Weapons (2025)

    Original cinema is back! With the release of Sinners earlier this year (my personal favorite film of the year so far) and now Weapons (directed by Zach Cregger), original horror films have been on a roll lately. Much like Sinners, Weapons is a film that has slowly but surely been building up steam on the hype train. The script caused a fierce bidding war (allegedly Jordan Peele was so displeased that his company wasn't able to obtain the script that he fired members of his team), and having now seen the film I completely understand why. Weapons may be the craziest film I've seen in a long time, it never stops to question itself and it also avoids taking itself too seriously, which makes for the perfect blend of fun and horror. 

    If you've seen the trailers you already know the premise, 17 elementary-aged school children disappear overnight, seemingly of their own free will and with no trace or sign of where they went. The parents are furious and want answers (personally, I want to know how not a single parent heard their child running out of the house in the middle of the night but I digress), but no one seems to have any, including the children's teacher (Julia Garner, who is having a "fantastic" summer at the box office). One of the film's greatest strengths is the non-linear narrative; focusing on one character's point of view at a time, the film is split into chapters that are excellently paced, and build anticipation with each narrative change.

    Despite the crazy events that take place throughout the story, after the opening narration sequence, the movie never slows down to try and explain what's happening, trusting the audience to make connections on their own, which I love (filmmakers have faith in your audience, we're not all dumb, I promise). In fact, throughout the film several characters simply exclaim "what the f$#@!" when something shocking or crazy happens, but most don't stop to investigate further (except for Josh Brolin's character, who plays the parent who has to take the search for his child into his own hands because the cops aren't getting anywhere).

    Additionally, if you are a fan of gore, you are in for a treat as there are a few scenes in this film that are not for the faint of heart (one scene in particular had the entire theater I was in reacting wildly). There are also a few excellent jump scares, but the film doesn't rely on them too heavily. I could go on praising the movie, but honestly this is a film you simply need to see for yourself. Hopefully, this film will makes waves at the box office and further prove to Hollywood that the people are craving new and original films that forego the standard formulaic format; the theater I was in was packed and I've heard a lot of buzz around the movie so I am hopeful. After the credits began to roll, I overheard one moviegoer proclaiming "this movie understands me!" and I couldn't relate more.


-Ryan Maples


9.5/10

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

     ♫ Fantastic FOOOOOOUUUURRRRR ♫ The world's first superhero family is back for one more crack at it, this time with a whole new cast and much, much better uniforms than Fantastic Four (2015). Once again, they face the Silver Surfer (a female version this time) and her master, Galactus, who promises the destruction of Earth. Not only are the newest version of the fantastic foursome responsible for saving Earth, however, but they also carry the weight of saving the Marvel cinematic universe (thankfully there is no need to watch six different Disney plus shows in order to be fully prepared for this one).



I'll admit, I haven't been super tuned into Marvel movies lately, I've been trying to catch up, but the formula has grown thin, and the constant quips and increasingly shoddy special effects haven't really helped. However, when I saw that Galactus was finally actually going to be portrayed in this film, I knew I was already in for the ride. A giant eternal being who relentlessly consumes planets, Galactus has been hinted at or referenced in the past Marvel films (including Fantastic Four: Silver Surfer), but he has never been shown in his full glory. I have to say I wasn't disappointed with Galactus' appearance(s) in this movie, although it did leave me wanting more; also, if you haven't seen the film yet, do yourself a favor and watch it in IMAX, the extra large screen makes the Galactus scenes feel even more immersive and really shows off his enormous size.

Honestly, my main problem with this movie is that it wasn't quite long enough, with a running time of just under two hours, I really feel as though they could have added more to help flesh out the characters (seriously, they could have at least cut one of the five family dinner scenes instead of completely cutting out whoever John Malkovich was supposed to be). For example, we barely get to see any stretchy powers from Mister Fantastic, and the Thing has a side plot romance that seems like it was almost completely cut from the film. Additionally, while there are a few scenes where Reed and Sue showcase their romantic chemistry, I was sometimes left questioning what brought them together in the first place (in one scene Sue essentially berates Reed for being a genius who thinks of everything, which seemed a little forced considering she should know him by now).

