With the release of Marry Me, Bros and now Ticket to Paradise studios in 2022 are hedging their bets that the romantic comedy genre isn't dead, it's just been dormant. Ticket to Paradise casts two of Hollywood's biggest stars in Julia Roberts and George Clooney to sell this second-chance love story of a divorced couple uniting with a common goal-- to prevent the whirlwind wedding of their daughter (Kaitlyn Dever). Can the two make this destination worth the trip, or is this a one-way ticket to disaster? Now that I have my vacation puns out of the way, let's get to the movie! Roberts and Clooney star as Georgia and David, a pair of bickering exes who share an incredibly booksmart daughter named Lily (see what I did there?). For the past few years, she's dedicated her life to law school and finally is allowing herself to have a little fun after she graduates by spending some time in Bali on a girls' trip with her best friend Wren (Billie Lourd). But Lily's plans of pursuing a career change when she's swept off her feet with love at first sight by a charming local named Gede (Maxime Bouttier). She informs her parents by email that she's going to marry her new beau and invites her family to Bali to meet him and attend the wedding. Determined to stop their daughter from making the biggest mistake of her life by throwing away her career for a guy she barely knows, her parents make their way to Bali to do what only Julia Roberts can do best: ruin a wedding. Ticket to Paradise treads well-worn territory. It feels very familiar which makes the viewer feel a bit at home. It doesn't so much feel like a 2022 new release, but rather a movie we've seen a dozen times that came out in 2002. Its stars fall back on their reliable charm, and along with its stunning location (and therefore lovely cinematography), it's a very breezy watch. Movie comfort food that doesn't get made quite as much anymore (at least for big-screen viewing). But does that make it a good movie? Ticket to Paradise is an enjoyable watch, but definitely not without its flaws. At its core, the film is basic and predictable though absolutely elevated by its charming performances--so it's hard to be too mad at it. Honestly, it's just fun to see Clooney and Roberts in these types of roles again and bantering off one another, even if they deserve to be in a better movie together. Supporting performances here are also good with Billie Lourd and Lucas Bravo adding some nice moments of levity, though both could have been written to be a little less one note. Kaitlyn Dever and Maxime Bouttier didn't really sell me on a burning connection that would inspire a complete life change in a matter of two months, but were fine otherwise. Ultimately, Ticket to Ride left me with a lot of questions. Do I think that their daughter still is going to end up regretting her life one day? Yes. Do I think some things happened too fast between Clooney and Roberts without enough proper build-up of chemistry? Also yes. Am I still glad that people are making movies this wholesome and that big stars are agreeing to be in them, even though it's not perfect? Definitely, yes. All in all, it's a decent enough, if unmemorable bonne voyage. RATING: 6/10

Only a year after Halloween Kills debuted in theaters, its sequel and concluding film of the Halloween (2018) legacy reboot trilogy, Halloween Ends, premieres today. 2018's Halloween was a direct sequel to the original Halloween (1978) ignoring any other canon storylines that already happened. It achieved what felt like an impossible task-- it somehow felt like a fresh beginning to tell new Michael Myers stories, while still being a great film to honor the legacy of the original. It was announced soon after Halloween 2018's release that the film would be a part of its own trilogy and the hope for more great movies featuring Laurie Strode and Michael Myers felt happily inevitable. Then Halloween Kills happened. Without rehashing all of my thoughts on that messy film (you can read my review HERE), needless to say, my expectations for the final film were brought way down. So can Halloween Ends get back to what 2018's Halloween did right, or is it more of the same that Kills had to offer? The answer...is surprisingly neither, because Halloween Ends does something uniquely peculiar and perplexing. A film called Halloween Ends decides to neither be about Michael Myers nor Laurie Strode at all. For a final film in a trilogy, this is just a baffling move. Let's get back to Halloween 2018 for a moment just to really emphasize how puzzling the decisions in this film are. That film re-introduced us to a Laurie who had channeled her post-traumatic stress disorder into a ball of paranoia, preparation, and rage. She was the type of person who was okay with straining relationships because she knew