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

When Olivia Wilde’s sophomore directing effort Don’t Worry Darling was announced to be a horror film off the heels of the wildly popular Booksmart back in 2019, I was both intrigued and excited. But when Florence Pugh was cast and I was sold. For Pugh, this seemed like an excellent choice after her major success in the genre previously with Midsommar, and for Wilde seeing her tackle another genre after succeeding with a coming-of-age comedy felt exciting. The film's first trailer was mysterious and compelling, with glimpses of Pugh giving another mesmerizing performance amid the backdrop of a picture-perfect mid-century, suburban utopia. And then came all the drama leading up to the press tour surrounding the film's release. A supposed beef between director and star. An infamous loogie. The love triangle drama between Olivia Wilde, her ex Jason Sudeikis, and her lead actor Harry Styles. And of course the Chris Pine of it all. Don’t Worry Darling had to be downright amazing to rise above all its pressure. Don’t Worry Darling centers on Alice (Florence Pugh) a 1950s housewife who is very in love with and devoted to her husband Jack (Harry Styles). As with all women in the neighborhood, Alice stays home and keeps house while her husband works at a job so secretive, that he's not allowed to tell his wife about the details of his day-to-day life. Alice unflinchingly accepts this is the way of things and spends her days with the other trophy wife women of the neighborhood as they fill their days with dance classes and gossiping by the pool. One day, Alice’s perfect world begins to unravel when another woman in the community starts voicing that they’re all being lied to. Alice initially trusts the patriarchal system over her friend’s claim, but once weird occurrences start happening to Alice, she can’t ignore that everything feels off. Don’t Worry Darling wants to think it’s an important film giving new commentary on misogyny, but it really isn’t saying or doing anything new. It’s a reinvented Stepford Wives but feels a bit more basic. Florence Pugh holds the whole thing together but gets little help from her supporting cast, particularly a woefully miscast Harry Styles. Had this role gone to a more capable actor, we might be more invested in this relationship--which is pretty important for a third-act revelation to work (which it doesn’t). So while Pugh certainly tries her hardest to make this film great with her stellar performance, the film requires a strong supporting performance from the Jack character to truly come together. She just doesn’t get that from Styles. But let's get back to that aforementioned third-act revelation which gives the viewer way more questions than answers. The film tries so hard with its commentary that it overlooks making any narrative sense. The plot holes abound. But hey, at least it’s pretty to look at! Along with Pugh, the costumes and production design were the best things the film had going for it. All in all, Don’t Worry Darling is fine but definitely not as smart as it thinks it is and certainly not worth all the fuss. What will be more interesting at this point is seeing how all of the players come out of this. Pugh will be fine of course since the film’s failings are no fault of her own, but Wilde and Styles had a lot more riding on this and will certainly take the blame for the press tour shenanigans. They might have cause to worry, darling. RATING 5.5/10

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

Barbarian is a difficult film to write a review for because on the one hand, I have SO much I want to say. On the other, I want to say absolutely nothing to preserve the experience of going into this movie with as little knowledge as possible. I went into this film having seen no trailers or advertisements of any kind--with no other impressions aside from some good word of mouth and a brief synopsis. If you are a lover of the horror genre like I am, do yourself a favor and see this movie and form your own opinion before any and all hype. As soon as people see it there are bound to be strong opinions and the best way to experience this movie is with none of that. With all that said, my recommendation to any readers of this review is to stop here at this paragraph and know that I did immensely enjoy this film and do suggest you see it as soon as possible. But since I do have a review to write, I'll be as vague as I can though it's impossible for me not to reveal a little in attempting to discuss the merits this film has to offer. The premise here is simple, and I won't go into plot specifics other than what I myself had heard before I saw the film--Barbarian follows a woman named Tess (Georgina Campbell) who discovers the Airbnb she planned to stay in has been double booked. The fear of something going dreadfully wrong at an Airbnb seems to be a common one nowadays as we've had quite a few of these films now (ie The Rental, Superhost) but Barbarian finally does the idea justice because unlike previous attempts, Barbarian never aims to be purely conventional. For someone well acquainted with horror tropes, you have a certain idea of what to expect when watching one--and Barbarian brilliantly turns all those expectations on their head. A big reason this film works is because of its pitch-perfect casting. This isn't some big ensemble piece, rather it relies on three roles that if cast any other way may not have worked as perfectly as the film did. Georgina Campbell makes for a perfect modern horror lead, cautious and no-nonsense...but trusting enough to be vulnerable. Bill Skarsgård who plays the other renter of the Airbnb, is crucial here and pretty much the only actor I can think of who could make this part what it needed to be. Then there's Justin Long, who I honestly don't even what to say about him without giving anything away, but I will say this might be some of his best work to date and I only wanted more screen time with him. In fact "wanting more" was really my only complaint with the film. Wanting a little more setup between some characters and wanting a tiny bit more backstory of others. I'm definitely hoping there's a Directors' cut in store for us someday from writer/director Zach Creggor who, it must be said did some excellent work here. So while I may have a few nitpicks here and there, it doesn't take away from how solid Barbarian is as a whole. It's one heck of a fun ride and easily the best horror film of the year. I have so much more to say, but I have a feeling I'll be talking about this one for a while, so I'll save it for later after some more people can get in on the fun. RATING: 9/10

