, but there are also moments of her humanity that make Lee more than just a strict, cold-hearted person. Kirsten Dunst offered a highly compelling performance that balances Lee’s strictness with a subtle sense of worry and dread, making her one of the film’s highlights. Would I also say it’s one of Dunst’s best performances of her career outside of “Spider-Man”? Absolutely. She was riveting. Another highlight I think should get more attention was the young Cailee Spaeny, who also delivered one of the best performances I’ve seen. Of course, that’s only due to me not seeing “Priscilla”, but don’t worry. I’ll get to it eventually. Spaeny’s role as Jessie perfectly resembles the perception of those experiencing war firsthand, including an up-and-coming journalist. The complex emotions, including fear and dread, benefitted profoundly through Spaeny’s impressive acting, which is enough to get me intrigued about her future as an actress. Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson also delivered strong performances as Joel and Sammy, respectively. There’s also Jesse Plemons as one of the soldiers you see in the trailers, and all I can say is that fans of the actor might be pleased with what he offered despite his short screen time. Of course, it’s not just the horror and violence that sells “Civil War”. The technical aspects made the film a highly captivating experience worth seeing on the big screen with the best sound system. Rob Hardy’s cinematography miraculously envisions the frightfulness of the film’s thrilling violence and unsettling imagery, including the finale. However, it also isn’t afraid to showcase the gorgeousness and immersion of its sceneries, which is enough to pull audiences into the action. This is an excellent-looking film that displays the efforts of Garland’s collaboration with Rob Hardy. I would also credit the sound team for creating a sense of realism in the gunfire and explosions and even editor Jake Roberts for the transitions between the pictures taken and the action unfolding. My only issue with the film was its soundtrack, mainly in the first 45 minutes. There was this one song I think felt misplaced for a scene that was supposed to be disturbingly dark, but that’s just me. The other song after that was fine, although the film might’ve worked better if the soundtrack was only for the end credits. Overall, “Civil War” is a gripping, disturbing, and thought-provoking portrayal of the horrors of war journalism that also works as a cautionary warning for our uncertain future. Through his remarkable vision and enticing script, Alex Garland effectively combines the film’s distressing themes with audacious storytelling to craft a brilliantly immersive and haunting experience from start to finish. Despite my take on the film’s soundtrack, this is a vast improvement over Garland’s previous two films as a director due to its cast, mainly Dunst and Spaeny, intense action, and technical achievements. This is not only Garland’s best directorial film since “Ex Machina”, but it’s also one of the year's best movies, war-related or otherwise. Its focus on drama over nonstop action and unnerving concept may not bode well for everyone, but I will still recommend it to those who enjoy war movies with substance. A-“The First Omen” stars Nell Tiger Free, Tawfeek Barhom, Sônia Braga, Ralph Ineson, and Bill Nighy. Released on April 5, 2024, the film has a woman uncovering a frightening conspiracy at a Roman Church. The film was directed by Arkasha Stevenson, a former journalist who directed episodes of “Legion” and Briarpatch” and helmed the third season of “Channel Zero”. It is a prequel to the 1976 horror classic “The Omen”. Many people born in the 1970s usually remember the decade when they first experienced the true terror of the horror genre. One of the movies that revitalized the genre during the 70s involved an exorcist that struck fear into the audience and even the people who worked on it. The other has a seemingly nice young boy hiding a sadistic secret that’ll make believers in faith wet their pants. The one I’m referring to is “The Omen”, a tension-filled supernatural classic by Richard Donner that warns viewers of the dangers of the Antichrist. Its cultural impact and religious themes resulted in “The Omen” becoming an iconic franchise consisting of three underwhelming sequels, a 2006 remake, and a 2016 television series titled “Damien” that was canceled after one season. The latter would’ve been the last time we see the Antichrist haunting our religious goodwill. That is until we heard that the greater evil has returned with a prequel that depicts its impending birth. Was it able to recapture the holy terror of the original, or should the Antichrist remain in Hell where it belongs? Let’s find out. The story follows Margaret Daino (Free), a young American woman sent to Rome to begin her life of