Michael Myers and what a force to be reckoned with he was. Halloween 2018 was advertised as an epic showdown forty years later and it delivered on that. But it's not a Halloween movie unless Michael gets away, so sequels are always a given. And when you've got a sequel, you've got a rematch right? Again, setting aside Halloween Kills which makes the terrible decision to sideline Laurie to a hospital bed for the duration of the film, Halloween Ends has no such excuse yet also underutilizes the character. Early in the film, we're shown Laurie four years on from the events of the previous two movies writing a memoir and moving on with her life. While character growth is certainly a thing, the events from the last two films (including losing her own daughter by Michael's hands) should only reinforce her beliefs not soften them. While the character feels refreshingly light acting like the carefree high schooler she never got to be, it also makes no sense for her to suddenly have found peace with Michael still on the loose after all. Halloween 2018 set up that this trilogy was supposed to be about Laurie, her granddaughter, and the generational trauma she's caused. So to conclude that story in a final film, the only natural thing to do would be to...check notes...introduce an entirely new character, and make the movie all about them. You see Halloween Ends is Corey's story. Who is Corey you might ask? From the cold open of the film, we learn he's a twenty-something guy with really terrible luck. With a town desperate to point their hate at someone, Corey finds himself as the new pariah. Until he has a run-in with Laurie who takes him under her wing and introduces him to her granddaughter Allyson. The two hit it off right away, but Corey still can't shake his unhappiness or anger for what he's been through and it is clear he's headed down a dark path. And in this franchise, all dark paths lead to Michael Myers. The idea of a new individual taking on the mantle of Michael Myers isn't a bad idea--and honestly, some of Corey's storyline is actually quite compelling. I loved the first scene and how it really sent into motion how Corey was such a victim of circumstance. I thought it was interesting seeing the effect that this town has on people since it in a way has become poisoned by the evil Michael spread and now that evil trickles down in other ways. It just all makes zero sense to be telling this story now during the last film of a trilogy that claims to tell the ending of Laurie and Michael. Had Corey's story been introduced in Halloween Kills or even Halloween 2018, it would have been a great time to bring in the character and set up the final film. But as told the way it is, it just is baffling. Throughout the film, it's hard not to repeatedly wonder if you're actually watching the right movie. Where is Laurie? Where is Michael? Apart from the Corey of it all, the film is also frustrating with how utterly stupid its characters are--Allyson in particular. It's pretty much a given that characters in horror movies make stupid decisions, but the film does her absolutely no favors and it's hard to watch. But hey, at least it's got some good kills even if the movie is about some rando and all the characters surrounding him act like dummies. What a way for a franchise to go out. That is...until its next reboot. RATING: 4.5/10

In March, Ti West released X, a slasher with an unusual villain—a horny old woman named Pearl who resented losing her youth and the opportunities that came along with it. Soon after the film's success, it was announced that a surprise prequel to the film exploring Pearl’s origins had filmed concurrently with X and would be released in the fall with Mia Goth reprising the role. As someone who really enjoyed X, Pearl quickly joined my most anticipated films list. Pearl takes place in 1918, and unlike X which mimicked the style of the horror film in the decade it was set in, Pearl does its own weird little thing. Pearl lives an unsatisfying life on a farm with her parents while her husband is off serving in the war amidst the Spanish flu pandemic. Her father is an invalid and her mother is an overbearing disciplinarian. Her only joy is seeing pictures at the local theater where a handsome projectionist befriends her and convinces her to set her sights on stardom. Her sister-in-law presents her with the perfect opportunity to be discovered when she tells her about a traveling dance group that’s holding an audition. Pearl is determined to make her dreams a reality, no matter how deadly the cost is. Mia Goth shines once again under Ti West’s direction playing a different leading role than in X. She makes Pearl complex and fascinating. She proves once again that she’s a true horror queen, especially with her chilling monologue near the end. I just