Tag: movies

400 Words on: Snow White (2025)

or, “A Big Studio Budget Retained for Payroll”:
A spoiler-free mini movie review.

1 out of 5

Snow White 2025 is as much a product for consumer consumption as it is a snapshot of Disney’s current socioeconomic agenda – from Lion King’s Pride Rock in the background of their vanity card; to bookending sequences so similar to Beauty and the Beast’s you’d swear copycat if they didn’t both originate from the same company; to Dopey’s now-curable neurodivergence.

It attempts to redux the material as a feminocentric Robin Hood with a protagonist who’s ‘her own woman,’ but she’ll still drop everything to jubilate musically about her new White beau.

As the titular character, Rachel Zegler opts for the Queen of the High School Drama Department approach: she’s kinda hot and can carry a tune, but emotionally empty from crying about her now off-again boyfriend right before showtime. Watch her strain during the movie’s one big moment for her to act: like Zachary Levi’s recent dramatic try in The Unbreakable Boy, Zegler lacks the skill required to convincingly portray painful remorse. Go do some indies and get back to us.

[cont’d]

Continue reading →
Posted on by wd 0

400 Words on: Conclave (2024)

or, “Doing Away with the Chiller in the Thriller”:
A spoiler-free mini movie review.

2 out of 5

I remember the trailer for Conclave last autumn, and I didn’t want to see it then, either.

Between the super-serious ensemble of Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow, and Stanley Tucci all speaking in soft whispers; to the frequent high-angle framing of old White men in robes walking briskly through courtyards; to the punctuated explosion, it simply did not look like a good time. It looked like someone, somewhere was trying too hard.

Lo-and-behold, Conclave’s advertising & creative choices are misrepresentational – this isn’t a nail-biter: it’s a procedural about what happens when the Pope dies, and finding the right person to replace them.

The subject matter at-large joins The Program & The International as a movie with a rich topic worth edu-telling the viewer. But here, that knowledge is at the expense of wasting my time! (with an overdramatized aesthetic suggesting a core mystery that doesn’t actually exist)

[cont’d]

Continue reading →
Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: Forsaken (2015)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

2.5 out of 5

Let’s consider the contentiousness between celebrity parents & their offspring: the Voigt/Jolie/Pitt’s; the O’Neal’s; the Barrymore’s…

The public only receives as much information that’s dished; often, that doesn’t include the forgiveness intrinsic to maintaining a healthy, life-long relationship with one’s family. That’s usually something us plebs experience ourselves, in time.

Great, then, for actor Kiefer Sutherland actually wanting to work with his late father & icon Donald. Kiefer hasn’t been featured on-screen so much since the height of COVID, what with his side-gig as a country musician. I saw him live in 2019 and, while I can’t remember his music, I think all of us in attendance were awed to see Jack Bauer/David the Daywalker in the flesh.

Where their filmography choices differ, father & son’s similar acting disciplines, and uncanny biology, can be felt in their shared scenes for the 2015 western Forsaken.

Forsaken has noble intentions – no doubt about that. It has a linear, easy-to-follow man-versus-himself redemption story, devoid of texture that doesn’t serve the plot. It has wonderfully verbose dialogue, recited melodramatically by its cavalcade of character actors (Demi Moore; Michael Wincott). It has a subversive epilogue, swapping a lovesick reunion for a tearful family goodbye. There really isn’t anything thematically wrong with it.

But it’s slow. Damn slow! Characterizations & script points are blander than superior genre examples, like Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (Richard Harris’ English Bob vs. Wincott’s Gentleman Dave) and Ed Harris’ Appaloosa (the love triangle). Brian Cox as the villain is Brian Cox as the villain, doing his billowy, profane Brian Cox thing – though credit goes to director Jon Cassar for convincing the Shakespearean-trained thespian to die next to a big pile of horse shit. And it’s always a bit rocking to see close-ups of gory, chunky gibs in the last ten minutes when the previous eighty lacked such morbid details.

Although only an hour-and-a-half, Forsaken feels twice as long when its quiet moments insist on themselves, like endless wood-cutting, and rumours from the church social club. If there were fewer of those hyperrealistic pauses – so common in modern prestige television – perhaps Kiefer & Donald’s understated work here would have serviced the picture as a whole, as opposed to being ‘one effective element’ of a decidedly average film.

If you want to see peak cinematic familial synchronicity, Forsaken is a low-calorie – if forgettable – clone.

Poster sourced from themoviedb.org. As of publication, Forsaken is available to watch for free in Western Canada on CBC Gem (unsponsored). What do you think? Leave us a comment below!

Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: The Program (2015)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

3 out of 5

In Tom Tykwer’s 2009 thriller The International, there’s a two minute scene explaining banking for laymen. Being now middle-aged, I get that financial institutions profit off interest, but, 16-years-ago & raised without financial skills, some surprise edu-tainment was appreciated.