service to the church. She works at the Vizzardeli Orphanage, run by its Abbess, Sister Silvia (Braga). As the days pass, Margaret eventually finds that her religious path isn’t as easygoing as she thought, as strange, questionable events occur around the Catholic Church when she meets an estranged young girl named Carlita (Nicole Sorace). She soon discovers that the church is plagued with a conspiracy to bring about the birth of the Antichrist. As a result, Margaret must find a way to expose the church’s unholy secret before the ritual is complete. Like my experiences with other horror classics like “The Exorcist”, my knowledge of “The Omen” is as minuscule as a fly. I rarely watched the 1976 classic and never watched any of the sequels. But I watched the 2006 remake once, so that should be enough to know what I’m getting myself into for the prequel. I didn’t have much faith in “The First Omen” for several reasons. One was that it looked like another basic supernatural horror film from the trailers, and the movie just seemingly appeared out of nowhere, at least from my perspective. Regardless, I was willing to judge this one fairly because I’m better than the demons who always judge things by their appearances. However, like my experiences with the other horror movies of the past year, I kept my expectations low for “The First Omen” despite the film receiving some surprisingly positive reviews. After viewing it myself, I actually found myself on the same page as those glowing reviews. “The First Omen” has the usual makings of a supernatural horror film, especially one involving religion. You have the unexplainable series of incidents plaguing the characters, the information exploring this phenomenon, and the mystery surrounding it that leads to the shocking truth. It’s what you would expect out of a film depicting unsettling terror in the religious realm or any other movie with a supernatural presence. While that may be the case at first glance, the film also offers a surprising amount of effort in its quality to avoid being condemned by the cinematic horror gods. This is another modern horror movie that took advantage of its tried-and-true narrative to deliver on its concept: a terrifying and often unsettling depiction of anti-religion. Admittedly, it doesn’t reinvent the genre wheel with its storytelling, but the prequel does breathe new life into a horror franchise possessed by low-quality sequels. One of the reasons for its success was its direction. Instead of following the basics of a Blumhouse horror movie, “The First Omen” goes for a more slow-burning and somewhat stylish approach to its mystery and frights while maintaining some of the genre’s traditional tricks. It’s like a mixture of A24 horror vibes with modern scares, meaning fewer jump scares and more of its unnerving imagery. Since it’s based on a popular IP like “The Omen”, I see this as a risky gamble that may not go over well with those hoping for another straightforward scary movie filled with annoying jump scares and gory kills. There’s also the matter of its runtime, which clocks in at exactly two hours long, explaining its slow pacing. “Halloween Ends” attempted to provide this mixture, but unfortunately, it didn’t bode very well for the hardcore fans. Fortunately, “The First Omen” avoided this similar fate by delivering jump-scare-less frights that were actually frightening. Despite resorting to the franchise’s playbook periodically and its unnecessary length, “The First Omen” works as another haunting gateway to slow-burn, stylized horror that’s also visually surreal and discomforting. The film marked the feature directorial debut of television director Arkasha Stevenson, which is usually one of the signs of a horror movie’s impending disaster. That’s not to say she’s a bad choice to direct the film as she seemingly has a healthy track record in her filmography, including her two short films “Vessels” and “Pineapple”. So, it made me curious about her approach to directing a movie and the “Omen” brand itself compared to her work on television. To my surprise, I thought Stevenson did very well with what she delivered. Regarding the atmospheric tension and nightmarish sceneries, Arkasha Stevenson provides a sense of dread and darkness that overshadows the genre’s usual setbacks, especially the scares. The movie also benefitted profoundly from Aaron Morton’s cinematography, visual effects, and Mark Korven’s creepily delightful score, emphasizing a religion’s dark side. Many people believe that horror movies must be full of jump scares and excessive gore to be truly terrifying. However, this is not always the case. Some of the most spine-chilling horror films rely on the fear of the unknown, such as the supernatural or the unexplained. Even seemingly holy entities, which are typically thought of as safe and protective, can become excellent sources of terror