wish she was in a stronger movie this time around. Pearl has some great moments with haunting imagery, but I can’t help but feel like a missed opportunity. It’s very slow-moving with not quite the payoff you’d expect with such a pace. With a character so explosive you think it will build to a huge climax, and thus the end result feels a bit underwhelming given its potential. In the end, Pearl feels too inconsistent from X and it’s to the film's detriment. We don’t get to explore what should be a central relationship for Pearl with her husband (which was crucial in X) and its omission leaves a glaring hole in Pearl’s story. Though Goth gives it her all, the resulting film ends up feeling like too much, but not enough at the same time. RATING: 5/10

Director Dan Trachtenberg made waves with his directorial debut 10 Cloverfield Lane, the surprise delight of 2016. 10 Cloverfield Lane was a film no one expected, and one that nearly everyone loved (myself included as it earned itself a spot in my top ten films of that year). So it definitely came as a surprise that Trachtenberg hasn't been busier the last several years. Six years passed and the director was still without a sophomore feature film (though notably, directed some television including the excellent pilot episode of The Boys)...that is, until Prey. Like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Prey acts as an isolated story within an existing franchise--though in 10 Cloverfield Lane's case, it was more one very belated and unexpected sequel, while Prey had a bit more baggage to deal with In a little over a decade, the Predator franchise has tried to be revived three times now, and to many, it was beyond hope (much like another Schwarzenegger franchise, The Terminator). Was it time to give up on The Predator having any good sequels and just accept that the only good one was the original? When Prey was announced as being dumped on Hulu it all but assured that would be the case...and then the early reviews came. Critics heralded the film as a triumph and the best Predator film since the original. Admittedly, I haven't seen every film featuring the Predator, so I can't speak to that...but I can confirm Prey is loads better than the last attempt Predators. Whether or not it's deserving of the amount of its current hype though, I'm less certain. Prey takes the predator and places it in an entirely new setting and time--in the Comanche Nation during the early 1700s. Here we follow a determined woman named Naru as she tries to find her place within her tribe. She quickly senses that something dangerous is afoot in her land and she is resolute in getting to the bottom of it. Choosing to make this film a period piece and remove modern technology as a way for protagonists to defend themselves was a really brilliant and fascinating move, which is honestly one of the best decisions the film makes. The execution that we're really seeing a story play out from this time period though isn't always believable (particularly as far as the dialogue is concerned), but it's fun and refreshing all the same. The choice also really highlights what a battle of wits Naru must have to best a creature with such powerful technology, which makes the action scenes all the more tense and exciting. While Prey has a lot going for it, I can't help but feel it really gets tripped up with pacing issues. The film takes a really long time to get going, which wouldn't have been so much of a problem if it focused more on meaningful character development. Instead, Prey's character moments feel like pretty generic material we've seen before with a woman trying to prove herself to all her male doubters. While that's not to say that can't be used as a way to shape a character, here it just felt like a placeholder for something else consequential. Meanwhile, the predator himself takes up time surveying the area with vague glimpses of terror, but it's just not enough to build tension. When he finally shows up, a degree of patience had already been lost and I found myself expecting that the movie needed to make it up to me. Thankfully, once the film becomes more of a cat and mouse game with Naru figuring out how to narrowly avoid becoming the predator's prey the pacing finally picks up. But once we reach the film's climax the film almost immediately concludes without feeling like the story or character had a total resolution. Tonally, the roll to credits almost felt like I was watching some made-for-tv movie from the 90s and the film's importance felt weirdly lessened for it. Overall, I felt mixed on Prey, particularly for the potential I felt that it had with a talented director at the helm, a cool premise, and lots of critical praise going into it. While it had some truly great elements, I'm not sure the sum was greater than its parts. All the same, it's worth a watch and is one of the better films to portray the predator on screen, though it seems nothing will ever touch that original. RATING: 6/10

