Red One - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

Grown-ups are the product of their childhood. So, Santa Claus works for the children. That's the sentiment which the 2024 action Christmas movie, "Red One" directed by Jake Kasdan and starring Lucy Liu, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Chris Evans and J.K. Simmons as Santa Claus starts off with. 

First, I'm going to say it. "Red One" is more of a Christmas movie than "Die Hard." Christmas plays an integral part of the plot in "Red One" than it does in "Die Hard." I'm still on the fence about the whole "Die Hard is a Christmas movie" thing. I honestly think it depends on how "Christmas movie" is defined. 

Anyways, I'd like to think that Jolly Ol' St. Nicholas as depicted in this movie works to preserve whatever innocence and goodness the youth of the world still possess as they grow up among greedy, self-centered, materialist, entitled adults. I think that sentiment is looked at in this movie, but it doesn't really go anywhere.  

The action-packed storyline is so cookie cutter basic. 

Like so many other mega-huge security breach movies involving the CIA or FBI, or something that involves kidnapping the president of the United States, the only thing different this movie offers is that it's Santa Claus (J. K. Simmons) who gets kidnapped by super stealthy bad guys. 

Santa's dependable and dedicated number one guy, Callum Drift (Dwayne Johnson), is the commander of Santa's Enforcement Logistics and Fortification, or E.L.F. He's turned in his notice just before Christmas as he doesn't see the Christmas spirit or kindness in adults anymore, or something like that.  In other words, he has lost his faith in the adults of the world. Just then, Santa is kidnapped by a Christmas Witch named Grýla (Kiernan Shipka). Grýla actually stems from Icelandic Christmas folklore. She demands charity from those she meets and seeks out bad children. 

So, Drift is one her tail to find him. Time is of the essence. Christmas is on the line.
Drift seeks the help of Zoe Harlow (Lucy Liu) who directs a secret force of mythical creatures known as MORA (Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority).

She and her team figure out that the secret location of Santa's workshop was compromised by a mercenary hacker named Jack O'Malley (Chris Evans) who was working for an anonymous buyer. O'Malley claims he had no idea that the coordinates he obtained and sold was Santa's workshop location in the North Pole. 

Dwayne Johnson and J.K. Simmons in "Red One."

Drift has O'Malley right his wrong having him help look for Santa. They even seek help from Santa's evil brother, Krampus (Kristofer Hivju). Of course, Mrs. Claus (Bonnie Hunt) is hiding in the NorthPole, worrying about her husband. 

The novelty of this ultimate "someone saves Christmas" Christmas movie is all that's entertaining about it. Other than that, it certainly won't find a place among cherished Christmas films any time soon. 

It has the same formulaic action storyline used over and over again. I appreciate the movie tying two completely opposite genres together. It takes the standard action film formula and replaces characters with figures of Christmas legends and lore. Producers clearly expect that to be enough to make "Red One" a new and memorable Christmas movie. 

If they just used their imagination and writing skills (if any) to make it something really worthwhile maybe it would be such a Christmas movie. I enjoyed it only because of it's all-too-familiar formula. It's not enough, though. 

J.K. Simmons as Santa is a weird casting call. He doesn't make a convincing Santa Claus, though he can impersonate Santa well enough. And Chris Evans's performance is lackluster. It's tantamount to a disgruntled worker pretending to be busy so he can grab his paycheck at the end of his shift. 

"Red One" is entertaining enough thanks to its satirical undertones. Still, it needs originality. or more of it. Much more! 

There's not enough substance. Gimmicky movies are all over the place. Anyone can staple two genres together and show it off like a child's art project. The writers failed to do something worthy of the audience's time with what they started, but didn't get far enough.  

If (2024) - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

Actor, writer and director John Krasinski (Jim from "The Office") is a likeable actor. He's also creative and confidant in his work, especially when it comes to his movies. That's particularly true with his popular movie series, "A Quiet Place." 

Krasinski definitely works well off the question so many storytellers ask themselves before pounding out a story. "What if?" 

So, I was interested in seeing his recent fantasy movie, "If." I decided to wait until I could stream it. I wasn't excited enough to pay the ticket price.

The story centers on a young girl named Bea (Cailey Fleming) who moves into her grandmother's apartment, played by Fiona Shaw. 

Her father, played by John Krasinski, is in the hospital waiting to undergo heart surgery. He happens to be in the same hospital where her mother died previously. Having to revisit the hospital where her mom died is a huge weight on Bea's shoulders as the worries about possibly losing her father in the same hospital. 