in the proper context. By playing on these primal fears, filmmakers like Stevenson can create a truly immersive and terrifying experience for their audiences, and "The First Omen" is another solid example of this theory. Nell Tiger Free, recently known for her television works like “Servant” and “Game of Thrones”, leads a suitable cast whose talents are as holy as a Roman Church. Free’s performance as Margaret delivered an engaging mixture of innocence and fear that would make audiences feel they were in the same situation as her. This was my first exposure to the young actress, mainly because I don’t watch much television, and based on what I’ve seen from her, it surely won’t be my last. Ralph Ineson and Bill Nighy also made their presences work regarding their performances as Father Brennan and Cardinal Lawrence, respectively. Overall, “The First Omen” damns its naysayers by delivering a worthy and nightmarish prequel that’s more on style and discomfort than third-rate horror annoyance. Its genre formula is anything but holy, and its two-hour runtime can be bothersome for most horror fans regarding its pacing and risky approach. Regardless, it’s another occurrence where a seemingly basic horror movie, let alone a prequel, puts more effort into its concept and quality than most scary films involving the supernatural, resulting in a surprisingly decent addition to the genre. Don’t you love it when a film surpasses our low expectations? I sure do. More importantly, the film is a much-needed improvement for the middling franchise due to its cast, Stevenson’s direction, stylish presentation, and unnerving frights. If you’re looking for another scare-your-pants-off experience and are a fan of the “Omen” movies, this film may depend on how you feel about its slow pacing and lack of jump scares. But I can see it impressing those wanting a genuinely good religion-themed horror movie. B“Monkey Man” stars Dev Patel, Sharlto Copley, Pitobash, Sobhita Dhulipala, Sikandar Kher, Vipin Sharma, Ashwini Kalsekar, Adithi Kalkunte, and Makarand Deshpande. Released on April 5, 2024, the film has a young man seeking revenge against the corrupt leaders responsible for his mother’s death. The film features the directorial debut of Dev Patel. Many stories depict a nobody's journey that sparks a rebellion against corruption, violence, and discrimination. They encourage us to stand up to those in power and treat each other equally. This trend continues with a new action-packed thrill ride whose backstory is just as exciting as its straightforward concept. The film, which has Dev Patel in the director’s chair for the first time, was initially set to be released on Netflix. However, that was quickly changed when comedian/horror maestro Jordan Peele saw the movie himself and declared, “This has to be in theaters. Screw streaming!” and the rest is history. That guy sure knows how to exceed our expectations of him, especially during the current state of streaming we’re seeing now. Now that it has punched its way into cinemas, let’s see if Peele made the right choice regarding its execution. The story centers on Kid (Patel), an anonymous young man in Mumbai. He experienced a traumatic childhood involving his village being destroyed by the country’s corruption and his mother Neela’s (Kalkunte) death at the hands of police chief Rana Singh (Kher). Since then, Kid has spent years traversing through the city to face his murderers. As his journey for vengeance progresses, Kid discovers that his venture sparks a revolution for his people, tormented by the country's corrupt leaders, including guru Baba Shakti (Deshpande). Despite the odds stacked against him, Kid must fight tooth and nail to exact his revenge and save his people. When I saw Patel and Peele’s names on the film’s marketing, I knew it would be on my list of this year’s highly-anticipated movies. Patel has been on my radar since his debut in 2008’s “Slumdog Millionaire”, with his role in “The Green Knight” being my favorite. As for Jordan Peele, if you’ve been following my reviews of his works, you’ll know exactly how I feel about him. His approach toward the horror genre has a healthy track record that’s impossible to ignore, and even his filmography as only a producer outside the genre has been pretty decent so far. With these two involved, along with its kick-ass marketing, this seemingly grim and ultra-violent movie had the opportunity to become another crowd-pleasing theatrical experience despite being another John Wick ripoff. The question is: was it a good crowd-pleasing experience? Well, it’ll depend on your expectations. When it comes to the story, “Monkey Man” has plenty of elements that we’ve seen before, mainly the protagonist seeking revenge on the murderers. In this case, Kid travels through a neo-noir city ruled by those claiming themselves as gods. Amid the journey, the film