As far as the cast goes, I had my doubts going into the film, particularly in regards to Human Torch, but I have to say Joseph Quinn surprised me with a solid and well-rounded performance that might actually be the best Human Torch has looked on-screen yet (and they basically made Silver Surfer a woman so he could flirt with her, which is just so Johnny). Pedro Pascal is mostly just Pedro Pascal in this film (which is not bad, to be honest, I definitely prefer him over other previous castings), but every now and then you get a glimpse at the old-school Atlantic accent that Disney rejected. I loved the Thing (Ebon Moss-Bachrach, from The Bear) as well; unlike previous films he actually gets to have fun and doesn't spend the whole film sulking that he looks like a boulder. Vanessa Kirby does an adequate job as Invisible Woman, and I really appreciated how they made her the face and spokesperson of the Fantastic Four, however, I feel as though she doesn't get to show off her powers enough until later on when she suddenly seems overpowered.

All of that being said, I was locked in while watching this movie, especially during the space scenes; it is a fun ride that I'm sure a majority of Marvel fans will enjoy, and if the movie leaves you wanting more, that isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially since lately, Marvel movies have been leaving me wanting LESS). Making the movie take place on Earth 828 and giving it a 50's aesthetic was an excellent choice as well. I will say though that this is the last superhero movie that gets to do a last-minute, somehow highly efficient evacuation sequence of the entire city right before the bad guy gets there, the stakes don't feel high enough and I feel like we are very much ignoring the reality of traffic. Still, this is definitely the best Fantastic Four has looked in a long time (not really a high bar, I realize) and should help build excitement for the next phase of Avengers.

-Ryan Maples

7.5/10

Happy Gilmore 2 (2025)

    In a movie-verse overflowing with nostalgia-driven projects, the latest sequel to release over 20 years after its predecessor is Netflix's Happy Gilmore 2, and it's here to drown you in cameos (seriously, I think they may have set a Guinness World record for cameos, I looked down and I almost missed Post Malone). Returning to reprise one of his more iconic roles is Adam Sandler, and this time here's here to save golf. Unfortunately for Happy, he apparently does not get a happily-ever-after ending after winning the gold jacket, although he does get five more jackets and five kids. If you're wondering how they'll manage to write off the old love interest in this long-awaited (?) sequel, I promise you won't be disappointed. As far as unnecessary sequels go, Happy Gilmore 2 does its best to recapture the magic, in fact, much of the film is spent calling back to familiar moments and characters. Honestly, the movie feels like one big reunion, with characters even the most die-hard Adam Sandler fans may not remember popping up in some scenes (the movie painstakingly ensures that we know exactly who they are though with several flashbacks throughout). 

    Despite all this, the Netflix sequel does manage to deliver a few laughs, and seems to have captured the same spirit as the original 90's hit. It's nothing to write home about, but this may be one of the better Adam Sandler Netflix projects (I know, I know). If you have a Netflix account and are a Happy Gilmore/Adam Sandler I'm sure you would probably at least passably enjoy this film, however, it certainly isn't as memorable as the original, and spends too much time basking in nostalgic reminiscence of the previous film to really set itself apart. At best, this movie will make you want to re-watch the 1996 classic (which is still on Netflix, but only for a couple more days, so hurry). While it isn't the worst movie ever, it isn't exactly "necessary" either; however, if you're a Sandler fan you could certainly do worse as far as streaming-service-original movies go (why are there so many of them?). Admittedly, from what I've seen, most fans of the original film seem to be pleased with this new addition. Just please, Netflix, don't get any ideas and take this as a sign that the people want Jack and Jill 2. 

-Ryan Maples

5/10

Superman (2025)

    

    Look! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's... Superman's dog? That's right folks there's a new Superman in town and this time he brought his furry friend (well, technically he's just dogsitting). Ever since this the new Superman was announced, headed by James Gunn of Guardians of the Galaxy fame, excitement has been building for a new version of Kal-El (played by David Corenswet), especially since the last two iterations of the man in the red cape left a lot to be desired (sorry Zack Snyder fans). Even before seeing the film, it was already a nice breath of fresh air to see Superman actually crack a smile and a joke in the trailers (remember when DC comics were fun?) and not seem to take himself too seriously. However, a great marketing campaign doesn't necessarily translate into a great movie, so is this finally the Superman we the people deserve? 

