film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: Matt Conway

  • Moving On: Another Review

    Moving On: Another Review

    Moving On Synopsis: Two estranged friends (Jane Fonda and Lilly Tomlin) reunite to seek revenge against the husband of their recently deceased best friend. Along the way, they learn to make peace with the past and each other.

    Grandmother Claire continues to be haunted by a traumatic event from her past involving her best friend’s fiance, Howard. When her friend dies, Claire and her estranged college companion Evelyn reunite for the funeral to kill Howard in Moving On. 

    Pairing the talents of Jane Fonda and Lilly Tomlin together is always a good recipe for entertainment. The two shepherded the crowdpleasing Netflix comedy Grace and Frankie for seven seasons, holding the show together through their sheer force of nature as performers. Heck, even the so-so, corporate-approved comedy 80 for Brady registered enough easy-going laughs from the duo’s distinct talents (alongside co-stars Rita Moreno and Sally Field). 

    In Moving On, writer/director Paul Weitz spotlights Fonda and Tomlin in an intriguing genre fusion where two friends embark on a crusade to murder a reprehensible figure from their past. Even as the promising puzzle pieces don’t quite gel together, the experience still provides a refreshingly morbid comedy bolstered by the radiant talents of its remarkable stars. 

    It’s a hoot to watch Fonda and Tomlin mingle together onscreen, especially in a film free of rigid studio comedy rules. As Claire, Fonda delivers her signature wit while reckoning with the character’s lingering traumas in thoughtful manners. I loved seeing the actress escape the one-note archetypes she’s been typecasted to the last decade in favor of an authentic character brimming with real-world textures. When the film allows Fonda to explore Claire’s pains, the actress nails the reflective beats with impressive ease.

    Tomlin remains a comedic force of nature as Evelyn. Her sardonic wit and alluring screen presence make her a pitch-perfect comedic sparring partner for Fonda. It’s a testament to Tomlin’s immense talents that she creates a richly lived-in character with limited screen time. She skillfully explores the highs and lows of Evelyn’s past as the character’s backstory gradually pieces together onscreen. Impactful supporting work from Malcolm McDowell as the vicious Howard and Richard Roundtree as Claire’s compassionate ex-husband also leaves a positive impact. 

    Moving On is another extension of Weitz’s fascinating onscreen voice. The writer/director’s resume features a vast range of raunchy comedies (American Pie) and soulful dramas (Being Flynn). With Moving On, Weitz attempts an oft-kilter merging of these sensibilities with mixed results.

    Elements of Weitz’s vision burst with promise. I appreciate his ability to extenuate the talents of his stars. Similar to his work with Tomlin in 2015’s Grandma, he taps into layers of his performers scarcely explored onscreen. Additionally, his comedic chops are a well-tailored fit for the material. Bitting barbs and snied one-liners often deliver uproarious laughs as Claire and Evelyn descend further into their darkly humorous pursuit to get revenge. 

    A marriage of dramatic and comedic tones sounds excellent on paper, but Weitz struggles to find cohesion in his vision. The film’s breathless 85-minute runtime does not provide enough opportunities for exploring the characters onscreen. Moving On thrives when balancing its silly escapades with a genuine sense of real-world weight. Instead, the film gradually forgoes its characters and their lingering dilemmas for a more straightforward comedic affair. The third act is particularly dysfunctional, shying away from any genuine steaks for a crystal-clean conclusion that betrays much of the film’s earlier complications. I was disappointed to see Moving On’s strong start ultimately underplayed by a failure of nerve from its filmmaker. 

    Still, I credit Moving On for attempting to walk an untraditional tightrope. The film’s inconsistencies are more than made up for by the talents of its dynamite dynamic duo.

    Moving On is now playing in theaters. 

  • Inside: The BRWC Review

    Inside: The BRWC Review

    Nemo, a reclusive, art-obsessed thief, finds himself imprisoned within a collector’s highrise apartment during a heist gone wrong in Inside.

    Chamber pieces are celebrated cinematic staples, often allowing film creatives to transform a one-room setting into a lively canvas bursting with dramatic tensions. At first glance, some may consider the medium a straightforward extension of traditional theatrical productions. However, in the right hands, the subgenre can take full advantage of filmmaking’s boundless powers in innovative manners. 