Bea starts seeing unusual characters around her grandmother's apartment building. They turn out to be the imaginary friends of other people. 

She follows one of these characters back to an apartment tenant, Hal's (Ryan Reynolds) pad. 

He runs some sort of one-man agency from his apartment to reunite imaginary friends with the respective people who imagined them up.

Hal can also see these imaginary friends, or I.F's for short. And a couple of them crash at his place. 

After Bea and Hal become acquainted, Bea wants to help him reunite kids and adults with their forgotten I.Fs. He's reluctant at first, but she's determined to volunteer. And the story goes from there. 

To begin with, Fleming's performance is underwhelming. She doesn't emote much - just a little here and there. Otherwise, I started losing interest in what her character was doing and why she was doing it. I just couldn't grow invested in Bea and her drive to help people reunite with their imaginary pals. 

She's pretty dull, even when she's submerged in her imaginary world. 

And Ryan Reynolds goes through the motions with some grins and a lot more laziness. 

The movie has its charming and attention-grabbing moments. Outside of those, it tries too hard to be cute, sweet and heartwarming. It distracts from the plot. 

To the movie's credit, the effort to be an engaging film is clearly visible. It's something different for Krasinski, and I certainly wouldn't suggest he stay away from making family-friendly movies. Regardless of "If" being mostly a miss, he's on the right track. 

It's a creative take on the imaginary friend story, which is nothing new. I appreciate "If" being a family-oriented film that comes across as selfless. 

The vast array of different imaginary characters, and how they reflect the personalities of their

respective imaginative humans are what carry the movie. That, and the imagery and atmosphere. Still, it falls short in a lot of places where it needs to be strong. I was a bit lost on what I was supposed to take away from "If." Is diving into fantasy best way to deal with the hardships and losses of life? I don't know what the message was. 

The imaginary friend motif goes as far back as Jimmy Stewart playing Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey" (1950). In fact, "If" gives "Harvey" a nod. 

But the imaginary friend trope is an old one. There's a lot that can be done with this concept. The 2019 movie "JoJo Rabbit" is a perfect example of a truly original and hilarious take on the imaginary friend movie. I previously talked about the 1984 movie "Cloak & Dagger" with Henry Thomas and Dabney Coleman which is about a boy and his imaginary hero buddy. And, for some reason, when it comes to this sub-genre, the 1991 oddball comedy "Drop Dead Fred" comes to mind. 

"If" didn't really impress me much. The premise of assigning imaginary friends to children who need one while reuniting adults with that part of their childhood has the feels of a wholesome attempt to create something original, intended to stand out among other movies with similar storylines.

It tries to be original, and maybe it is in some respects. Otherwise, it's more of the same old stuff, but with fancy cartoon characters. It needs less heart tugging and overly sweet sentimentality, and more substance. A swing and a miss for Krasinski.

The Little Mermaid (2023) - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

When Disney announced the production of a live action remake of their 1989 animated classic, "The Little Mermaid," which audiences knew would end up in the bargain bin with the rest of their remakes, I didn't really care. There was no reason to. All their other live action remakes have been terrible. To be fair, some were less terrible than others. Otherwise, none of these remakes have been anything better than "o.k." For the most part, they're often dull and uninspired.  

Last year's "The Little Mermaid" is no different. 

The original movie certainly was a major help in hoisting Disney out of the dark and drab slump they found themselves in during the 1980s. So, modern Disney did what it does best and crapped over their own saving movie by producing a poor version of it to appease a particular faction. 

I had put complete trust in the film's trailers which looked uninspiring and bored. So, that's what I expected. A boring and uninspiring movie. And I wasn't disappointed...but yet, I was. 

This movie is a dull insult to classic Disney - courtesy of modern Disney. And it shows, beginning with the acting. 

Like most of the other live action Disney remakes of their own classic animated movies, "The Little Mermaid" is basically a shot for shot remake severely lacking emotion. King Triton (Javier Bardem) has no emotion. Eric (Jonah Hauer-King) has no emotion, especially when he breaks into his song.

The acting all around deserves to be drowned in the depths of the sea. It's terrible. No one has any convincing emotions. They all go through the motions, repeating the lines audiences loved in the animated movie, and sing a few new songs which are forgettable. 

While Jenna McCarthy's appearance as Ursula isn't bad, her performance is a passible impression of Pat Carrol's performance of the animated Ursula, right down to her voice fluctuation. 