Director Jordan Peele's much anticipated third feature film Nope is out in theaters today. Nope follows in the footsteps of Peele's first two critically acclaimed horror hits Get Out and Us. With the release of Nope, all eyes are on Peele to see if he can continue his streak of instant horror classics, or if he has his first misfire on his hands. Early buzz has been positive, comparing the film to M. Night Shyamalan's Signs and Steven Spielberg's Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, respectively. Will Jordan Peele's first foray into sci-fi be as successful as what he's done so far? In Nope, a pair of siblings named Emerald and Otis Junior or "OJ" (Keke Palmer and Daniel Kaluuya) seek to obtain definitive proof of the existence of aliens after they have a few close encounters. They know that ultimately their word to the public means nothing--but a picture, on the other hand, is worth a thousand words. So the two make it their goal to get the perfect money shot of these camera-shy aliens, by whatever means necessary. The two set up cameras all over their property, and start tracking every movement, whatever danger comes their way. Jordan Peele does an incredible job setting up the tension in the first half of the film, and I found myself having a lot of fun seeing where the story would take the audience. There are a few sequences where one or both of the siblings are checking around the farm after hearing unusual noises (as one does in a horror/sci-fi film), that are expertly crafted and perfectly executed. Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer share an easy rapport and make their sibling dynamic incredibly believable. Kaluuya is excellent as the introverted half of the duo, grieving his father's recent passing and acting closed off to sharing his feelings. Palmer, on the flip side, provides a contrast to her film brother with levity and charisma. Disappointingly though, we never delve too deep into their relationship with each other or their recently departed father. It feels odd to set up such a loss without fully addressing it or using it to strengthen their bond. The film definitely could have used more heart-to-hearts to open the two characters up and make the audience care more about them. Instead, Peele leaves the character development on the back-burner and chooses to focus solely on the plot. As such, the ending doesn't pack the emotional punch it was set up to deliver. Unfortunately, the missing emotional component isn't the only issue the film has with delivering a satisfying payoff. The problem with Nope is its commentary gets in the way of common sense and stakes for the characters. The idea of spectacle above all else is fascinating, but it's really hard to suspend belief and buy the idea that not one of these characters thinks their safety is more important than their mission. Another frustrating loose end is Steven Yeun's character whose backstory feels built up to signify great importance to the story and ultimately goes nowhere, leaving the viewer wondering what exactly was the point in focusing so much time on it. Much like the emphasis placed on the rabbits in Us, you think that Peele will eventually bring everything all together by the end, but unlike that film, this time we're left hanging and scratching our heads. Those issues aside, Nope is undeniably a fun, fresh, and unique take on horror sci-fi that features a much stronger first half than its second. It's refreshing to see films from a filmmaker with such a distinct vision and style, and Jordan Peele is certainly a fun talent to watch. Peele really does a tremendous job putting all the pieces into place, I just wish it came together more in the end to stick the perfect landing. RATING: 7.5/10

Where there's a popular best-selling novel, there's almost always a Hollywood adaptation sure to follow soon after. Such is the case with Delia Owen's hit novel Where the Crawdads Sing. The novel debuted in 2018 and quickly became a huge success. No less than four years later a film version makes its way into theaters today with Reese Witherspoon producing and relative newcomer Olivia Newman directing. Can the adaptation live up to the expectations of fans of the novel? As someone who did not read the book, I cannot say how the film works as an adaptation of its source material. Instead, I can only give my thoughts on Where the Crawdads Sing as a film from an impartial observer's perspective. Daisy Edgar-Jones stars as Kya, a girl with a troubled past who is facing an even murkier future. She's wanted for the murder of Chase, the all-American boy next door in their close-knit town. Kya, on