    With Inside, director Vasilis Katsoupis and screenwriter Ben Hopkins delve into one man’s descent into madness. The results spotlight an enthralling character study bolstered by one of the industry’s finest performers.  

    The premise is deceptively simple. While in the boiling pressure cooker of a tense robbery, a sudden alarm turns the luxurious apartment space into a confining prison cell for Nemo. Being surrounded by the arts should be Nemo’s bread and butter. He admits in the opening frames that, even as a kid, the lasting allures of artworks possed more meaning to him than any human connection. But, as time passes by, Nemo soon realizes that his entrapment poses far more danger than a simple night’s stay. 

    Katsoupis operates masterfully behind the camera to entrench viewers in Nemo’s shoes. His intimate framing creates an intoxicating claustrophobia, capturing every bead of sweat and pained facial expression in excruciating detail as Nemo falls further into self-destruction. There is also a palpable sense of disorientation in Katsoupis’s work; the blending of day and time serves as a deft portrait of the character’s growing weariness amidst dire circumstances. 

    The director’s deft creative choices form a lively backdrop within the one-room setting. Katsoupis’s visuals embrace the human degradation that drives Inside forward, skillfully expressing that concept through the destruction of a sleek apartment space into an incoherent trash heap composed of Nemo’s rambling ideas. For a movie that could have easily relied upon its writing and acting to carry the heavy lifting, it’s impressive seeing how Katsoupis elevates the material. 

    Still, Inside’s successes are primarily attributed to star Willem Dafoe. I could frankly watch Dafoe eat a sandwich for an hour and a half and remain magnetized by his presence onscreen. Across his four-decade career, Dafoe remains one of the industry’s best character actors, boasting a particular penchant for encapsulating the consuming mania of a character sinking into psychosis (Platoon, Spider-Man, and The Lighthouse are a few great examples). That innate ability is a perfect fit for conveying Nemo’s pained journey. 

    With sparse dialogue and no other actors to play off of, Dafoe seizes a transfixing hold on the material. The actor consistently grounds Nemo in aching sentiments, depicting Nemo’s decay in a way that never oversells the dynamic with broad theatrics. It’s a genuinely transformative effort that few in the industry could portray with such poised command. Dafoe’s razor-sharp abilities slice away the character’s sense of self until he gradually resembles an animalistic entity. 

    In terms of narrative, Hopkins creates a screenplay with its fair share of strengths and blemishes. The art motif lingering throughout Inside is an ingenious concept worth exploring. Entrapping Nemo face-to-face with his only true passion relays the overbearing emptiness that lies at his callous core while also allowing Hopkins to mirror some of the artworks’ surrealist qualities throughout the character’s journey. That said, Hopkins’s screenplay can stumble into being too didactic for its own good. I am unsure if the film’s intriguing yet straightforward ruminations fully sustain its 105-minute runtime. Perhaps either a tighter vision or more articulate thematic infusions could have allowed the concept to take on even more gravity. 

    Regardless, I applaud Inside for its thoughtful elevation of familiar narrative tenants. Katsoupis, Hopkins, and Dafoe form a cohesive team in creating a taut and unshakeably dreary thrill ride. 

    Inside is now playing in theaters. 

  • Champions: The BRWC Review

    Champions: The BRWC Review

    Champions Synopsis: A former minor-league basketball coach (Woody Harrelson) receives a court order to manage a team of players with intellectual disabilities. Despite his doubts, he soon realizes that together they can go further than they ever imagined. A remake of the 2018 Spanish film Camepons. 

    Disgraced coach Marcus Markovich deploys his professional basketball insights in coaching a Special Olympics roster in the feel-good sports comedy Champions. 

    The release of Champions piqued my interest as a welcomed piece of representation for the intellectually disabled community. I spent my high school senior year volunteering for Special Olympics teams and enjoyed my experiences immensely. There are many toxic misconceptions surrounding people living with intellectual disabilities, with society still placing unjust labels and not giving people a chance to showcase their overlooked capabilities – whether it’s via the workforce or the world at large. 

