Five years ago, Warner Brothers and DC struck gold with a bold and ambitious movie centered around one of pop culture’s most infamous villains.  The movie Joker (2019) stood out from all the other comic book movies that were released towards the end of the 2010’s.  It was grounded, gritty and unforgiving in it’s tone.  The filmmaker behind it, Todd Philips was diverting far from his usual comfort zone in comedy and was taking a page from early Scorsese with this origin story centered around Gotham City’s “clown prince of crime.”  The Joker has always been a highly coveted role in the past for actors, because it’s a character that is all about extremes, especially when it comes to both humor and horror, and that’s a mix that many actors love to throw themselves into.  From Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger, many great performances have helped to turn the Joker into a cinematic icon, but in the case of the Todd Phillips’ movie, the Joker was not just going to be a foil for the Batman this time; he was going to be the main character.  To make the movie work, they needed an actor who could not only pull off the grandiosity of the Joker persona but also someone who could find the human being underneath and make that aspect just as fascinating.  Joaquin Phoenix proved to be the ideal choice for the role, as he slipped into the clown shoes of this iconic villain and crafted an unforgettable performance that was both chilling and unhinged but also felt authentic.  The resulting film was a smash hit at the box office, becoming the first R-Rated film ever to gross over a billion dollars worldwide, a feat only matched this year by Deadpool & Wolverine (2024).  The film also received numerous accolades, including a Golden Lion from the Venice Film Festival, and 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture.  Joaquin ended up walking away with a Best Actor win for his performance, making him the second Oscar winner for a portrayal of the Joker, after Heath Ledger’s posthumous win in 2009 for The Dark Knight (2008).  In many senses, the timing of Joker’s release could not have been better to capture the zeitgeist of the comic book movie boom.

But, the success of Joker was not without controversy.  Many people were worried that the movie painted too sympathetic a portrait of the Joker character, and in a way they believed that the film was an endorsement for anti-social, anarchic behavior that often attributes itself to the Joker persona.  Only 7 years prior, the infamous mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was attributed to a gunman who wore make-up similar to the Joker, which is a memory that still sticks with movie-goers to this day.  Because Joker is such an evocative idea of a villain, his persona has been unfortunately usurped by dangerous radicals in the online community, including incel movements and even white supremacist groups.  For many, the idea of this origin film giving a more nuanced look at the beginnings of this famous villain was like playing with fire in an already volatile cultural moment, with so many people getting radicalized into these extremist groups, particularly angst-y young men.  Now, Todd Philips and Joaquin Phoenix have always asserted that their movie is not an endorsement of the Joker’s actions, but rather that the movie is an examination of the way that societal problems and lack of care for mental illness leads to the creation of someone as bad as the Joker.  Like with heroes, villains are not born but made as a response to problems in society and the trauma it leaves behind.  Most audiences agreed and could see the nuance of the filmmaker’s intent, but there were many others, especially those in the radicalized community, that only saw the movie as a glorification of their anti-social behavior and they adopted the movie as a vindication for their extremism.  In the wake of this movie, particularly with the unrest of the pandemic and the 2020 election that saw rioters attack the Capitol, as well as the targeting of marginalized groups under the guise of “fighting the woke,” it’s easy to see why so many people were fearful of the message that the movie was sending, even if it was misinterpreted.  Still, Joker remains a controversial yet potent film that still sparks conversations today.  And perhaps in response, Todd Phillips and company are looking to provide an answer to the volatile impact of the first movie with a sequel called Joker: Folie a Deux.  The question is, does it offer up anything new or meaningful to the discussion?

Joker: Folie a Deux takes place not long after the events of the first film.  Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is being held at the Arkham Asylum where he is awaiting trial for murder.  His daily routine involves receiving medication to pacify his violent tendencies and he is allowed to roam around the courtyard under the watchful supervision of a group of rough and mean prison guards, led by officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson).  Not long before his trial starts, Sullivan decides to allow Arthur to attend an Asylum musical therapy group.  It is there that he meets another inmate at the asylum named, Harley Quinzel (Lady Gaga).  Harley it turns out has been infatuated by Arthur after seeing his crimes play out in the public eye, including the murder of talk show host Murray Franklin on live television.  Arthur takes a liking to her and they begin a courtship in the prison, leading to some mayhem along the way.  Meanwhile, Arthur’s lawyer Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) is trying to soften his persona in preparation for the trial, getting him on board with the idea of pleading insanity in order to get a lighter sentence.  His defense will be that he suffers from schizophrenia and that the Joker is a separate personality created out of the years of abuse he faced at home.  His defense is of course being disputed by the city that is seeking the death penalty in response to his murders.  On the other side of the courtroom, Arthur’s attorney is having to face off against the ambitious and skilled new Assistant DA, Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey).  But, Ms. Stewart is noticing that Arthur has been under the influence of his extremely volatile new girlfriend, and that it’s bringing out all of the bad aspects of his character into full view.  She worries that the unstable relationship that Arthur is having with Harley is going to jeopardize his chances of avoiding the death penalty because the jurors are only going to see Arthur and Joker as being one in the same.  Will Harley and Joker’s whirlwind romance ultimately lead to Arthur’s end, or is she awakening something far worse in him than was ever there before.