    Right from the start, James Gunn gives us a fresh take on Superman by showing us a side of him that we rarely ever get to see, his vulnerable and insecure side. The film literally opens with Superman getting his ass kicked and leaving the audience to wonder what kind of beast could make the Man of Steel bleed? This film doesn't waste time recounting Superman's origin story either, assuming that the audience already knows the Kryptonian's backstory, which I really appreciated. This let's us get straight into the action, and minus a couple of romantic scenes between Lois and Clark, the action never stops. Despite opening on such a serious note, the film still finds a way to be light-hearted and inject a bit of humor that isn't just cheesy one-liners (*ahem* looking at you, Marvel *cough*). Superman's foster dog Krypto is the source of several laughs throughout the film as an unruly, obviously untrained yet loveable superdog just trying to have a good time. 

    One of my favorite aspects of this movie is the inclusion of the "Justice Gang" (they're still workshopping the name a little). Nathan Fillion is as great of a Green Lantern as fan-casters always knew he would be and Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi, who actually gets to play a superhero who doesn't die immediately this time) actually steals the show in my opinion. Isabela Merced also does a solid job as Hawk Girl. In fact, most of the casting is pretty on point, Rachel Brosnahan portrays Lois Lane as journalist first, girlfriend second, and really hammers that point home in the her and Superman's intense interview scene (totally ruined the nice dinner they were about to have though unfortunately). Another plus in this movie is Nicholas Hoult's dedication to playing a fully evil, incredibly jealous and enraged Lex Luthor; we can feel the hate dripping from his mouth with every line and finally a director has committed to a completely bald Lex again, no goofy wigs or unrecognizable accents, just pure baldness and a lot of evil scheming and screaming at insubordinates. My one complaint in regards to casting is the Kent's Earth parents; they seem a little simple-minded (they're supposed to be simple folk, but they went a little far in my humble opinion) and although Clark and Pa Kent have a nice moment towards the third act, it was almost unclear if Mr. Kent was even capable of speaking more than two words at a time up until that point. But hey, at least nobody runs into any tornadoes this time. 

    The most important thing to get right in a Superman movie is the portrayal of the man in red underwear himself and as far as that goes I think this movie really nails it. Superman's main focus above all is saving lives, even if it gets him into political trouble, and the film constantly shows him saving people (and at least one squirrel) even if that means he has to stop fighting for a minute. It is nice to see a Superman who so clearly cares about the people again, and just wants to be one of them, instead of some kind of weird Jesus allegory. That being said, that doesn't mean we don't get to see Superman (and Krypto) kick some ass too in this movie, and not only does he get to flex his laser beams on us, but he also is able to showcase his rarely utilized super breath multiple times. One of the best action sequences comes from Mr. Terrific, however, and his handy dandy floating balls (spheres, they're called spheres). In the end, not only are we left wanting more, but the movie gives us a little teaser at what's left to come and I have to say, I feel much more hopeful about how this DC world is being built (I can confirm no characters are established via email this time). 

    *Potential minor spoiler warning*

    As far as the plot goes, there is one major change to the source material that some people could take issue with involving Jor-El, I won't go into detail but suffice it to say we hear the word "harem" more than I think I've ever heard in one sitting. I still don't know how to feel about this change to Kal-El's biological parents, and I was waiting for it to just be a "fake news" scheme by Luthor, but apparently it wasn't. It works as one of the inciting incidents in this film, but in the context of the DC universe I can see why some fans may take issue with it. 

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8

Hereditary (2018)

    If you are a horror aficionado, chances are you may have already seen Ari Aster’s debut film, Hereditary. Hailed by many as one of the greatest horror movies in recent years, Hereditary is also a film about grief and how people process this emotion differently. In fact, this film is almost more interesting when it is delving into the how the different stages of grief exhibit themselves in unique ways (especially with Toni Collette’s character). At one point in the film, Collette's character is literally heaving while on all fours as she rocks back and forth, screaming "it hurts too much!" While this kind of display could easily come off as melodramatic if not executed properly, instead it stands out to me as one of the better portrayals of pure agonizing grief by an actor or actress in recent memory.

