Review: Another Simple Favor

Image courtesy of Amazon.

Paul Feig's "Another Simple Favor," a sequel to the quasi-popular 2018 film "A Simple Favor," is one of those sequels where it appeared that the entire cast wanted to vacation in a gorgeous spot, so they built an entire film around it, kind of like Adam Sandler has been doing in recent years.

Against all odds, the film brings the two lead characters from the original back together again and introduces a slew of new ones - there are Italian mobsters, FBI agents, book agents, twins, creepy aunties whom we didn't know existed, and various others - and plops them all down on the gorgeous Italian island of Capri.

As the film opens, the once-mousy Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick), who is now an author, albeit not quite a best-selling one, and true crime online influencer (is this a thing?), is promoting the book about her experiences with murderess Emily (Blake Lively) when the latter pops up at a book signing and basically threatens to sue Stephanie if she doesn't attend her wedding in Capri. The explanation for why she's no longer in prison for murdering her father and sister is flimsy at best.

Suddenly, Stephanie is in Capri with a book agent (Alex Newell), a character who does not need to exist for the purposes of this movie, and Emily, but also Sean (Henry Golding), the sort-of ex of each of them, as well as Dante (Michele Morrone), the beefy scion of an Italian mob family that is at war with another family that, for whatever reason, will be attending the wedding.

Elizabeth Perkins pops up as Emily's mother, while Allison Janney is a mysterious aunt whose behavior gets stranger by the moment. There's also a bumbling FBI agent (Taylor Ortega) who is following Stephanie around and Portia (Elena Sofia Ricci), Dante's unfriendly and seemingly sociopathic mother. There's also another character who becomes integral late in the film whom I can't discuss without giving away spoilers.

Needless to say, Stephanie is skeptical as to why Emily wants her there, and isn't comforted much when Emily regales her with a tale of a god who brought people to the island to entertain him and, when they didn't, threw them off the cliff.

Shortly after everyone's arrival, a murder occurs - and then another. There's a lot going on in this film - some of it amusing, some of it not so much - and the picture often feels like it's juggling numerous plot lines, styles, and genres. Sometimes it's funny, while at other times it plays up the murder-mystery element Occasionally, a character might be charming or funny, only to be later revealed as a lunatic.

"Another Simple Favor" has its moments - the tete a tetes between Stephanie and Emily are occasionally amusing - and there are some scenes I could have done without, especially a sequence involving the usage of a truth serum. The original 2018 film was one that didn't really need a sequel, yet the finale of this one hints at more to come. 

This is a film that could be described as busy. Juggling multiple storylines can lead to success if each of the plot lines are intriguing. Some of the ones in "Another Simple Favor" are amusing enough, but others fizzle out, resulting in a sequel that's only intermittently successful and, more often than not, running on fumes.

Review: The Shrouds

Image courtesy of Janus Films.

Everyone has their own manner of processing grief, and occasionally some methods might veer toward the unusual. In David Cronenberg's latest film, "The Shrouds," which was conceived of in the wake of the loss of Cronenberg's wife to cancer, the central character, Karsh (Vincent Cassel), uses methods that are off-putting to women as he attempts to get back on the dating scene. 

In one of the film's opening scenes, his latest date is taken aback to learn that Karsh - who owns both a cemetery, restaurant located on the cemetery's property, and a company known as GraveTech that acts as an Internet-connected mausoleum - has created technology that allows grieving people to watch their loved ones decompose within their graves. 

Why would anyone want to do this? Karsh explains that he was with his wife every step of their lives since they met and feels horrible to think that her body is alone in its grave. Therefore, he and GraveTech's users can log onto a screen in which they see their loved one's body within the grave. In the casket, they are covered by "shrouds" with cameras in somewhat of a reference to the Shroud of Turin.