    In my experience, the athletes I worked with always represented themselves as enthusiastic and considerate individuals looking for acceptance in an unnecessarily hostile society. I cannot express enough gratitude for that chapter of my life. The athletes embraced me with open hearts, ingraining me in their razzing rituals and truly accepting me as a part of their tight-knit family. 

    Films focused on the intellectually disabled are frankly few and far between. For every well-executed production (The Ringer and Peanut Butter Falcon were empowering in their authentic portrayals), Hollywood features a long list of duds that are incredibly maudlin and contrived in their construction (Radio and I Am Sam are two infamous examples). 

    With Champions, director Bobby Farrelly and screenwriter Mark Rizzo take one step forward and two steps back. Noble intentions and glimmers of well-formulated ideas are everpresent in this sports comedy, but the film never trusts itself or its audience enough to honor its premise. 

    Champions gravitates too closely to well-traveled formula. Marcus is your typical sports movie lead – a jaded misanthrope who can’t help getting in his own way. At first glance, he is far from likable, reluctantly taking on his community service sentence and rarely giving his new roster of players the time of day. But, along the way, Marcus grows to accept his team, dubbed the Friends, and the ensemble forms a friendly rapport as they chase the Special Olympics championship.

    Marcus’s character is intended as the point guard that drives Champions’ plot forward. Instead, he is the black hole that encumbers the film at every turn. There is an unintended level of condescension in Rizzo’s screenwriting approach, framing Marcus’s monumental change of heart as a journey that can only occur through the help of his likable new players. Unfortunately, this choice relegates the central subjects of Champions as background players stuck in another character’s trite coming-of-age story. 

    It’s easy to envision a version of Champions that would work far better if it focused on its ensemble cast. Joshua Felder, Kevin Iannucci, Ashton Gunning, Matthew Von Der Ahe, Tom Sinclair, James Day Keith, Alex Hintz, Casey Metcalfe, Bradley Edens, and scene-stealer Madison Tevlin are infectiously charismatic as members of the Friends roster. Each actor defines a memorable presence onscreen despite the screenplay’s shortcomings. 

    To Rizzo’s credit, he occasionally awards these characters interesting wrinkles worth exploring, whether it’s Felder’s character Darius wrestling with a tragic accident that derailed his verging basketball career or Keith’s role as a line cook dealing with workplace harassment due to his disability. While there is potential on the page, Rizzo seems ill-equipped to explore these subplots with any more substance than a mundane TV sitcom. His efforts severely lack the nuance and understanding to award these characters’ necessary dimensions outside of one or two defining personality quirks. Other concepts, such as the film’s reckoning with the mistreatment of intellectually disabled persons and Marcus’s potential exploitation of the team to advance his career, are worthwhile on paper yet ultimately go nowhere of interest.  

    As a breezy comedy, Champions works in spurts. The deft comedic timing of the ensemble cast pairs well with Woody Harrelson’s sardonic performance as Marcus. For all of the role’s warts, Harrelson occasionally elevates the part through his rugged appeals. It’s Always Sunny in Philidelphia star Kate Olsen is also a gem as Marcus’ sharp-witted love interest. When the film shies away from self-congratulatory pandering, there is a sincere heart that occasionally stirs some genuine sentiments. 

    It’s just a shame Champions consistently gets in its own way. Farrelly, who shepherded several stalwart 90s comedies like There’s Something About Marry and Dumb and Dumber with his brother Peter, provides a steadying yet unenthusiastic presence behind the camera. His cloying presence drowns out plot beats in a syrupy saccharine manner, never allowing emotions to bubble under the needless confections of over-eager score inclusions and melodramatic speeches. The overreliance upon artificial crowd-pleaser tropes prevents Farley’s film from ever developing an authentic voice. 

    Champions scores in some areas and airballs in others. Despite my admiration for what the film vies to achieve, its ambitions ultimately culminate in a lackadaisical and paper-thin sports narrative. 

    Champions is now playing in theaters. 