the other hand, is the town pariah who seemingly has no friends or family to vouch for her. The town calls her "The Marsh Girl" because she lives out on her own on the edge of the wilderness. She's almost like a wild animal to them, or a myth and most everyone steers clear. Kaya's story flashbacks to her past to show the audience what made her the person she is. Her past is interwoven with the murder trial of Chase as the two lawyers seek to get to the bottom of what happened. Where the Crawdads Sing feels like a cross between a Nicholas Sparks movie and To Kill A Mockingbird. Whether or not that works for you as a viewer, I think your mileage may vary. It's easy to write Crawdads off as just another period piece Southern love story with beautiful scenery, but Kya and her story are a bit more compelling than that. Her past is tragic, and she is instantly sympathetic even when on the surface, she appears feral. The viewer is kept in constant suspense of her guilt or innocence as if we ourselves are members of her jury trying to gauge her character. For me, this film worked because I always felt engaged in the story, even if I sensed that its book counterpart was able to go into much more depth. Daisy Edgar-Jones is burdened in carrying much of the film and she does a good job with a role that I'm sure is much easier to convey on paper. Kya is so damaged and has been through so much, she's incredibly guarded and doesn't want to let anyone in. That's not the easiest type of main character to have in a film, but she pulls off the performance with enough warmness not to seem cold. The supporting cast around her is all solid as well. David Strathairn in particular as Kya's defense lawyer really gives off an unexpected kindness that is much needed for the character. Where the Crawdads Sing is an easy watch for women who happen to love both murder podcasts and romance films. It may not improve upon its source material (though again, I really couldn't say), but it's an entertaining period drama anchored by a solid performance from Daisy Edgar-Jones. Plus the whole thing is nice to look at. While it's definitely flawed (the ending doesn't give quite the payoff we feel promised throughout), you could certainly do worse. You could just be watching pure Nicholas Sparks. Or you could go down the rabbit hole and find out more about the novel's author. RATING: 6.5/10

Ever since The Witch debuted at Sundance in January 2015, Robert Eggers has been a director whose follow-up films I have eagerly anticipated. I was so impressed that The Witch was his very first film and considered it a horror masterpiece (still do, in fact). His next film, 2019's The Lighthouse was bold and beautiful--a film that I could admire, but one that also kept me at arm's length. This brings us to today as his third film, The Northman is opening in theaters. The Northman is Robert Eggers' retelling of William Shakespeare's Hamlet amid a Viking backdrop. Here, a young prince Amleth witnesses with his very own eyes the murder of his beloved father (Ethan Hawke) at the hands of the King's own brother. After his murderous uncle orders Amleth's death as well, Amleth flees and dedicates his life to revenge in order to avenge his father's death and save his mother (Nicole Kidman) from a life married to his evil uncle. Some years later we meet a now-adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) who after being pushed along by destiny, is now ready for vengeance. While I wouldn't say this necessarily reaches the heights of The Witch for me, The Northman is really fantastic in its own right and may even be Robert Eggers' most accessible film to date. Don't worry, the film is still plenty weird though as many Shakespeare stories tend to feature ghosts, magic, or witchcraft and so too does The Northman. As with all his projects thus far, Robert Eggers once again displays incredible attention to historical detail. The way he authentically recreates these time periods for his films is nothing short of marvelous. See this movie on the biggest screen you can so you can take in all the visuals, not to mention so you can be stunned by the stellar sound design as well. The Northman is just expertly crafted from top to bottom and that includes its wonderful cast. Ethan Hawke, Nicole Kidman, and Willem Dafoe each make the absolute most of their screentime and all were phenomenal. Skarsgård is tasked with carrying much of the film and his performance just works. There's nuance to his rage and sadness. The always reliable Anya Taylor-Joy once again continues to be reliable and comes in and steals every scene she's in. She and Eggers just work so well together and I hope they have many more collaborations in years to come. Once again, Robert Eggers has reaffirmed with The Northman that he's a talent to continue to watch. He has such a distinct eye and voice and his gifts are on full display in The Northman. RATING: 8.5/10

Just in time for Memorial Day weekend, the long-awaited sequel Top Gun: Maverick finally flies into theaters. The film was originally intended to be released back in the summer of 2019, before getting pushed back a year. Then 2020 hit and the pandemic happened, putting the film on hold indefinitely. Because of that, I really wasn't sure what to expect. Was the film dumped on the shelf because no one believed in it, or was it so special that the studio was waiting for the right audience? But once all the glowing reviews from Cannes came pouring in hailing the film as the second coming of the blockbuster genre, it was impossible not to raise my expectations. For the second time this year, a film was being heralded to insane degrees. Like Everything Everywhere All At Once, was it possible for Top Gun: Maverick to live up to its enormous hype? Well if Tom Cruise has something to do with it you'd better believe it. Tom Cruise reprises his role as Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, one of the roles that made him a star, in Top Gun: Maverick. We catch up with Pete thirty some odd years since we last saw him in Top Gun, this time as he's recruited to prep the newest top gun pilots for a nearly impossible and incredibly dangerous mission. But Maverick's past catches up with him when he learns that one of his new students, Rooster (Miles Teller), happens to be the son of his former wingman Goose who tragically died while flying with Maverick. The two have a complicated history as Pete still mourns the loss of Goose and is overly protective of Rooster, not wanting him to have the same fate as his father. Meanwhile, Rooster blames Maverick for his father's death, as well as stalling his career as a pilot. But in order for the mission to succeed, Maverick must find a way to reconcile their issues, work together and be able to trust one another in following their pilot instincts. Top Gun: Maverick is a lesson in both how to make a legacy sequel, as well as how to make an entertaining blockbuster. Maverick improves upon its predecessor in every way, which isn't necessarily an impossible feat since the first one wasn't a phenomenal film by any means--yet it improves that film by giving it greater importance. It builds upon what came before, yet is very much its own film. It doesn't try to remake Top Gun, it just uses some of the characters from it to tell a new story that both honors what came before, but goes above it too. But aside from that, Maverick is a technical feat and a marvel of filmmaking. Tom Cruise's devotion to action filmmaking and insistence on realism keeps the film grounded, but also allow it to soar. You feel the thrill with every maneuver and it's truly a joy to behold. Similar to his performances in the Mission: Impossible films, Tom Cruise gives a performance here that pours his heart and soul into the action film genre itself. His dedication as a performer is truly incredible and really makes all the difference in how invested we as an audience get. We believe in him. We believe he's capable of doing the things his character does because he makes it feel so real. Cruise is joined by a wonderful supporting cast to work with in Teller, as well as Glen Powell, Jon Hamm, and Jennifer Connelly. Similarly, Cruise pushed the rest of the cast in their dedication to the craft as well and the film is all the stronger for it. While I do have a few nitpicks here and there (ie--the love story needed some proper fleshing out, and some of the top gun pilots could have used a bit more personality), it's hard to hold it against the film. Especially since those issues are a bit par for the course with what came before. Plus Maverick gets so much right and there's truly never a dull moment. Top Gun: Maverick has it all with thrills, humor, and heart. It is the movie of the summer and sets a precedent for entertainment that other blockbusters will have a hard time stacking up against. RATING: 9/10

Netflix quietly dropped a movie on its platform today that on paper, has all the makings of a hit. Fresh off his success with Top Gun: Maverick, director Joseph Kosinski reunites with actor Miles Teller, along with Chris Hemsworth and Jurnee Smollett to tell this cautionary tale about Spiderhead, a facility that specializes in testing experimental pharmaceuticals. With an interesting premise, a talented cast, and a director coming off a huge hit what could go wrong? Spiderhead takes place in a near-distant future where criminals like Jeff (Miles Teller) can forgo prison time in favor of being part of a scientific study about the effects of some potentially life-changing drugs. These convicts are essentially volunteer lab rats in