But something is afoot. One night, the mausoleum is vandalized, with several of the graves having been overturned, and Karsh is locked out of the technology that allows him to view his wife's body. Could it be the Russians or the Chinese, whom he is told might be trying to compete with his technology? Is it an act of protest from a group denouncing the moral implications of the technology? Could it have something to do with his wife's relationship with the doctor that treated her whom Karsh never met, but suspects something of a romantic element might have been taking place?

He gets paranoid suggestions from Terry (Diane Kruger), a dog groomer and twin sister of his wife, Becca (also Kruger) as well as a conspiracy theorist. He gets more tech-savvy answers from Terry's ex-husband, the nebbish Maury (Guy Pearce). Karsh also gets involved with the blind wife (Sandrine Holt) of a Hungarian billionaire who wants to utilize the technology as his own impending death from illness looms - and there's a possibility that this scenario might play a role in the mysterious sabotage.

Cronenberg has long been known as the king of body horror, which derives from so many of his films having to do with the horrors of the body's ailment, whether it's the gooey remake of "The Fly," the twisted tale of twin doctors "Dead Ringers," the recent surgery-heavy "Crimes of the Future," the medically-themed "The Brood," or "Videodrome," a film about losing the sense of one's reality that suggests "leaving the old flesh behind."

In many ways, "The Shrouds" also feels like an answer to the director's moniker. Throughout the film, Karsh has dreams in which Becca comes to his bed nude at night and her body is seen slowly disintegrating from her disease. At one point, she shows up with a missing breast or an arm. During a scene in which they cuddle, her hip suddenly snaps because of the frailty of her bones. While Cronenberg's body horror movies suggested the frailty of the flesh, his latest is based on the very real horrors of the body's wasting away due to age or disease.

While I liked "The Shrouds" and found its labyrinthine conspiracy theories compelling and mysterious, the picture ranks more in the realm of some of his more recent films such as "Maps to the Stars" or "Cosmopolis," rather than some of the aforementioned body horror classics or the work from his highly productive late 20th century-early 21st century period - for example, "Crash," "Spider," "A History of Violence," "Eastern Promises" or "A Dangerous Method."

Cassell makes a compelling lead as a seemingly Cronenbergian stand-in and the rest of cast - Kruger playing double duty, Pearce as the squirrelly technology expert, and Holt as the mysterious wife of the Hungarian billionaire - are also good. Despite some squirmy sequences involving decomposing corpses, "The Shrouds" is a bit milder than some of the director's other films, especially the recent, grim "Crimes of the Future." It's not one of his best, but it's possibly his most personal and overall a good film.

Movie Review: Sinners

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” may at times feel like a riff on Robert Rodriguez’s “From Dusk Till Dawn” and, sure enough, the final third of the picture is fairly similar to that one – but this is also a movie with much more on its mind and, for the most part, works as a period piece, gangster drama set in the South and somewhat a musical that touches on race and, yes, features vampires.

Not all of this necessarily works, but overall Coogler’s latest – a big budget studio film that is a nice reprieve from all the IP, sequels, and reboots – is an engaging picture. It also helps that it has such a strong cast, from Michael B. Jordan playing two former mob-affiliated brothers, Hailee Steinfeld as a family affiliate who had an affair with one of the brothers, Wunmi Mosaku as the former lover of the other brother, Miles Canton as a cousin and budding musician, and the always-great, scene-stealing Delroy Lindo as another musician.

There’s a lot going on in “Sinners,” but the general premise is that Smoke and Stack (Jordan) – considering how much this film is indebted to the blues, I can only assume that these names were inspired by a certain Howlin’ Wolf song – are brothers who previously did jobs for Al Capone in Chicago and, in 1932 Mississippi, have returned home to open a juke joint in the middle of nowhere.

They enlist the help of Sammy (Canton), a shy cousin who is gifted with the guitar, and Delta Slim (Lindo), a cranky harmonica player, to provide music on opening night. Mosaku’s Annie – with whom Smoke once had a child who died – will help run the joint, while store owner Grace (Li Jun Li) and her husband will mind the bar. A large man named Cornbread (Omar Benson Miller) will provide security. A seemingly shady man sells the brothers the building and swears that the Ku Klux Klan is no longer active in the area, upon their inquiry on the matter.

The film’s first third does a nice job of establishing its many characters and what their relationships are to each other. The picture is gorgeously shot and its first section involves numerous scenes of its characters making their way through sunny, but isolated, landscapes. The film’s middle portion involves the opening night. And the final section involves the event’s intrusion by a trio of white vampires – who also happen to be in a band – as they lure guests outside, pick them off one by one, and form a small army that’s ready to invade the juke joint, that is, if they’re invited in.

Not every scene in the film works. For example, during Sammy’s debut, Coogler and company make a strange stylistic choice by portraying various types of artists of consequence through the ages – from African dancers to men on electric guitars and even a DJ scratching a record – hanging out in the juke as the music plays. I’m sure there’s a point to be made here about the power of music and those who possess the quality to transfix others by playing it, but it comes off as half baked.

Also, the final confrontation with the vampires comes off a bit rushed after what felt like a significant amount of buildup. However, a semi-cathartic scene following that when Smoke takes on some Klan members more than makes up for it.

In recent years, Coogler has primarily been making films that might qualify as existing IP – “Creed” or “Black Panther” sequels – that were good, if not earth shattering. This is the first original film he has made since “Fruitvale Station” and while it doesn’t reach the levels of that powerful, lower budget picture, it’s still an engaging movie that juggles a variety of genres and concepts, mostly in a smooth manner. All in all, it’s pretty good.

Review: Warfare

Image courtesy of A24.

If nothing else, director Alex Garland's "Warfare" is an example of impressive execution. The film, based on the actual experiences of co-director Ray Mendoza, throws you right into the melee of being under fire in an intense standoff between American forces and Iraqi jihadists in 2006. As such, it's a gripping experience that is likely to make you queasy.

But much like Garland's 2024 film "Civil War," another example of an impressively executed scenario, the film is lacking in other areas that might have made it even more compelling. In the case of the previous film, I thought that the director took a disturbing scenario that has clearly been on the minds of many Americans and made an intense thriller out of the material without providing much insight or perspective. 

Likewise, "Warfare" is gripping because of the nature of what it's about and due to the execution of the scenario, but it provides little in the way of context - or even characterization. We hardly know any of the characters' names or much else about them. We certainly don't see the jihadists firing upon them, at least not much more than brief glimpses. We don't know how or why the scenario unfolded, other than that this group of NAVY Seals is cornered in a house and is nearly blown to tatters by people firing on the house.

Now, there's some argument to be made that doing so is a way of refuting Francois Truffaut's assertion that there's no such thing as an anti-war movie. That comment was made to point out that by investing audiences in characters set against war backdrops and the exciting nature of such stories glamorize the experience. "Warfare" does no such thing. We know little about the individuals involved and the scenario that unfolds is merely horrifying - and not exciting in the traditional manner in which a war movie might be presented.

As the film opens, the group of Seals, led by a character portrayed by Will Poulter, bust into an Iraqi home in the middle of the night. They argue that they're there to protect the family inside, although it really comes off as more of a hostage situation if we're being honest. The first 30 minutes of the picture does a solid job of capturing the occasional boredom of participating in a war. The men mostly sit around the house, looking through rifle scopes at the streets outside and listening in as they receive information and direction from their superiors via radio.

At one point, a soldier spots some men entering a house across the street holding weapons. Shortly thereafter, a grenade is thrown through the window into the house and an attack ensues. A tank is called in to rescue the men, but is blown up, critically injuring two of the men (played by Cosmo Jarvis and Joseph Quinn), who spend much of the rest of the film bleeding and screaming as the others try to hold their wounds together.

A second platoon is sent in as a rescue mission and the final quarter of the film involves the two groups of men trying to extricate themselves from the house while firing upon the mostly unseen assailants surrounding it. The film has a "you are here" style of pseudo-documentary filmmaking that is effective and unrelenting.

But what "Warfare" ends up being is mostly an exercise. It's an effective one, but it's nothing more and nothing less than watching a grueling wartime scenario play out in real time. Both "Civil War" and "Warfare" deserve praise for their execution - but unlike some of Garland's previous works, such as the screenplay for Danny Boyle's great "28 Days Later" as well as the solid "Ex Machina" and "Annihilation," there's not much deeper under the surface. It's an example of a well-made portrayal of things that happened without much in the way of context, characterization, or perspective.

Review: The Friend

Image courtesy of Bleecker Street Media.

David Siegel and Scott McGehee's filmography is so vast in terms of style and content that it's often easy to forget some of the films they have created together. A number of their pictures feel as if they don't belong in the same category as the others.

Their work has included the black-and-white, noirish "Suture" and the thriller "The Deep End" as well as family dramas "Bee Season" and "What Maisie Knew" and the moody "Montana Story." Their latest, "The Friend," is their best and an addition to another sub-genre - the literate New York intellectual milieu drama - in which they've never worked.

In the film, teacher and writer's-blocked author Iris (Naomi Watts in her best performance in some time) is stuck. She's been putting off her latest novel, instead working on a book of correspondence written by her best friend, acclaimed author and larger-than-life personality Walter (Bill Murray), with his daughter following his suicide. No worries, this isn't a spoiler as it's laid out at the film's beginning that Walter has died. He appears only in flashback.

Iris is distraught at the death of her friend, who was briefly a lover many years before but has mainly been a confidant and pal during Walter's three marriages. All three of his wives, including his present one, have shown up for his funeral. His latest wife asks Iris to come by the house when she has a chance. Upon doing so, Iris learns of Walter's last favor he asks of her - besides, of course, working on his letters of correspondence book - adopting his dog, a massive great dane named Apollo.

Reluctantly, Iris does so and learns about great danes quickly that it is difficult to get them to do anything they don't want to due to their size. This includes moving Apollo off her bed, so she takes to sleeping on an air mattress on the floor. To make matters worse, Iris is threatened by the management company from her building that she will be evicted if she doesn't ditch the dog.

Naturally, Iris begins to bond with the pup, who also seems sad and disconsolate over the death of its master. No, this is not what one might call a cute movie nor is it a treacly film of the type in which a dog is the main character and observes the actions of a smarmy family. "The Friend" is a poignant film about friendship, the lengths one would go for those whom one loves, and making new friendships. Also, it's one of the better films I've seen of late about grief and the process of acceptance.

Watts has long been a great actress - I just recently rewatched the remarkable "Mulholland Drive" and was impressed all over again by her breakout performance in that film. She's been very good in a number of other films over the years, but it's been a while since she's had a juicy role, so this film is being viewed as somewhat of a comeback, and it's well earned: She's very good. 

Murray is also solid in what mostly amounts to a small supporting performance and the rest of the cast is also memorable - most notably, Constance Wu as one of Walter's more difficult ex-wives and Carla Gugino as the ex to whom Iris is closest. Much like in "Mulholland Drive," there's a scene late in the picture in which Watts concocts a fantasy - in this case, it's a conversation with Walter. It's a powerful moment in a movie full of them - and much more so than one might expect about a person bonding with a gigantic dog. This is one of the year's cinematic bright spots so far.

Review: Holland

Image courtesy of Amazon Studios.

Mimi Cave's "Holland" is a film that drops two large twists on its audience late in the picture. The first is genuinely surprising and effective, the second is being referred to as a twist but is really more of a head-scratcher as to why anyone would think this is a viable way to end a movie.

The picture bears some similarity to such films as "Don't Worry Darling" or "The Stepford Wives" in that it follows the story of a married woman in suburban America - Holland, Michigan, which has a lot of tulips and more of a Dutch influence than I'm willing to suspend my disbelief - who begins to think something's off about her husband, a dentist who goes to more conferences than she believes is necessary for his profession.