Same goes for Lance Armstrong biopic The Program: Guillaume Canet as moustache-twirling Dr. Ferrari breaks down the science of steroids for a non-sports guy like myself within a few well-delivered lines.

If there’s one thing to admire about the film, it’s this streamlined structure: we start with Armstrong’s first Tour de France, and stay largely with the Tour and Lance’s first-hand experiences with cycling culture – including doping – in a linear narrative.

Ben Foster is the perfect lead for this creative direction: he exudes determination, even in his Lance’s moments of weakness. This vulnerability very rarely materializes under the narcissism, leading to some genuine – albeit cringey – humour, like a break-up message from Nike, or whispered threats to his competitors mid-race.

Awkward levity is par-for-the-course for High Fidelity director Stephen Frears, who also brings a digital, documentary quality to the film’s images, which work in favour of the lengthy, zestful racing scenes.

Alas, the film also feels the need to pivot to The IT Crowd’s Chris O’Dowd as David Walsh – a real-life journalist skeptical of Armstrong’s wins & author of the non-fiction book the film is based on. The Program may maintain a sprightly momentum its entire duration, but that includes the numerous office scenes with O’Dowd, which are visually edited so haphazardly they took me out of Golden Topping Land. Chris is good as the character, but viewers already follow a first-hand account in Lance himself, rendering O’Dowd’s role & the scenes it inhabits narratively supererogatory.

Usually I’m a champion of shorter movies, but The Program’s ninety minutes end too abruptly, where there would traditionally be a third-act courtroom climax. The post-film text alludes to events not-yet-transpired, suggesting the movie was made while Armstrong’s fate was still in litigation. Had producers waited, and exchanged O’Dowd’s material for more about Lance’s personal life (his wife’s meet-cute is blocked like a fling, but in the next scene they’re married), I may not have been disconnected from the material as often.

In spite of that, The Program is still worth watching for the knowledge gained, the racing, and Ben Foster’s performance.

Poster sourced from impawards.com. As of publication, The Program is available to watch for free in Western Canada on Tubi (unsponsored). What do you think? Leave us a comment below!

Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: Flight Risk (2025)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

1 out of 5

I think it was “Plastic Bag” & “99 Homes” director Ramin Bahrani who said he hasn’t use for narrative over-explication, since audiences statistically weren’t going to show up for his movie unless they’d seen a trailer first.

With that in mind, if you’ve seen the trailer for “Flight Risk,” you don’t need to show up at all: there are no additional story twists; a sleepy soundtrack; a reliance on juvenile humour; obvious acting; and zero flair from a director I expected more from.

For the second time this year already, I ask: what the Hell happened? Mel Gibson may strike malaise in the hearts of certain cinephiles, but he’s still directed some bangers. Similar to Kevin Costner’s self-produced features, Gibson indulges in unhinged hero worship at the centre of large-scale story conflict.

Flight Risk, then, offered Mel the chance not only to follow his first female protagonist, but to attempt a ‘bottle feature:’ just a handful of actors in one location. Sadly, he doesn’t deliver on the juj Flight Risk’s predictable, placid plotting needs.

Take the reveal that Mark Wahlberg’s psychotic hitman is actually balding: rather than pay homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho” and overplay the moment, it’s a throwaway image lacking luridness or camp. Had the production shot some alternate takes with hair so the bald head was a surprise, my reaction may have differed, but drab also sums up composer Antonio Pinto’s sparse soundtrack, which should be driving the story during the frequent moments it can’t carry itself.

Joining Mark are “Downton Abbey’s” Michelle Dockery, whose pastiche of stoic cop tropes forgets the Aviators – which she pulls out an hour too late for her arc – along with poor Topher Grace as a sharp-tongued, pushing-50 Eric Forman. Maybe Netflix audiences new to “That 70’s Show” will find his schtick appealing, but I’ve watched Topher play the same character now for almost thirty years. I’m done.

The film starts getting good in its final 10, which crams 90-minutes worth of action – that should have been evenly spaced throughout the rest of the picture – all into the climax, including one unexpectedly juicy bit of gore just because. If you fall asleep or turn it off before that, though, I won’t blame you.

Watching Flight Risk is to learn the hard way that Mel Gibson’s directorial idiom shouldn’t be through a macro lens.

Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Could Flight Risk’s advertising have benefitted from some Marvel Studios-style misdirection, even extending to shooting certain pivotal scenes more than once? Would the film have been more engaging had Topher Grace recycled his serial killer from 2010’s “Predators” and played the villain here instead? Will Michelle Dockery even still have a career after this, besides the recently-announced “Downton Abbey 3?” Are YOU stoked for “The Passion 2?” Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on by wd 0