showcased brief flashbacks of his past that led him down this path of revenge, including his mother’s brutal murder by Rana and the legend of Hanuman. While it serves as a revenge thriller set in Mumbai, “Monkey Man” is also a grim and often discomforting portrayal of class exploitation through violence, corruption, and pessimism. The movie showcased its location as an absolute hellhole where the people’s obsession with power outweighs those below them. In short, it is one country you probably won’t spend your vacation in. Through Patel’s visual storytelling and direction, “Monkey Man” offered a gritty and immensely haunting depiction of the country that also isn’t without its brutalities. Patel also had an impressive passion for representing the Hindu culture and mythologies amid its sociopolitical commentary, evidently seen by its presentation. The movie is an old-fashioned yet entertaining revenge tale that has plenty to say about Indian society and the deception surrounding it. On the storytelling front, “Monkey Man” occasionally struggles to maintain this balance regarding its hit-and-miss execution. In the film's first act, Kid is portrayed in a more humanizing way rather than just being shown as a violent person. The screenplay handles the character well, so I didn't mind the slower pace with less action. This means that the movie is more equally focused on drama and action, which is different from what the marketing suggested. But once the first action scene hit, it immediately became a hard-hitting, brutal roller coaster that grabbed me tight until the end. While some of the narrative beats didn’t hit as hard as its punches on an emotional and thematic level, there’s plenty to enjoy from this violently fun and often bold take on the action thriller genre. Dev Patel has proven to be a solid filmmaker in terms of his vision and direction toward the action sequences. However, he has yet to match or outdo himself as an actor. Patel continues to be an electrifying force of nature in front of the camera, thanks to his stupefying portrayal of Kid. The emotional range Kid possessed, whether rage or trauma, was effectively empowered by Patel’s performance, which is enough to keep him in the Hollywood spotlight for a while. The rest of the cast, mainly consisting of Indian actors, also did decently well with their performances, including Pitobash and Dhulipala as Alphonso and Sita, respectively. Along with its representation, I would also credit Patel and the crew for sticking with an Indian supporting cast to increase its authenticity instead of getting someone else famous to fill those roles. There’s also Sharlto Copley, who plays the role of Tiger, and it definitely looked like he was having fun with his performance, which is expected considering his filmography. But what about the action sequences, you ask? Well, it’s easy to admit that those who like “John Wick” will likely have a blast with “Monkey Man” regarding its brutal violence. From my perspective, “Monkey Man” fulfills its expectations of an often stylish and immersive display of authentic action choreography that’ll make genre fans go bananas. While most of its action scenes were shown in the trailers, that didn’t stop me from admiring the effort in making the R-rated violence fun and savage. Unfortunately, the only thing that brought this aspect down for me was its use of the shaky cam. On some occasions, this filmmaking trick makes the audience feel engrossed in the world through Kid’s perspective. But most of the time, it makes some sequences difficult to see what’s happening regarding its panning effects and close-up shots. Thankfully, it’s not as overused as most generic action movies, even if it somewhat hindered my experience. Overall, “Monkey Man” is an effortful display of authentic action and representation that’s as bananas as the protagonist’s killing spree. Regarding its storytelling, the movie is admirable in providing a soul in its tried-and-true formula and realistically grim themes amid its violence. However, it didn’t reach the heights it was going for emotionally to make it stand out from other movies with similar plots, including “John Wick”. Regardless, it’s another entertaining thrill ride that pounds its chest with pride due to Patel’s irresistible performance, decent direction, and brutal action sequences. So, was Peele right in putting this film in theaters instead of streaming? Well, the obvious answer is yes because who doesn’t love seeing an action movie on the big screen? As for Patel, I could see him tackling his directorial duties again if the opportunity comes knocking at his door. Based on what I saw from him, I think he has enough good merits to make it big as a filmmaker. If you’re looking for another adult-rated slugfest that isn’t “John Wick”, this movie may be for you. B- |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |