Review: Happy Gilmore 2

Image courtesy of Netflix.

As an actor in what some might deem "serious movies," Adam Sandler often makes good choices and provides solid performances. Just look at his work in Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful "Punch Drunk Love," Noah Baumbach's "The Meyerowitz Stories," the Safdies' gritty "Uncut Gems," and the sports drama "Hustle." This fall, he's starring in a new Baumbach film that's getting good buzz.

Early on in his movie career, Sandler annually cranked out irreverent comedies that displayed his wacky sense of humor and has continued to do so to this day, mostly thanks to a deal with Netflix. His first two comedies - "Billy Madison" and "Happy Gilmore" - weren't exactly embraced by critics, but they grew a devoted cult following, most likely because they were funny. His next film, "The Wedding Singer," was a funny and sweet romantic comedy, a mode that he tried out several other times ("50 First Dates" and "Crank") with some success.

But the goofy comedies for which he first became known became increasingly lower in quality. While "Mr. Deeds," "Big Daddy," "Little Nicky," and "The Waterboy" might have seemed like lesser versions of his first two films, they weren't as bad as what was to come - the two "Grown Ups" films, "Jack and Jill," "Pixels" and "That's My Boy."

I haven't seen many (or maybe any) of Sandler's Netflix movies - but I've heard things. Not good things. So, it came as a pleasant surprise to find that "Happy Gilmore 2," a film that I thought would be a lazy attempt to resurrect one of his most popular characters, is pretty good. In fact, it's probably his most watchable comedy since his original trio.

This is not to say it's not without its flaws. As is the case in any American comedy, not all of the jokes work. There are probably more product tie-ins than I can count. And while there has been a significant increase in recent years in mining nostalgia (sequels to "Top Gun," "Ghostbusters," and other popular 1980s films), this film has it cranked up to 11. Not only are there numerous callbacks to the first film, but there are enough flashbacks here to qualify as a short film, if you combined them all.

And yet, the film works. It starts out on a note so bleak that you might suspect that it's directed by Lars Von Trier. Happy's wife was killed in a freak accident involving a golf ball hit by her own husband. As a result, Happy's career takes a nose dive and he drinks like a character in a Bukowski novel. He has converted every object in his house - a clock, the TV remote, etc. - into a mini-flask.

His four grown sons are a rambunctious lot, but his daughter (Sunny Sandler, Adam's daughter) is a talented ballerina. Her teacher tells Happy that she has a shot at a career in the field and that she should attend the Paris Opera Ballet School. It's that bit of inspiration that inspires Happy to pick up the golf clubs again and attempt to earn enough money to help his daughter's dream come true.

There are plenty of amusing moments as he attempts to revive his career, starting with a drunken game with some amateurs (featuring a game Margaret Qualley). Bad Bunny (also known as Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio) is one of the best additions to the cast as Happy's clueless caddy, Oscar.

There's also a subplot about Shooter McGavin (Christopher McDonald, having a lot of fun here) getting released from the mental hospital, which leads to a surprising denouement, and another in which Happy goes to rehab, where he's tormented once again by former nurse Hal (Ben Stiller).

The main villains of the picture are Benny Safdie (who directed Sandler in "Uncut Gems") as energy drink mogul Frank Manatee, who is starting a league called Maxi Golf that includes some illegal enhancements to players, and Haley Joel Osment as Manatee's smarmy top recruit. The film's plot revolves around Happy and a group of pro-golfers (some of whom are playing themselves) facing off against Maxi Golf.

All in all, I enjoyed "Happy Gilmore 2." Yes, it's ridiculous and not all of the jokes land completely (I could have done without the son of the "jackass" comment guy), and some of the nostalgia is laid on a little thick. But it's mostly pretty funny and, at times, surprisingly fixated on death, providing constant reminders of the original cast members who are no longer with us. 

Also, combined with the upcoming "The Naked Gun" reboot, it possibly marks the return of the type of silly comedy movies that have been mostly missing in recent years. This is not to say that those types of movies are a high watermark in the cinematic landscape - but in our current moment in history, they provide some much-needed catharsis. 

Review: The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

I've never been too shy about making it known that comic book movies aren't exactly my cup of tea, despite having given decent enough reviews to a reasonable number of them over the years. I can point out something that's done well, even if I don't exactly love it. When it comes to these types of movie, it's not that I don't like them, but rather that they rarely excite me in the way other great movies of varying types can.

It's also been accepted, both critically and seemingly by audiences too, that Marvel movies have been on the decline in recent years. I missed this summer's "Thunderbolts," but have seen some of the lesser entries on streaming over the past few years.

There have been a handful of Marvel movies over the decades that I thought stood out - namely, Sam Raimi's first two "Spider-man" movies, the first "Iron Man," and, of course, "Black Panther" - but whenever a new Marvel movie was on the horizon, it wasn't necessarily a cause for celebration for me.

That being said, "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" is an overall good time and, in all likelihood, the best Marvel movie since "Black Panther." It doesn't deviate from the formula in any noticeable way - a group of heroes must rise to the challenge to defend the Earth from a sinister being from beyond that plans to destroy it - but the execution is more effective.

This is, in part, due to its visual and storytelling choices. The story is set on Earth 828 (don't ask because I couldn't explain even if I wanted to), not ours, so that gives the filmmakers free reign to present a society that seemingly has elements from the 1940s through the 1970s going on at any minute - there are newspaper clippings that seem straight out of the World War II era, a talk show host that gives off a '50s vibe and some needle drops ("The Oogum Boogum Song") from the 1960s.

"First Steps," which is the third attempt at a big-budget Fantastic Four movie and the only good one of the bunch, finds the four - Mister Fantastic (Pedro Pascal), Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), Human Torch (Joseph Quinn), and Ben Grimm (Ebon-Moss Bachrach) - at a crossroads after Sue becomes pregnant with Mister Fantastic's child.

Shortly thereafter, the Earth is visited by a celestial being known as the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) who arrives to tell everyone that the planet will be destroyed by Galactus (Ralph Ineson), who eats planets to satiate his "relentless eternal hunger." Much of the rest of what takes place you can probably figure out on your own.

But while "First Steps" doesn't do much differently from any number of comic book movies of the past few decades, it has a vibe and style that makes it engrossing and watchable as well as a cast of likable actors who overcome the cliches of the genre. 

Much like the recent "Superman," this new "Fantastic Four" movie doesn't forget that movies of this type are meant to be silly and fun, and not necessarily the self-serious chores that some other entries in the genre have been in recent years. All in all, it's pretty decent.

Review: Eddington

Image courtesy of A24.

Director Ari Aster has gone from one of cinema's most acclaimed new horror maestros to oddball provocateur. While the latter description tends to result in the type of films that I find intriguing, Aster's earlier work remains - to me, at least - the most effective.

"Hereditary" was a nightmarish horror movie that announced the arrival of a real talent while "Midsommar," if not quite as memorable, boasted a great lead performance and was mostly gripping from start to finish. I admired his odd "Beau is Afraid," even if I didn't quite love it, but his latest film, "Eddington," somewhat misses the mark, despite some solid performances and memorable moments.

The film, a social satire-turned western, is seemingly loaded with potential. It is set in 2020 in a small New Mexico town amid the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the summer Black Lives Matter marches following the murder-by-police of George Floyd. The film aims to examine why and how society collapsed during this moment and neighbor turned against neighbor, rather than having the empathy that was required of the moment.

The film's lead is Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix, who's solid here), the small town of Eddington's sheriff who doesn't believe he should have to go along with the new rules about masking in public. He defends an elderly man in a grocery store who refuses to wear a mask as a crowd of masked onlookers criticizes him and captures the moment on their iPhones.

Cross's primary antagonist is Mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), who scolds Cross during the scenario. Their animosity goes further back, however, due to Cross's wife (Emma Stone) allegedly being impregnated by Garcia when she was 16 years old. Garcia - and Cross's wife - deny that this is what happened, but the sheriff's mother-in-law, an avid conspiracy theorist, fans the flames of the rumor.

Following the grocery store masking incident, Cross decides to run for mayor, challenging Garcia, which inflames tensions in the town. At the same time, a group of primarily white youths starts holding Black Lives Matter protests after Floyd's death. Garcia's son (Matt Gomez Hidaka) and a young woman (Amelie Hoeferle) seem sincere about the protests, though the film takes a somewhat jaded portrayal of their characters, while another youth (Cameron Mann) has other intentions.

Meanwhile, Stone's Louise Cross has gotten mixed up with a shady cult-like figure (Austin Butler) who appears to be obsessed with pedophiles in places of power. All of this makes Cross, who starts the film as world weary but becomes increasingly unhinged, begin to lose his grip.

There are some interesting moments in "Eddington," primarily in the film's first half as it examines the mostly bad behavior of Americans as they react to one of the most perilous moments in our recent history. Phoenix and Pascal make for good nemeses and there's some decent tension in their escalating feud.

But as the film nears its halfway mark, it starts to spin out of control and, at times, comes off as an empty provocation. One of its main problems is its satirical marks. There's plenty of satire to be had at the expense of people whose absurd conspiracy theories fueled the drama during the COVID-19 pandemic and there are brief references to things like Ivermectin and the Pizzagate conspiracy (though it's not called that here).

But the film makes the same mistake as our lost-in-the-woods national media by thinking it must somehow even the scales between the two sides it's parodying. It wants to make all sides look crazy, but it is a ridiculous comparison when trying to show how everyone lost their minds during this era by making Black Lives Matter protesters and the vaccine deniers who refused to wear masks appear as one and the same.

It's also telling that the ultimate shootout in the film doesn't come from gun-toting Trump supporters - you know, the types who have actually shot up synagogues and grocery stores - but rather right-wing media's favorite imaginary boogeyman, Antifa. The film gets bloody during its denouement, and its end is cynical enough to ring true in our current moment, which is somehow even more awful than the one depicted here. 

But while Aster elicited some genuine shocks in his two early horror movies - and even to an extent in the peculiar "Beau is Afraid" - he's not on as firm of footing this time around. There are some interesting elements in "Eddington" and most of the performance are good, but it's a social satire that only partially captures the craziness of the moment that we had the misfortune to live through five years ago.

Review: I Know What You Did Last Summer

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Releasing.

Horror reboots have become so prevalent that the release of the first theatrical "I Know What You Did Last Summer" film in the 21st century should come as a surprise to no one. 

In recent years, there have been some reboots that have been marginally successful - the first of the new "Scream" and "Halloween" movies - and some not so much ("The Exorcist"). I have yet to see the new "Final Destination" movie, which received surprisingly good reviews, and I can't say I'm looking forward to the umpteenth attempt to reboot "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Please, folks, don't feel the need to bring back "Urban Legend."

In this latest "I Know What You Did," a group of teens - once again in the small town of Southport - find themselves in the similar scenario of having done something bad the previous summer. In this case, a bout of drunken revelry in the middle of the road on a winding hill leads to a car flying off the edge and killing its driver.

Like clockwork, the group of friends - Ava (Chase Sui Wonders), her BFF Danica (Madelyn Cline), old flame Milo (Jonah Hauer-King), party boy Teddy (Tyriq Withers), and former friend Stevie (Sarah Pidgeon) - start receiving threatening notes and some side characters who have connections to the group start getting picked off by a person in a rain slicker with a hook (and various other weapons).

The group researches the massacre that took place in the town in 1997 - a word, like Forrest Gump's name, that you could place a drinking game with, considering how many times it gets mentioned - and seeks out its survivors: Ray (Freddie Prinze Jr), now a local bar owner who seems a bit cranky, and Julie James (Jennifer Love Hewitt), who had apparently married Ray after the events of the 1998 sequel, but has since divorced him, seemingly not amicably.

Julie is now a teacher and lives in a town far enough away. She tells the group of teens who seek her advice that she wants nothing to do with it, but we know she'll be drawn back in anyway. In terms of plotting, "I Know What You Did Last Summer" is by-the-numbers and the violence, while occasionally gruesome, seems tame compared to some of the gorier series of the modern era.

There's a genuine surprise near the film's end that deserves some credit because it's the sort of thing that the "Scream" films have mostly avoided in the sequels. But the film's end otherwise lands with a thud, primarily setting up the possibility of a sequel (I also apparently missed a post-credits sequence that moves the needle further in that direction) and the film seems to end mid-thought in the middle of a conversation between two characters.

There are worse horror movies out there than this semi-legacy sequel (I've now seen all three "Terrifier" movies and can honestly say that I don't get the appeal), and plenty of other bland films of the genre populating the cineplexes these days (I missed the mostly lambasted "Megan" sequel, but just saw the mostly forgettable "Until Dawn"). In other words, it's just another of many films of its type flooding the marketplace that has little in the way of differentiating itself from the pack. 

While the "Scream" films - at least, certainly the first one - were a revelation at the time of their release and helped the genre to regain popularity, the original "I Know What You Did" films were never that good. The first one had atmosphere and was watchable, but the series probably didn't need a reboot. As one character in this latest entry notes, "Nostalgia is overrated."

Review: Superman

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

 

I’ll admit, it took me a little while to warm to James Gunn’s “Superman.” I have no problem with comic book movies taking a more lightweight route – not every film has to be overly dripping with gravitas like Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy – and the director’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” films are a case in point on how to mostly do that well.

But in the first few minutes of this new “Superman,” I thought the film was going to end up in  “Superman 3” or “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” territory, but it eventually settles into its groove somewhere around the halfway mark.

It’s around this time that Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) becomes a central figure in the story. Dressed in an outfit that resembles one of the Warriors (“come out and play-ay-ay”), Terrific joins Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) on a rescue mission and really gets to strut his stuff. From there on, the film became more engaging and engaged – and by that, I mean with the current moment.

It’s been hilarious to watch certain sectors of the U.S. population go into tailspins over this new film featuring America’s most iconic superhero, whom they have now deemed “woke.” At the same time, it’s surprising just how much the film comments on – or is prescient enough to foresee – our current, perilous moment.

At various points in the picture, the term “alien” is hurled at the caped crusader (played by David Corenswet), which we can take to mean “immigrant.” Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) is a tech mogul who wants to create his own corporate technocracy and has captured those he opposes and thrown them into underground gulags in other dimensions.

Meanwhile, Luthor has partnered with a former Soviet bloc-style dictator who has illegally invaded a neighboring country. All the while, a gullible public is easily fooled when the media takes Luthor at his word and allows him to deem Superman a “threat.” I mean, ahem!

And the good thing about all of these elements is that they’re handled in an intriguing and believable manner. These themes are present throughout, but not in a clunky or heavy-handed way.

I’m of the mind that it’s not necessary to reboot comic book heroes every few years when a new actor comes on board – but that’s where we are in current film culture. We’re in the middle of a new Batman series. There’s yet another attempt at “Fantastic Four” later this summer. And so, of course, there’s a new Superman series in which we basically start from scratch.

The good thing about this one is that it’s not an origin story, but instead throws us right into a new story involving these familiar characters. It takes a while for the film to get its groove, but around the halfway mark it finds it and never lets up. This isn’t the greatest “Superman” movie (that remains the 1978 version) and it’s nowhere near the bottom of the barrel (the aforementioned ‘80’s sequels and the “Dawn of Justice” debacle). All in all, it’s a reasonably enjoyable summer movie.

Review: Jurassic World: Rebirth

Image courtesy of Universal Pictures.

By now, you know the formula: People, against their own good judgment, travel to the now-abandoned islands populated by dinosaurs from the other "Jurassic Park" films on a mission and some of them get devoured, while a few others survive and flee the island to the tune of John Williams' now-iconic score. It's now just a matter of how it's executed.

Despite mostly middling reviews, "Jurassic World: Rebirth," while generically following this formula, is one of the more watchable of the recent sequels. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's good or that I'd recommend it - but if you go in knowing exactly what you'll get, you won't be disappointed (or surprised either).

In this film, a group is gathered - a mercenary (Scarlett Johansson), a friend of hers who is handy with getting people out of sticky situations (Mahershala Ali), a scientist (Jonathan Bailey), the sleazy businessman with ill intentions who's just waiting to get eaten (Rupert Friend), and a whole lot of expendable minor characters. Add to the mix a family on a boat vacation whose vessel ends up going in the wrong direction and runs into the other characters, who save them with the caveat that they must travel to the island for the mission.

The mission involves extracting the blood of several of the species there that can apparently cure cancer. I'll remind you at this point that most people don't come to the "Jurassic Park" films for the well-thought-out plots or scientific theories. 

Naturally, the corrupt character played by Friend wants the blood samples to sell to the highest bidder, while Bailey's scientist wants to share it with the world, arguing that "science is for everybody" (can't argue with him there). Johansson and Ali's characters want to retire from their lifestyle with the money the job will bring in.

Just to up the ante, this particular island is abandoned and populated with some of the mutant dinosaurs that were too violent or scary to be included in the original park. Then again, there's a nice sequence in which the group of humans stumble upon a large herd of brontosauruses and are amazed by their beauty. If you're looking for consistency, you're in the wrong movie.

Anyway, the family and the group seeking the dinosaur blood get separated early on after an attack on the water. The family is left to fend for itself - and the daughter adopts a cute baby dinosaur that she names Dolores - while the other group chases after the three dinosaurs from which they need blood. There's a particularly thrilling sequence involving a flying dinosaur from which they need to extract a sample.

As far as summer blockbusters go, you could do worse than "Jurassic World: Rebirth." It is far from the best of the series (that's still Steven Spielberg's 1993 original) or the worst. There's hardly anything original about it and most viewers in the audience will be able to guess what happens next at all times.

But it has some thrilling sequences, a few unique and scary new dinosaurs, and some great cinematography. The cast isn't given much to do, but it's always a pleasure spending time with Johansson and Ali. So, yes, this latest "Jurassic Park" is just business as usual, but it's passable entertainment. It delivers exactly what it promises.

The Best Movies of the 21st Century (So Far)

Mulholland Drive

The New York Times recently released a ranked list of the top 100 films of the 21^st century so far, based on polls it took of directors, writers, actors, and others in the global film industry. Each participant was able to list his or her top 10 list.

Since then, I’ve seen a number of other similar lists pop up. Although I currently don’t have a Rolling Stone subscription and couldn’t read the entire list, that magazine released its top 100 list. That’s more like it.

The idea of narrowing down all of the movies I’ve seen this century to 10 is daunting and a bit ridiculous, so instead I’m including my non-ranked list of the top 100 of the century so far. Then, because narrowing it down to 100 is even a bit limiting, I’ve included a list of runners up - lots of them.

So, enjoy. And drop your own lists in the comment section if you so choose.