    Otherwise, Hereditary contains many of the familiar horror tropes: strange-looking child, house out in the middle of nowhere with a spooky attic, creepy dollhouses, witches, the occult, seances (seriously people just say no to seances it never ends well), and evil books that can’t be destroyed. The movie doesn't rely on "jump scares" really at all, however, it does contain one of the most shocking scenes I've seen in a while that will probably leave you with your mouth hanging open for a second.

    In my opinion, the acting truly carries this film, Toni Collette does a fantastic job of portraying a horribly grief-stricken mother and her facial expressions convey every emotion from apathetic depression, to burning anger, to sudden horror (during one screaming match at the dinner table I was convinced that her eyes were going to pop right out of their sockets). Alex Wolff also plays his part as the bewildered and terrified son, while Gabriel Byrne portrays the classic "dad who looks like he'd rather be anywhere else right now" role.

    I won't delve too much into the plot, because it's hard to discuss too much without inadvertently spoiling things, but I will say that a majority of the film is "teasing" what is to come, however, once we get to then end, things move quickly. Although I found the ending to be fascinating, I was ultimately a little disappointed that we didn't get a more thorough explanation or more closure on what transpired. Admittedly, this is probably what Aster was going for in leaving some questions unanswered, however, I think one last scene would have really wrapped things up nicely. I wouldn't say Hereditary is one of my all time favorite horror films, but it is an enjoyable and intriguing ride.


-Ryan Maples


Rating: 7.75

28 Years Later (2025)

When 28 Days Later first came out, it instantly became a cult hit that revolutionized the zombie genre. Before 28 Days Later, zombies were mostly slow, shambling creatures, who were terrifying because of their sheer numbers, not necessarily their athletic prowess; however, now with the release of 28 Years Later, the concept of “fast zombies” has been well established, so how will this new sequel keep things fresh? Or is it just another unnecessary sequel?

On the technical side of things, 28 Days Later was also known for its gritty and realistic visual style, which is due to Danny Boyle’s used digital home video cameras in shooting the film (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/28-days-later-pioneered-digital-120832684.html). This time, Boyle sets out to be a pioneer in cinematography once again by being the first blockbuster ever to use a specially-made rig of iPhones to shoot the third film in the 28 Units of Time series. The result is a series of frenetic and jarring sequences that actually work rather well in evoking the tone for this apocalyptic setting. Zombies practically seem to jump out from every side of the screen when things really hit the fan and the rig, which holds 14-20 iphones, allows for “killshots” to be shown from every angle. It is quite impressive to see how far the quality of digital video has come since 28 Days Later, as visually the film looks as high quality as any blockbuster.

The film quickly establishes that this zombie apocalypse is strictly a United Kingdom problem; the virus has been contained to the mainland and a strict quarantine is in effect meaning the remaining survivors are on their own. Without giving too much away, the film essentially begins as a coming of age story, with a young Spike (Alfie Wiliams) learning the ways of apocalyptic survival with his father (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). They live with a group of survivors on a small island that is barely even large enough for the small town. Naturally, to prove his worth and his manhood, Spike must venture out to “the mainland” with his father and get his first kill, despite the protests of his severely ill and bed-ridden mother. Without getting into any spoilery details, the majority of the film from there focuses on the mainland, where the zombies have been thriving, and are led by a series of super zombies called “Alphas,” (they film never explains how Alphas are created or what makes them special but a certain swinging appendage seems to play a part) In the midst of all of this, Spike makes a desperate attempt to save his dying mother. There is certainly more action in store than any of the characters bargained for and Spike must quickly put all that he has learned into use. Much like the action, the story is frenetic and fast-paced, but it still manages to take time to establish how much the world has changed since the original film and how life for the survivors of the “Rage virus” epidemic versus the rest of the world; they are not only stuck in survival mode, they are stuck in time. As the story comes to a conclusion we are suddenly met with an abrupt cliffhanger; surprise! There is another sequel coming, this one entitled 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. Overall, the plot is simple but effective, however I feel as though we are missing elements to the story that will be revealed in Bone Temple that will tie together a few loose ends and various questions. 