And Awkwafina's lines for Ariel's friend Scuttle the northern gannet bird (he was a seagull in the cartoon) are awkward, random and sound scripted. Her voice stands out like a raspy ragged fowl rather than a song bird. Her singing would surely make Walt Disney himself scratch his head as if to say "did that come outta you" before issuing some job terminations. 

Halle Bailey's performance as Ariel isn't any better. She goes through all the actions like she's waiting for it all to end because there's a paycheck at the end of the job. She is just unconvincing and lacking emotion. 

All around, "The Little Mermaid" is a dull cash grab of an older property that relies so much on the animated movie. Why even bother with this? 

The original movie pops with color and life. This one doesn't! 

The producers worked too hard to make this all too realistic. "The Little Mermaid" isn't meant to be this realistic. 

The sea creatures aren't meant to look as real as they are. It makes them forgettable and hurts what little (if any) unique characteristics they might possess. 

And by the way, how does Triton have daughters of different nationalities? How did that come about? Maybe I don't want to know. 

Halle Bailey as 'Ariel' in Disney's "The Little Mermaid."

Wonka (2023) - My thoughts relatively quick

In my review of Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," I pointed out, and correctly so I might add, how the 1971 movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," is a far more superior movie than Burton's mess. 

So, I was completely on-board when news broke that a prequel movie to the original Wonka film was in the works. There's a lot to be explored in Wonka's past. 

What I liked most about this recent movie, "Wonka," based on the 1964 novel “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” by Roald Dahl, is that it sticks to the source material and doesn't try to beat the audience over the head with some socio-political ideology. Too many movies, even children's movies, these days consider it mandatory to preach some modern ideology, only to fail miserably. 

"Wonka," which cost $125 million to make, managed to earn $39 million on its opening weekend alone. 

Are you paying attention, Disney? I bring this up because that possibility played in the back of my mind as I brought my children to this movie. 

Seldom are current films made to tell an entertaining story or for any artistic credibility. Hollywood seems more and more to be making films for political credibility instead. 

Anyways, this movie tells the story of young Willy Wonka (Timothée Chalamet) whose an aspiring magician and chocolatier. 

His dream to be the best candy maker and set up a shop in the Galeries Gourmet where three other major chocolatiers have already established their candy businesses.

Arthur Slugworth (Paterson Joseph), Gerald Prodnose (Matt Lucas), and Felix Fickelgruber (Mathew Baynton) are three corrupt businessmen who operate the biggest candy shops in the Galeries Gourment. Though the three are rivals, they've developed a chocolate cartel by which they pressure the Chief of Police (Keegan-Michael Key) to keep Wonka from selling chocolate on their turf and drive him out of town. 

The cartel secretly meets in the catacombs underneath St. Benedict's Church where the parish priest, Fr. Julius (Rowan Atkinson) is paid in chocolate to aid these corrupt businessmen and allow them to meet in secret under his church. 

And that's my biggest gripe about this movie. Though I'm often thick-skinned, even as a practicing Catholic, about the all-too-often poor depictions of Catholics and Christians in general in films, I didn't care for this priest character being portrayed as a simp so easily paid off in candy to help the corrupt businessmen. I felt the movie went out of its way to make this poor depiction. It's often open season on Catholics in Hollywood, and that vendetta sadly continues in this movie. 

Anyways, Wonka moves into a boarding house operated by Mrs. Scrubitt (Olivia Colman) after her behemoth of a henchman, Bleacher (Tom Davis), tricks him into moving in. 

Scrubitt requires Wonka to sign a lengthy contract that forces him and other boarders into working in launderette underneath the boarding house. Wonka doesn't read the small print before signing, which is how he's conned into this predicament. Scrubitt also requires Wonka to pay an outrageous fee in order to get out of his contract, which he obviously can't pay. 

At the boarding house, Wonka meets a young girl named Noodle (Calah Lane) who ends up helping him get his business off the ground. 

Wonka is also attempting to capture a little green faced, orange haired man (played by Hugh Grant) who keeps stealing his chocolates during the night. This guy, of course, is an Oompa-Loompa, who wants restitution for "stolen" cocoa beans Wonka took from Loompa Land.

Timothée Chalamet as Wonka in the "Wonka."

Right away, I found the story enjoyable with a smooth flow and memorable characters. It has the feel of an old-fashioned musical. Most of the songs are catchy and pulls ears in straight away. "Wonka" is successful at being a fun family movie. 

While Gene Wilder plays an unpredictable and hard-to-read Willy Wonka in the original film, Chalamet makes the titular character a more ambitious beginner who carries a convincing eager determination. Despite his masterful craft as a magician and candy maker who so naturally can wow crowds, there are scenes where he's still human and vulnerable. 

It struck me at various parts of the movie as to why Wonka would later take to young Charlie Bucket in the 1971 movie. Both come from humble backgrounds, are attached to their respective families from whom they draw inspiration, and both have self-less attitudes. They also have their shortcomings and recognize them as such.  

Unfortunately, Grant's performance as Lofty, the Oompa Loompa, is dull and uninspired. It was as though Grant was going through the motions to get his parts over with as fast as he could, grab his paycheck, and go home. Thankfully, that didn't spoil the movie for me. 

Aside from Chalamet, Keegan-Michael Key is the most entertaining actor in the story. Key is hilarious in his role as he has a knack for putting a lot of character and effort into his comedic roles. He is a natural at comedy.

"Wonka" sets out to amuse and charm audiences, which it pleasantly accomplishes. It tries to pull on the emotional heartstrings of its audience, but the feel-good elements hinder that. 

The story is full of optimism as Wonka doesn't allow any out-of-the-ordinary difficulties, such as being suckered into involuntary servitude at a launderette, hinder him from working towards his goals. He simply plans around every obstacle to do the work he needs to do. It's a moral I can get behind. There's a ton of room for a fascinating story about how Wonka gets his factory and his reputation off and running. This movie manages to depict something imaginative and worthwhile. 

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) - My thoughts relatively quick

* Spoilers ahead *

I was just as intrigued as anyone else, but not overly excited when trailers for the recent movie "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" dropped earlier in 2023. 

I considered seeing it in the theater but figured it would eventually stream on the Disney+ streaming app, so I would just catch it there. And I did. 

I love the Indiana Jones movies generally speaking, particularly the third movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (1989). It's my favorite of the five movies in the franchise. 

My first impression was that "Dial of Destiny" would just be another franchise revival movie. And it was, for all practical purposes. 

Franchise revivals of older series is all the thing now in Hollywood. They're certainly a novelty, but often feel forced and repetitive often resulting in a box office crash and burn. Not all of them. Some are decent enough, but I can't think of a franchise revival movie from the last ten years that really blew me away. 

In this movie, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) chases down a powerful artifact invented by the ancient mathematician and inventor, Archimedes (d. 212 BC) that's able to send people to another time period. 

The movie opens in 1944 as Indiana Jones is attempting to rescue the holy lance of St. Longinus from the Nazis. While all that's going on, a Nazi Astrophysicist named Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelsen) finds part of Archimedes's dial. 

Indy and Voller fight, resulting in Voller's death, or so Indy thinks. 

Now, during the late 1960s, Indy finds himself chasing down Voller again, who is now a NASA scientist. He's really trying to obtain the entire dial so he can travel back in time and change the outcome of World War II in Hitler's favor. 

In the beginning of the movie, a younger Harrison Ford appears thanks to the "magic" of AI or CGI (something along those lines). The movie accomplished that task rather well. That was certainly the talking point when the movie was playing in theaters.  

The action is entertaining. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My main issue with this movie is Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character, Helena Shaw, the daughter of Indy's old friend and colleague, Basil Shaw (Toby Jones). She's also Indy's estranged goddaughter. She accompanies Indy in this adventure, more often working against him as she has her own plans in mind for the dial. Namely, monetary gain.  

Shaw is unrealistic, annoying, and I wanted to see her less on screen. She's not charming, nor is she intriguing or inspiring. She serves more as an obstacle for Indy than an asset to the story. The audience isn't supposed to cheer for her, yet she has scenes that seem like the audience is supposed to cheer for her. Shaw is a mess of a character.   

Also, gone is Indy's son, Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) from the last movie "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." He evidently died during the Vietnam War. I certainly didn't miss him. His death causes Indy and his wife, Mutt's mom, Marion Ravenwood (played again by Karen Allen), to divorce prior to the story. 

Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Harrison Ford in
'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.'

Before sitting down to watch this movie, I anticipated a time travelling voyage to Indy's past in some sort of nostalgic adventure. I anticipated something like what took place in "Back to the Future II." If you know, you know. 

Thankfully, that didn't happen. What did take place as far as time travel goes took me by surprise. Much to my appreciation, they saved that for the final act. Everything leading up to that, with Indy trying to find the dial and make sure the Nazis don't obtain it, felt like classic Indiana Jones. He's already squared off against Nazis in two previous movies - "Last Crusade" and "Raiders of the Lost Arc." 

This movie isn't Jones at his best but it's certainly not terrible. I think the previous movie "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" still carries that banner. 

The urgency of the entire story seems a little forced. Yes, Indy and everyone are going after the other half of the dial and take it out of the hands of Nazis, but the seriousness of the situation isn't convincing enough. I don't recall him even knowing he was chasing Nazis until later in the film. 

He just has to get it before the bad guys do something bad with it. It's not clear until later in the movie what the Nazis plan on doing with it. And once Indy realizes what's really going on, then his mission feels like it has real purpose. 

A few days after my second viewing, the ending became sensible. To have Jones actually witness a major historical event (i.e. the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC) and meet Archimedes face to face felt like a proper sendoff for the character rather than simply have him save a small yet significant piece of ancient history. 

As the movie concludes with Indy returning comfortably to his home and spend his days in restful retirement with the Marion is fine but not the sendoff I imagined Indy to have. 

Personally, I wish he would have stayed in that period in Italy, with Archimedes, rather than have his annoying goddaughter force him to return to his own time. That would have been an ending audiences would talk about for sure.  

It was enjoyable to see Indiana Jones one more time, especially after the disaster that was, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Surely, fans of the franchise are glad that last flick wasn't Indy's sendoff film. While "Dial of Destiny" has its issues, it's a passable film. 

It's entertaining and hits some of the right spots despite feeling like too much like a franchise revival film. It's time for Indy to hang up his hat, which he thankfully did at the end. 

I'm trying to determine if it's better or worse than "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." I'd say "Temple of Doom" is better by a nose. A real nose. Not a CGI one. 

Blue Beetle (2023) - My thoughts relatively quick

* Some spoilers ahead *

The 2023 superhero flick, "Blue Beetle", based on the DC character, came and went quickly with favorable reviews while bombing at the box office back in August. I think the best days of current superhero movies for DC and Marvel have passed. Too much of a good thing isn't very good. And DC came a bit late to the game. 

My interest and enthusiasm for comic book movies, particularly those from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, faded considerably after "Avengers: Endgame" (2019). 

DC comic character Blue Beetle was created by Charles Nicholas Wojtkoski, and first appeared in Mystery Men Comics no. 1 in 1939. 

The original Blue Beetle's real name in the comic books was Dan Garret. 

Garret's former student, Ted Kord, later replaced him as Blue Beetle. 

Later, Jaime Reyes, a teenager from El Paso, became the third Blue Beetle. And that's where this movie picks up. 

Xolo Maridueña (Miguel from "Cobra Kai") plays Jaime as he returns to Panama City just after graduating from Gotham Law University. 

His nana (Adriana Barraza) as well as his Uncle Rudy (George Lopez), who's preoccupied with conspiracy theories, also live at home. 

Though his family is glad to see Jaime, they welcome him home with a load of bad news. For one thing, his family is facing eviction from their home as they can't meet their financial requirements. The family auto repair business is failing. And Jaime's father, Alberto (Damián Alcázar), suffered a heart attack which Jaime wasn't told about. 

Later, Jaime and his younger sister Milagro (Belissa Escobedo) are fired from their cleaning job at Victoria Kord's (Susan Sarandon) mansion after Jaime interferes with an argument between Victoria and her niece, Jenny (Bruna Marquezine) - Ted's daughter. 

Victoria is the current CEO of Kord Industries and Ted Kord's sister. Her main ambition is to get her hands on a blue scarab artifact, that is actually a sentient weapon, for her one-man army project. 

But Jenny recognizes her greed and unethical intentions and questions her leadership ability within her father's company. She's determined to stop Victoria. 

Feeling bad for what went down, Jenny tells Jaime to meet her at Kord Tower the next day to discuss another employment option. 

So, Jaime goes to meet her. 

As he arrives and is waiting to speak with her, Jenny meanwhile steals the scarab from the laboratory in Kord Tower. When Jaime approaches her about a job, Jenny gives him the scarab hidden inside a Big Belly Burger to-go box in order to get it past security. She tells him to take it home and to not open the box under any circumstances. 

Jaime takes it, and of course his family convinces him to open the box and see what's inside. 