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

When you compare Thor's film track record in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's easy to see that the Thor films have definitely been the most inconsistent in quality and tone. Thor was one of the first heroes to have a solo film for Marvel after Iron Man started things off in 2008. Thor's first film was played safe and Shakespearean with Kenneth Branagh in the director's seat telling a classic fish-out-of-water story of a God being placed on a very human earth. Chris Hemsworth played the role seriously, while the comedy came from other characters reacting to his bizarre ways. Its sequel, Thor: The Dark World was to originally be helmed by Patty Jenkins who later directed Wonder Woman, but was let go by Marvel due to creative differences. Marvel instead chose to play it safe and incredibly bland. For their third go-round, Marvel knew Thor needed a major shakeup and Taika Waititi was brought in to give the character and his series a major makeover. He followed James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy template and let Hemsworth really lean into his comedic chops while filling the film with color and music. The resulting film Thor: Ragnorak was a huge success and beloved by fans. While the other phase one Marvel heroes had their trilogies and moved on, the audience and Hemsworth were up for more Thor after feeling like the character had finally been revitalized. For Ragnorak's follow-up, Waititi was once again brought back and decided to double down on all the things he felt made that film great. In Ragnorak he had brought in Oscar-winning talent for his villainess Hela in Cate Blanchett, so once again he sought out the best actor he could find for his villain with Christian Bale set to play the god-butcher Gorr. Waititi also brought back the fan-favorite side characters he introduced in Ragnorak, Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), and Korg (voiced by Waititi himself). But to mix things up, he also opted to bring back Thor's love interest Jane (Natalie Portman), who audiences hadn't seen since Thor: The Dark World, but this time with a twist: Jane would become "The Mighty Thor". For those who don't have Marvel arcs memorized, "The Mighty Thor" is a storyline in the comics where Jane herself receives the god-like powers of Thor and dons the mantle, thus becoming an honorary Norse God. This announcement was met with skepticism by fans, though most were willing to go along with Taika's vision and see where it would take the series. Thor: Love & Thunder catches up with our hero Thor directly after the events of Avengers: Endgame. Thor has now teamed up with the Guardians of the Galaxy as they save other planets, while simultaneously working to get his body back in shape after all the grief eating he did after Avengers: Infinity War. Meanwhile, we learn that Thor's old flame Jane is undergoing health issues that have made her desperate for a miracle, and she thinks she may have found one in Thor's original hammer, Mjolnir. Before she (and the audience) knows it, she's essentially become a female Thor and is ready to be a hero when her path inevitably crosses again with Thor. The two must join forces and stop the evil Gorr, who has an ax to grind with all Gods in the universe. He's sworn to destroy them all and only Thor, Valkyrie, and Jane seem willing to try to stop him. As someone who enjoyed Thor: Ragnorak, it gives me no pleasure to say that Thor: Love & Thunder is a half-baked hot mess. It flits along between three acts, strung together with contrivances and constant jokes that never seem to land. The film has a major "show don't tell" problem in that it constantly uses shortcuts through narration and montages to just tell the audience how Thor is feeling, and what we as an audience should be feeling too, rather than showing us. This is most notable in the crux storyline of the film, which is the rekindled romance between Jane and Thor. Waititi realizes the previous films didn't set up the romance that well, so he fills in the gaps with montages telling us how important Jane really was to Thor. As a result, their moments together just kinda fall flat when we should be really rooting for them to make their way back to one another. Plus the small bits of dialogue that do try to get this point across are just downright sloppy and clumsy. Hemsworth's charm makes him watchable, but the film around him just isn't. Portman is along for the ride and while on the surface it appears she's given much more to do this time around, the truth is her role here is hardly a meaty one for her and while she's having fun, I can't sense her trying very hard here. One of the few bright spots is Christian Bale, who gives a deliciously villainous performance as Gorr but is severely under-utilized in the film as a whole. His opening scene is fantastic, but the film needed more scenes like it to build up his reputation and establish him as the threat that Bale portrays him as. Tessa Thompson is solid again as Valkyrie but gets sidelined quite a bit as comic relief. Instead of powerful moments, we get indulgent humor that tries too hard but never once made me laugh. And don't even get me started on whatever it was Russell Crowe was going for with his version of Zeus. Waititi ultimately juggles too much and is unsuccessful in his attempts at pretty much everything he tries to do--be it humor, drama, action, or romance. He may have had a grand vision for his follow-up to Ragnorak and the way to mesh these storylines and genres, but the film is just never able to take off the way it should and ultimately falls flat on its face. Whenever it seems to gain any momentum, Waititi just gets in his own way and drags the whole thing down. The third act is the most egregious example of this as right when the movie seems like it's getting down to the action it hits the brakes, does a U-turn, and gives us a worse finale than the one it set up before. Thor: Love & Thunder is one of the worst and ugliest Marvel films in recent memory and continues the trajectory of the uneven quality found in the previous Thor films. For all the money behind it, the resulting film feels so slapped together, with no care put into it. But then again, can we really be surprised when a film put on autopilot crashes and burns? I went into this with really low expectations, but even that couldn't help this dud. RATING: 4/10