On the acting side of things, Aaron Taylor-Johnson gives a solid performance, although he isn’t given as much screen time as one might expect coming into the film. Alfie Williams plays his role well, although there are a few times where his emotional reactions are somewhat questionable, it seemed to be more of a director’s choice than the actor’s. Jodie Comer as Spike's mother, Isla, shines brightest in this film, really committing to the role of the boys’ ill-stricken mother as she fights a disease that turns her own mind against her. 

So is it a necessary sequel or another soulless cash grab? Personally, I enjoyed the film, even if I didn’t agree with all of the story choices that were made. The film still manages to make the zombie concept feel fresh and the cinematography gives us a different more immersive feeling as an audience than other zombie flicks. As much as I’d like to see more original films, of course, this sequel doesn’t borrow too much from its predecessors other than setting. If you are a fan of the original film or a zombie fan in general I would definitely recommend giving it a watch. 

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.5

More Behind the Scene footage

Taken 3 (2015)

Here we go again guys; Liam Neeson is back and once again he just can’t seem to keep tabs on his poor family’s whereabouts. After Taken 2, I thought for sure this “series” (it’s a trilogy now, imagine that) was dead and gone for sure; I mean, everyone had their turn being Taken (first the daughter, then the mom, and finally Neeson himself, everyone’s happy right?) not to mention the movie was one of the worst movies I’d ever seen. Apparently, I was wrong and the obvious, clear next step in the series was to make a Taken movie where no one actually gets Taken (brilliant, right? This was the actual pitch for the movie), on the contrary, this time there’s been a murder.

First of all, the notion that no one gets “taken” in this Taken sequel is technically false. Admittedly, it’s not the main focus of the plot, but Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, and Maggie Grace all get taken at one point or another (as well as the evil businessman stepdad) sorry to be a stickler, but I just had to point it out. Now that that’s out of the way, what the movie does focus on is a completely unoriginal plot (Taken meets Fugitive! Right guys?) where Liam Neeson attempts to prove his innocence in his wife’s murder the only way he knows how, by using a very particular set of skills.

There’s so much wrong with this movie as an action flick, it almost feels like a parody. For example, the plot itself is a cheap rip off of an older, better Harrison Ford vehicle, but it doesn’t stop there. The editing is atrocious and seems almost intentionally messy to hide Liam Neeson’s actual lack of “skills” (forgive me Mr. Neeson, you’re still the best); in one scene we see Neeson run up to the fence, and then there’s a cut, and then he’s on top of the fence, and then another cut and finally cut to him “landing” on the ground; I’m not sure Liam Neeson actually descends a real full flight of stairs, let alone does any of the stunts this movie would have you believe. The dialogue is cripplingly expositional and bland, evil stepdad explains to Neeson and his spec ops friend what the Spetsnaz is at one point, which is clearly just a line intended for the audience; sloppy lines like this persist throughout the film.

In what I’m sure is an attempt to make up for the particularly bland and cliché villain in this film (really, an ulgy Russian guy with weird teeth? Like every cliché action movie ever?) Forest Whitaker is cast as the “super interesting unordinary detective who’s chasing the hero but doesn’t really believe he’s guilty he’s just doing his detective duties” guy and the movie makes several lame attempts at making him “different.” They give him a knight from a chess set and a rubber band to play with throughout the movie, but fail to explain the significance of either. Also, how does he know that Liam Neeson is really innocent? Bagels, yeah that’s right, bagels, and I’m pretty sure it can’t get more ridiculous than that (unless you’re watching Taken 2).

I could go into a lot more detail on how utterly ridiculous this movie is, but honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time. Granted, it might be a bit better than Taken 2, however, that isn’t exactly glowing praise. It’s a real shame because the original Taken was a solid action movie that shouldn’t have been developed into sequels. Of course, Taken 3 is making good money at the moment, so I’m sure we can all expect a Taken 4 coming soon worldwide in a couple of years, hey maybe they’ll shake it up a bit and his grandson will get taken.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446042/?ref_=nv_sr_1