When he does, Jaime touches the scarab which activates it. The scarab fuses with his body and encases him in blue body armor. 

Now, he's the Blue Beetle though he has no idea what's happening. Jaime can fly around and has superhuman strength. 

The pacing of the movie is awkward. It's quick when it shouldn't be. There's a lot of tragedy and emotion in this movie, and it's pushed out of the way rather quickly. It doesn't strike me as sincere. 

The father dies of a heart attack in the second act, and the Reyes house burns down. The characters are given a couple seconds to grieve until its back to work. 

Susan Sarandon nails her character in that the audience wants to hate her and see her get what's coming to her. 

The only interesting characters are Jaime and Rudy. 

It's strange that I say that about Rudy because I'm not a fan of George Lopez. But I'll give credit where credit is due. His performance is hilarious in this role, and he puts in a lot of energy and effort. Lopez looks comfortable in this role. 

The writing is pretty cliché. For instance, in one scene, Rudy tells Jaime "The universe has sent you a gift, and you have to figure out what to do with it." Yeah, we've heard it before. 

In a scene towards the third act, Jaime has a vision of his deceased father who tells him to embrace his new Blue Beetle identity. It's a bit like Peter Parker's with his Uncle Ben in "Spider-Man." "With great power comes great responsibility," blah, blah, blah. Same stuff. Different movie.

At the end, it's another superhero movie that barely offers anything different or new. 

And Jaime doesn't learn much except that bad things happen, society stinks, and family is crucial for our support, which he already believed in the first place. 

To Jaime's credit, he doesn't let those awful things hold him down. Neither he nor his family don't succumb to a victimhood mentality. They continue to fight against all that's working against them. 

While I appreciate the strong family bond, the rest is empty platitudes heard again and again, sprinkled on top of a storyline seen many times before.

The Flash (2023) - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

(Minor Spoilers ahead)

I guess multiverse movies are the trend in movies now.  Everyone's crossing timelines and popping into different universes and all that. Then they just get themselves into a world (or worlds) of a mess. 

This is the premise for the recent superhero movie "The Flash" based on the superhero from DC Comics. 

Andy Muschietti, who did a decent job directing the 2017 horror film "It" and its 2019 sequel, "It Chapter Two," based on Stephen King's novel about a child-eating clown, sits in the director's chair for this latest flick for DC. 

Anyways, we've seen this alternate timeline premise a lot in the last several years such as in 2009's "Star Trek" movie where young Spock meets old Spock. Disney/Marvel used it in the "Doctor Strange" movies, and Marvel's 2021 movie "Spider-Man: No Way Home" used the alternate timeline premise to mix the different Spider-Mans into one flick. 

This kind of trope is a playground for movie producers to throw in all kinds of callbacks and old characters as callbacks and the return of old characters are also a current trend in films. 

In "The Flash," Ezra Miller plays Barry Allen who can move at superhuman speeds, calling himself "Flash." Flash, nicknamed "the Scarlet Speedster," is a member of the Justice League. 

His mother was murdered when Allen was a young boy. His father, played by Ron Livingston, was accused of his wife's murder even though he was at the grocery store at the time, buying a can of tomatoes which his wife forgot to pickup. 

In a moment where Allen is overcome with sadness thinking about that day, he starts running at a speed force so fast and accidentally forms a "Chronobowl." This gives him access to past timelines. 

So, he goes back to that fateful day, and changes his history. Back in the Chronobowl, a mysterious speedster knocks him into a parallel universe. By chance, he's kicked back to the day back in 2013 when he obtained his powers. But his past is now changed as his mom is alive.

It also happens to be the time when General Zod (from "Man of Steel") is attempting to invade Earth.

So, this alternate timeline is the means by which writers bring back Batman/ Bruce Wayne, played by Michael Keaton, from Tim Burton's 1989 movie "Batman." It's also the means by which writers include Kara Zor-El / Supergirl (Sasha Calle) as having come to Earth from the planet Krypton instead of Kal-El/Superman. 

I was primarily interested in seeing this movie just to watch Keaton play Batman once again. As I sat and watched, I imagined it to be the third Batman we never got after Burton's 1992 sequel "Batman Returns." "Batman Forever" didn't cut it back then. 

For me, it was the selling point of "The Flash." I have a huge nostalgic soft spot for Burton's "Batman." All in all, Keaton didn't disappoint. I enjoyed seeing him in the batsuit one more time. 