  • Operation Fortune: Another Review

    Operation Fortune: Another Review

    Operation Fortune Ruse de guerre Synopsis: Elite spy Orson Fortune (Jason Statham) must track down and stop the sale of a deadly new weapons technology wielded by billionaire arms broker Greg Simmonds (Hugh Grant). Reluctantly teamed up with some of the world’s best operatives (Aubrey Plaza and Bugzy Malone), Fortune and his crew recruit Hollywood’s biggest movie star, Danny Francesco (Josh Hartnett), to help them on their mission to save the world.

    A misfit team of spies infiltrates a sinister, world-altering scheme with the help of a clueless yet charismatic movie star in Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre. The fact that Fortune, the latest writing/directing effort from British auteur Guy Richie, is seeing the light of day in theaters is a miraculous occurrence in its own right. The film bounced around the calendar several times over the past year before landing in the hands of a new distributor, Lionsgate, as STX Entertainment underwent a substantial corporate overhaul. 

    I am glad Richie is getting the opportunity to continue his second-act career renaissance on the big screen. The filmmaker made a name for himself with charismatically cockney crime epics like Snatch, RocknRolla and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Each feature helped define Ritchie as a distinctive and infectiously energetic voice behind the camera – a skillset he then transitioned to studio projects with mixed results. For all the creative success he enjoyed with Sherlock Holmes and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., his efforts with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and Aladdin received far more divisive appraisals (I will still stake my claim as one of the few fans of his kinetic King Arthur film). 

    Thankfully, Ritchie has made a welcomed return to his old-school roots. The Gentlemen and Wrath of Man represent two of his finest offerings to date, carrying Ritchie’s signature mean-and-lean swagger in captivating crime yarns bolstered by thoughtful thematic sentiments. His winning streak somewhat continues with Operation Fortune – a weightless and dizzying globetrotting caper that still delivers a refreshing dose of cheeky entertainment. 

    Ritchie’s confident presence can be felt throughout Operation Fortune. He and co-screenwriters Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies spin a busy narrative bursting with eccentric characters, sharp dialogue exchanges and swerving plot twists. The script is at its best when leaning into the colorful personality embedded within these dynamics, showcasing a clever penchant for eschewing expectations and maintaining a sly comedic tone. While there are some dramatic steaks throughout Operation Fortune, I love that the film unabashedly embraces the confectionary joys of breezy Hollywood escapism.  

    This approach benefits significantly from the film’s star-studded cast. Jason Statham and Aubrey Plaza are a pitch-perfect match as sardonic spies with sharp witts and effortless chemistry. It’s a joy to see the two play off each other as Plaza skillfully expands her limitless range into the action movie sphere. In addition, British rapper Bugzy Malone displays natural gravitas as one of Orson’s new partners, while Hugh Grant, Cary Elwes, and Josh Hartnett chew the scenery with impressive comedic results. 

    Hartnett and Grant are particular standouts. Ritchie continues to peel intriguing layers from each actors’ immense talents, viewing both in a new light outside the industry’s tired typecasting tendencies (Grant was a standout in The Gentlemen and Hartnett left a strong impression in Wrath of Man). As ruthless billionaire Greg Simmons, Grant conveys a non-traditional foe who pops onscreen with smarm and instant screen presence. Hartnett also steals every scene he’s in as the bumbling yet sincere movie star thrust into a life-or-death mission. To me, these performances are indicative of Ritchie’s ability to draw outside the lines in impactful ways.  

    For all its charms, Operation Fortune does highlight some of Ritchie’s shortcomings. There are so many characters and plot threads demanding viewers’ attention here – so much so that some of the film’s best aspects do not receive enough room to breathe onscreen. It does not help that the film overcomplicates itself at every turn, focusing extensively on plot jargon and meaningless mechanics that ultimately leave little to no impact. I would have loved for the movie to focus more on its makeshift spy team or several of the other quirky personalities. Instead, these promising parts render into compelling sketches of ideas that desperately lack shading. 

    I still found myself charmed by Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre. Ritchie and his creative team conjure an infectious crime romp with enough personality and vibrancy to overcome its shortcomings. 

    Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre is now playing in theaters.

  • 65: The BRWC Review

    65: The BRWC Review

    65 Synopsis: After a catastrophic crash on an unknown planet, pilot Mills quickly discovers he is stranded on Earth…65 million years ago. With only one chance at rescue, Mills and the only other survivor, Koa, must make their way across an unknown terrain riddled with dangerous prehistoric creatures in an epic fight to survive.