It's been nearly a decade since a new Baz Luhrmann film graced the screens of cinemas. The last time was in 2013 with his glitzy, raucous adaptation of The Great Gatsby. The film had originally been slated for a winter 2012 release but was later pushed back to the following summer--signaling a studio that didn't have confidence in its awards chances. When Gatsby finally came out, it was greeted with mixed reviews from critics, but generally warm reception from general audiences. I was beginning to wonder when we'd see another Luhrmann picture and what he could possibly do next. During Luhrmann's absence, the Hollywood trend of making biopics about famous people for Oscar bait purposes grew rapidly. In the past few years, it seems that biopic films are never-ending. Oscar voters can't help but nominate them because they over-rely on the comparison between an actor's imitation and their subject to determine whether or not someone has given a good performance. So they keep getting made, and they each seem more and more "by-the-numbers" each time. Frankly, I'm weary of the genre. When I heard Luhrmann was helming an Elvis biopic, I thought that he was one of the few directors I could think of who could get me interested in a biopic again. Baz Luhrmann's Elvis chronicles the famed career of Elvis Presley (Austin Butler) and the complicated relationship he had with his manager, Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks). The story begins in 1955 when the Colonel witnesses a young unknown Elvis perform on stage and instantly sees the raw talent he possesses. The Colonel knows that in the right hands, Elvis is bound for stardom, and he wants to be along for the ride. He also sees dollar signs in his and Elvis's future and he plans to do everything he can in his power to protect his investments...even if it isn't in Mr. Presley's best interests. Elvis yearns to be his authentic self, but his naivete allows him to be taken advantage of by the Colonel time and time again. Elvis is a tale of two performances--one that is a star-making revelation in Austin Butler's turn as Elvis, and the other is the distractingly bad portrayal of Colonel Parker by Tom Hanks. Butler is electrifying as Elvis and completely loses himself in the role. He's an absolute joy to watch and brings both charisma and a raw physicality necessary to believably step into the shoes of such an icon. The magnetic Butler shares the screen with Hanks, who wears a fat suit and speaks in a ridiculous, phony accent. It's jarring, to say the least, but somehow under the assured direction of Luhrmann, it is able to work against the odds. Baz Luhrmann has such a singular style and voice, and it's a completely welcome one in days when daring filmmaking feels so scarce. He's able to make something as stale as a biopic seem fresh and fascinating, even if it felt at times overly long. While I would have liked to see some more insight into who Elvis was apart from being an amazing performer, I still totally appreciate what the film was going for. At times, I totally felt transported into the era, actually feeling what it might have been like to attend these concerts and being able to see these larger-than-life performances in person. For that, I can't help but admire the film. Elvis is without a doubt one of the better biopics to come out in years due to an outstanding lead performance by Austin Butler coupled with Baz Luhrmann's over-the-top direction. While Luhrmann didn't seem like an obvious choice to direct this film, it turns out he was perfectly suited to make the King's story as epic in scale as it deserved to be. RATING: 8.5/10

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