Plus, a bunch of multiverse DC superheroes show up including George Reeves as Superman, Adam West and Burt Ward as Batman and Robin, Jay Garrick as Flash, and Nicholas Cage as Superman. 

Cage as Superman?

Well, Cage's appearance as Superman comes from an abandoned Tim Burton movie that never came to fruition called "Superman Lives." Test shots and stills of Cage dressed as the Man of Steel have made the rounds online. Now, CGI Cage as Superman is reality in "The Flash." Even in CGI form, nobody can Nicolas Cage better than Nicolas Cage. He's so Nicolas Cage that he can be both verb, noun, and adjective all at once. Seriously, his CGI cameo looks like he's a wax museum figure. In fact, most of the CGI characters look completely fake, including an initial scene in which Flash rescues several newborn babies plummeting from a hospital window. 

In one scene, Christopher Reeve as Superman flies in along with Helen Slater as Supergirl standing next to him. Reeve was initially supposed to appear alongside Slater, at least for a cameo, in the 1984 movie "Supergirl." I guess this makes up for that a little. Unfortunately, they also look laughably fake. 

My wife accurately pointed out how lousy the CGI is commenting that it would be great for a video game, maybe.  

The pace and storyline feels clumsy and too convenient at the same time. As Barry messes with the timeline, each problem that arises seems to have a conveniently timed solution. This is especially true when older Barry attempts to get his powers back, with the help of Batman and Supergirl, by recreating the circumstances in which he initially got his powers in the first place. And this doesn't happen once, but twice. 

The constant scenes of younger and older Barry Allen together are impressive and well-acted. But young Barry is insufferable. 

Despite its problems and weaknesses, and there's a good number of them, somehow I still found "The Flash" an entertaining and a passable superhero film.

"My Thoughts Real Quick"

I tend to put in more effort on my site 1000daysofhorror.com while this blog gets much less traffic. In an attempt to remedy that, and write more posts especially on new releases, I plan to jot down my thoughts rather than write up lengthy reviews.

Oh, there will still be lengthy reviews on older films. But for newer releases, I'll try to make them quick. 

Nicholas Cage (CGI) as Superman in "The Flash."

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

(Minor Spoilers ahead)

After the Marvel movie "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) - the 22nd movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) - I lost a lot of interest in the MCU. Too much of a good thing simply loses its savor after a while. I'll still watch Marvel movies when they cross my path if I'm interested enough, but I don't make a lot of effort to see whatever the latest movie in the franchise happens to be. 

Before "Avengers: Endgame" I was just as excited as anyone else when new Marvel movies were coming out. And once "Avengers: Endgame" hit screens, it felt like a grand finale of sorts. The novelty of these stories simply wore off. That's not to say recent Marvel movies are boring or dull. Many of them, though, seem too similar to previous ones. Others continue to feel like nothing more than build-ups to future movies. 

I love the "Ant-Man" films. I hated the "Dr. Strange" films along with the pretentious and dull 2019 movie "Capt. Marvel." The "Thor" movies are hit or miss - more hits than misses. But the ones I really love above all else are the "Guardians of the Galaxy" movies, starting with the first of the three from 2014. Wow! Has it been that long? 

"Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" (2017) is even better than the first. It's among the most entertaining of the MCU movies out there. The humor and style in both films are great. The atmosphere is bright and brilliant. The pacing is spot-on. Overall, the characters are memorable and easy to get invested in. They're among the best comic book-based films. 

"The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special," which aired on the streaming service Disney+ in November 2022, is a fun and entertaining film to cleanse the palate until a new theatrical release would come about. 

So, I was a little more Marvel-excited than usual (post "Endgame") when "Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 3" hit theaters on May 5, 2023.

While this third installment is enjoyable, overall entertaining and satisfyingly full of action, it feels just a bit (and I do mean just a bit) more mundane than the previous two. 

I wasn't as excited as before while sitting through it, though maybe that's because I've sat through two other movies plus a "holiday special." Still, I wouldn't hesitate in saying this is definitely one of the better Marvel movies in a while after "Endgame." 

To the movie's credit, the storyline shifts focus onto the character Rocket's (voiced by Bradley Cooper) origin story. 

Rocket, the anthropomorphic racoon, is a likeable character in the films. This story of his in part three really helps solidify his role in the overall storyline. 

Rocket affirms who exactly he is, and not what he perceives himself to be. It's a message I can get behind. 