    Two survivors crash land on an uncharted planet roamed by deadly dinosaurs in the sci-fi actioner 65. 

    A prehistoric creature feature starring the talents of Oscar-nominated actor Adam Driver sounds almost too good to be true. In execution, 65 never quite captures the peak potential of its compelling elements, but the film still excels at providing a welcomed dose of taut escapism. 

    I can’t help but respect the old-school, B-movie approach from the writer/director team of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. The duo, who wrote the horror phenomenon A Quiet Place, are one of the few to attempt mean-and-lean sci-fi genre films in a Hollywood marketplace that views them as extinct entities. It’s also an intriguing risk to pursue the dinosaur mythos synonymous with Jurassic Park and its subsequent sequels. The franchise has undeniably made an indelible connection with dinosaur thrills and chills in the cinematic zeitgeist, so much so that few other filmmakers try to venture into its well-trudged lane. 

    Hot take alert – I prefer what 65 achieves compared to any of the Jurassic Park sequels, especially the dreadful Jurassic World films. The film eschews a grandiose scale and crowded web of ensemble characters for a refreshingly unambiguous embrace of genre movie allures. 

    It certainly helps to have an actor with Driver’s innate ability to steer the ship forward. As Miles, an emotionally reclusive pilot sentenced to a workaholic existence away from his family, Driver imbues commanding gravitas into a character defined by a seldom few characteristics on the page. A distant family man torn apart by personal tragedies is a commonplace action movie trope, yet Driver always discovers the humanity within Miles’ familiar plights. Moreover, he delivers a true movie star performance – an effort based less on his chameleon-like ability to vanish into roles and more on his sheer force of nature as a performer. Co-star Ariana Greenblatt also leaves a strong impression. She forms lived-in chemistry with Driver in a primarily wordless performance as the crashed ship’s other survivor. 

    As their first studio-filmmaking directorial effort, Beck and Woods showcase a deft understanding of what makes a genre movie click. The two define an arresting atmosphere built on lingering unease, utilizing shadow-ridden lighting and precise framing to convey the hidden dangers lurking around every corner. While 65 lacks big-budget assets (it had less than half the budget of Jurassic World – Dominion), Beck and Woods never make their financial restrictions a hindrance. I appreciate their constant ingenuity on display, especially in creating a lively, unkempt jungle landscape that fits the film’s prehistoric period to a tee without overdoing it with overpolished CGI. 

    The duo proves to be equally adept at crafting satisfying action setpieces. From showcasing voracious predators to the larger-than-life Tyrannosaurus rex, 65 delivers the guilty pleasure amusement one would expect from witnessing an endless onslaught of dinosaurs unleashed on the screen. Beck and Woods execute these varied encounters with poised composure, deploying a steady filmmaking hand elevated by a few dynamic stylistic flourishes (gun-barrel POV shots and expressive jump scares are a few highlights). 

    I don’t want to oversell 65’s strengths, as the film’s simplicity is ultimately a dual-edged sword. I admire Beck and Woods for creating a straightforward screenplay that understands the B-movie pulp their vying to achieve. Unfortunately, their efforts feel oppressively undefined. The film is so breathless in its pursuit of escapism that it essentially leaves character-building and narrative in the dust. A significant lack of texture and personality relegates several of the film’s undernourished narrative dynamics into feeling like tired leftovers borrowed from far superior films. Whether it’s the weightless exposition jargon burdening the film’s opening frames or its laughably unsatisfying conclusion, 65 often puts a bare minimum effort towards its narrative. 

    There is also an undeniable janky streak holding 65 back. The film’s tightly-wound 93-minute runtime resonated with me as a vision strangled by rigid studio mandates. Clunky transitions, incoherent narrative gaps and other lingering issues showcase a film that was likely butchered during the post-production editing process. 

    I would compare 65 to a relentless roller coaster ride. The film’s lightning-fast pace and oppressive lack of substance left me somewhat dizzied at times, but the experience still provided an exhilarating yet fleeting thrill ride. For a light Saturday morning matinee, you could certainly do worse. 

    65 is now playing in theaters.