experiments ranging from making them laugh at anything, to verbalizing their innermost thoughts on command. The study is run by Abnesti (Chris Hemsworth), a man who acts chummy with his subjects to their faces, but behind the scenes is willing to push the boundaries of ethics in his quest for discovery. The question Jeff must figure out is how far Abnesti is willing to endanger the lives of his subjects in order to help the greater good. Spiderhead is certainly an intriguing concept, but unfortunately as a film, it never pays off that concept or goes anywhere particularly interesting with it. The film isn't really long, but it moves incredibly slowly with bits and pieces of backstories revealed along the way and not much forward progress happening in the main plot. It can't really even be categorized as a thriller because nothing remotely thrilling ever happens. It's just kind of there and then it ends. I think all the pieces are there for this to have worked, but suspense and actual intrigue needed to be a part of the plot. It's not that Spiderhead isn't a watchable movie or that it's poorly made, it's just that it never really justifies why the story is being told. The tonal choices during the film's climax are also puzzling with the soundtrack choices in particular--the film can't seem to decide what it wants to be. It seems like all filmmakers these days just want to copy that Guardians of the Galaxy formula and use random popular oldies to dress up an action sequence and make it more memorable and fun, whether they fit the mood or not. Ultimately, Spiderhead is a forgettable film with interesting ideas, yet nothing to say. RATING: 6/10

After spending some time with Dr. Strange in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, director Scott Derrickson returns to the horror genre with The Black Phone. I've really been looking forward to seeing Derrickson back in his element, especially because this film reunites Derrickson with Ethan Hawke, whom he previously directed in his best film Sinister. Sinister also happened to be one of the scariest and most effective horror films of the 2010s...so The Black Phone already had a lot to live up to. The question is, is the film up to the task? The Black Phone follows Finney (Mason Thames), a young teenage boy who often finds himself the target of bullying at school. He doesn't usually stick up for himself because his friend Robin (Miguel Cazarez Mora) or his scrappy younger sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) usually step in to protect him when he needs it. But he and the town have bigger problems than bullies--kids seem to go missing left and right and no one can seem to find the culprit, whom the town has dubbed "The Grabber". Before he knows it, Finney finds himself as The Grabber's next victim and is locked away, though he soon discovers he may have some unexpected advice from beyond the grave on how to escape. The Black Phone is a solid kidnapping thriller with elements of supernatural horror sprinkled in. Though Derrickson does an effective job of mixing in the horror here and there, I definitely felt that he could have leaned more into the scares--especially giving more lead-up to its introduction in the film. The film contains some excellent jump scares but doesn't rely enough on its villain, or the supernatural element to keep us scared. While Mason Thames is a fine lead and carries the weight of the film well, Ethan Hawke can't help but steal the show as the menacing Grabber and it's hard not to want the film to focus more on him. I'd have loved to hear more of his backstory and what drove him to become who he is, or just more from his own mouth about his experiences with his other victims. Instead, the film focuses on less interesting subplots like Finney's magically psychic sister and his abusive father (both characters who feel like they're straight from the Stephen King playbook). Gwen needed either more time to develop as a character or to have her storyline completely scrapped in favor of more time with Grabber or his victims. While she has some welcome comedic moments in the film, her efforts come off feeling like a deus ex machina that undercuts Finney's own efforts at escape. Those minor gripes aside, the film still really works. The premise really draws you in and it's effectively told. Derrickson really knows how to bring in the tension and that's once again true here. He's always been great at pulling off a good jump scare and The Black Phone definitely got me more than once. Had the film been just a bit more fleshed out I think it could have pushed the quality to the level of Sinister and been really great. As it stands, The Black Phone is still a very good horror film and I definitely hope this isn't the last collaboration of Derrickson and Hawke. RATING: 8/10