There's a lot more emotion within volume three than in the previous two films. It's heavier in that regard, giving the movie a darker tone. That dark tone pushes the humorous parts out of its way to make room for itself.

I appreciate Rocket's backstory though it's not what I was expecting. I don't want to say the movie is a letdown. I wasn't let down. I sat through the movie expecting that familiar humor I've seen in the previous movies. But it wasn't quite the same the third time around. 

The entire experience is more nuanced compared the other flicks. The vibe overall feels different. It's a little weaker. The movie's strongest aspect is the story.

There are a few surprises thrown in that made the audience I was a part of gasp - literally.

Volume three has flare but not to the extent as the previous movies. It's not lacking but it's facing that direction. 

There's a running joke which begins when Kraglin (Sean Gunn) calls Cosmo a bad dog. Throughout the rest of the movie, Cosmo protests and begs him to take it back. It's a corny gag. 

The juke box soundtrack has songs that I enjoy more than the previous soundtrack for volume two. It includes songs like "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" by the Beastie Boys, "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows" by Alice Cooper, and "Badlands" by Bruce Springsteen. It's a decent mix. 

Honestly, if Marvel actually ends the series with volume three as they claim they will, it wouldn't be a bad decision. 

"My Thoughts Real Quick"

I tend to put in more effort on my site 1000daysofhorror.com while this blog gets much less traffic. In an attempt to remedy that, and write more posts especially on new releases, I plan to jot down my thoughts rather than write up lengthy reviews.

Oh, there will still be lengthy reviews on older films. But for newer releases, they'll be quick. 

Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody (2022) - My Thoughts Relatively Quick

The biographical film "Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance with Somebody," released in December 2022 and directed by Kasi Lemmons, tells the career story of famed singer and actress Whitney Houston.

When it comes to biopics, I appreciate the one's that focus on the particular part of a subject's life that best conveys why they're significant. Such depictions can still convey a lot about a notable person for the audience to walk away with. 

When movies depict someone's entire life, though it can be just as informative, it also runs the risk of clouding the reason why they have a biopic about them in the first place. 

This movie focuses on Houston's career from beginning to end. 

While I know very little about Houston, outside of recognizing some of her songs, and having seen her in the film "The Bodyguard" with Kevin Costner, I learned a few things about the singer just by watching this flick. 

For instance, I didn't know that she was bisexual. But as the film is really centered on her rise to fame, I don't find that detail all that interesting as it's a secondary detail. I also didn't know about her tumultuous relationship with her father. I mean, not that I cared to know about it. It's just there. Those personal details are telling, but the focus of the entire film is her rise to the level of success she achieved. That's what I find most interesting - how a person can rise to such a level that they become a household name and make an impact in a particular field or industry. 

Houston, nicknamed "The Voice," is among the bestselling musical artists of all time. She sold over 200 million records worldwide. And she's ranked at number two on Rolling Stone's 2023 list of all-time greatest singers following Aretha Franklin.
Naomi Ackie does a great job in the lead role as Houston. Her performance is sharp as she portrays the singer's personality and demeanor which changes from soft and humble-like to torn and broken as her rise to world- renowned celebrity singer grows. 

The film showcases how extremely talented she was, and how she had a voice of gold. 

However, it's just a showcase of her rise to fame and nothing more. It shows one event during her career after another. It doesn't get too personal outside of her romantic relationship with her friend and former lover Robyn Crawford (Nafessa Williams), her ups and downs with her former husband Bobby Brown (Ashton Sanders), the support she had from her producer Clive Davis (Stanley Tucci), and the relationship she had with her parents. 

She had an amazing talent which made her famous and that certainly affected those around her in different ways. That's the extent of the film.

Outside of that, there's nothing much to take away about the life of Houston. 

Aside from the acting, the singing is amazing and entertaining. Otherwise, the film breezes through her career. This happened, and then that happened, and after that, this other thing happened. The end. 

It feels, overall, like a quick story. As safe and thoughtless a comment as it is, my only thought at the end of the movie was "well, that was interesting." It's the same thought I would have if I had watched a 40-minute T.V. biography on Whitney Houston. 

"My Thoughts Real Quick"

I tend to put in more effort on my site 1000daysofhorror.com while this blog gets much less traffic. In an attempt to remedy that, and write more posts especially on new releases, I plan to jot down my thoughts rather than write up lengthy reviews.

Oh, there will still be lengthy reviews on older films. But for newer releases, they'll be quick.