Nancy (Nicole Kidman) thinks Fred (Matthew Macfayden) is having some sort of affair and she enlists a fellow teacher - Dave (Gael Garcia Bernal), an immigrant who has been made to feel unwelcome in their small town - at the school where she works to help her to investigate. Fred comes off as a gaslighter, seemingly always telling his wife to ignore things that seem off and to just forge ahead.

Meanwhile, Fred complains to his and Nancy's young son, Harry (Jude Hill), about women in general and it's a scene that is meant to make viewers feel uncomfortable. Fred has a large train set that he obsessively shows Harry how to operate. And every few weeks, it seems he's off to another conference. Nancy becomes suspicious when she finds evidence that he had been in Madison, Wisconsin, a place he never mentioned to his wife that he'd traveled.

As Dave and Nancy sneak around, attempting to find evidence that Fred is cheating, they strike up a romance, although Dave feels uncomfortable running around with a married woman. He tells Nancy that he wants to be with her - but only in the right circumstances. Needless to say, their snooping leads to a surprising place.

I can't divulge any more without giving away the film's first big twist (the good one). There's literally nothing I can say about the second one, other than: Why? The first time the film pulls the rug out from under us, it's shocking and adds some significant suspense. The second time makes no sense whatsoever.

Kidman and Bernal make a decent team as the would-be lovers undertaking the investigation and the film's second half becomes increasingly more compelling after we learn some surprising new information. But "Holland" is, ultimately, a mixed bag. 

It clearly draws comparisons to such movies as "The Stepford Wives" or "Don't Worry Darling," films about women who realize that the patriarchy is lying to them. But it doesn't really go anywhere thematically interesting with this concept. 

Also, like such films as "Blue Velvet," the movie clearly believes that there's something awful under the surface of the suburbs but, unlike that movie, doesn't really have much to say about it. "Holland" is, for a spell, suspenseful and its performances are good, but it doesn't really do much with what could have been rich material.

Review: The Alto Knights

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

Barry Levinson's "The Alto Knights" was written by Nicholas Pileggi, who wrote the book on which Martin Scorsese's classic "Goodfellas" was based, but while that previous film was one of the greatest movies ever made about mafia life, this new film feels a little aimless, despite its subject matter being intriguing enough and Robert De Niro doing a fine job of double duty as 1950s mob bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese.

The film opens in 1957 when Costello nearly escapes an attempt on his life after a hitman's bullet grazes his head in an elevator. Genovese is behind the hit, which comes after a long period of tension between the two men, who had grown up together and ascended the New York mob ranks before Genovese fled to Italy and got stuck there during World War II and Costello took over as the boss of bosses in New York, using diplomacy over force and paying off cops and politicians alike.

In his older age, Costello seemingly wants to live a quiet life, while Vito is paranoid and hot tempered. It doesn't take much to incur his wrath. During one such instance, he kills his wife's former husband after the man dared to eat at the same restaurant and another man who stumbles upon the scene becomes collateral damage.

Costello further enrages Vito when the U.S. Senate begins a series of hearings on organized crime, and while Vito and others plead the fifth, Frank offers to testify, although it's clearly a strategic mistake, resulting in him walking out halfway through his testimony. He tries to set up a national meeting among mob bosses from around the country that also ends in disaster.

While De Niro does a good job of portraying both men - his Costello is laid back and diplomatic, while Vito is temperamental and psychotic - it's a curious choice to have him portray both men, who look alike because the same actor is playing them, but who aren't related in any way. The film also builds tension as the spat between the two men gets out of control, but a quick view of Wikipedia will inform you that it all ultimately leads to nothing. 

While a chronicle of the U.S. mafia during one of its pivotal eras is, no doubt, always going to provide a reasonable amount of intrigue, there's no sense or urgency here when all is said and done. In other words, I'm not sure there was a reason to tell this story. 

Levinson, who previously directed the very good mob movie "Bugsy," and De Niro are veterans of the genre - and they do what they can to make "The Alto Knights" moderately interesting - but this is not one of the more compelling examples of a mob movie.