Perhaps the boldest choice that Todd Phillips could’ve ever made in response to the reception of the original film was to decide to follow it up with a musical.  But, that’s exactly what he did.  Folie a deux is a French term for shared psychosis, and the use of it in this title is to explain that both the Joker and Harley are both feeding the psychotic states of each other, and that is manifested in the movie through song.  Music is the language that speaks to both of them, and so we see the descent of madness they both fall into being presented in the movie as lavish musical numbers.  Keep in mind, this isn’t a movie that has a song here and there; this is a full-on musical, with songs intended to underscore the story and everything.  This idea intrigued me, because it was such a departure from the original film which was a ground, gritty drama.  I was excited to see how well this change in genre would work within the same world.  Also, I wanted to see the anti-woke crowd have a meltdown, seeing their beloved Joker franchise take a decidedly more artsy direction that runs contradictory to their worldview, and would hopefully cause them to abandon their claim on the original so that it wouldn’t be co-opted by such a bad faith group of anti-fans.  Well, I can definitely say that the meltdown among those people is happening, and they are throwing a massive fit over the direction that Joker: Folie a Deux has taken the franchise.  Unfortunately, Todd Philips didn’t give much else to this movie to make those of us on the opposite side care either.  I don’t know if Joker: Folie a Deux was too much of an over-correction for the harder edges of Joker’s message, but the movie that we got just has nothing that appeals to either the “woke” or the “anti-woke” crowd.  The musical element is ambitious, but it rings hollow and doesn’t have the desired effect of creating a sense of awe with the audience.  In many ways, this is one example where I can say that the movie is made worse by the musical numbers and not better.  And most annoyingly, it seems like Todd Philips doesn’t really have a point to make in the end.  The first Joker, for all of it’s controversy, still had a clear sense of what it wanted to say.  Here, the movie just throws a lot of different big concepts all at us at once, and none of it lands.

What’s frustrating about Joker: Folie a Deux is that it ultimately feels toothless.  It becomes clearer the further you get into the movie that Todd Phillips had nowhere to go after the first Joker.  Whatever statement he was trying to make, he already made it clear before.  So, the choice he made with this sequel was to flip genres and go full surrealist with the musical twist.  The strange thing is that the movie is still in that gritty tone of the first movie, so the switch to musical numbers feel jarring and without meaning.  And it should be noted that this is a jukebox musical, meaning that all the songs are not original to this movie.  The film utilizes old standards of classic  Hollywood, such as “That’s Entertainment,” “If They Could See Me Know,” and “Put on a Happy Face” to name a few.  And you’ll notice that a lot of the song choices are very on the nose beating you over the head with their themes.  The movie has a very La La Land (2016) feel to it, where it bounces back and forth between the fantastical and the down to earth, but it doesn’t have any of the cohesive narrative that that revisionist musical had.  Perhaps the audience that’s going to feel the most frustrated with this movie’s lack of bite and cohesion are the comic book fans.  In Joker, they got a fascinating deep dive into one of the most iconic comic book characters of all time.  With this, the comic book connection is really treated like an afterthought.  There’s not a single mention of Bruce Wayne or any of the Wayne family in this movie, which is odd to see a Joker film that doesn’t have any connection at all to Batman.  At least the last film gave a hint at that future.  This movie almost feels disconnected completely from the comic book, like it could be about any other murder trial.  It’s only occasionally you’re reminded that there’s a character named Harvey Dent in this movie, because nothing distinguishes him as a character at all, and there’s not a single hint of his future as the villain Two-Face.  The movie doesn’t have anything to say as a musical, as a comic book movie, or as a social commentary.  It’s just feels like a 2 1/2 hour epilogue to the first movie with a few songs added in.  It offers nothing more than that.

And the sad thing is there is that the movie is still well crafted from a technical standpoint.  The period recreation carried over from the first movie, which depicts a Gotham City in the same vein as late 70’s/ early 80’s New York City, still looks incredible.  Lawrence Sher, who was also the cinematographer for the first Joker, returns to do the photography for this movie.  The film was shot digitally, but the team did a great job making it look like it was made with the same kind of film stock they would’ve used on the films in the 70’s.  And when the movie does go into the dreamlike musical sequences, Sher does make them feel bold and colorful.  And while the musical numbers are hit and miss (mostly miss), the one piece of the movie that still shines bright musically is the original score by Hildur Guonadottir.  Hildur was the recipient of the first Joker’s other Oscar win for Original Score and her haunting music is a perfect fit for gritty world that this film depicts.  The eeriness of her mix of low bass strings and horns fits very well with the fractured state of Joker’s personality in this film, and the score just does such a great job of setting the melancholy mood of the film.  You almost resent the fact that the movie interrupts itself to start playing a musical number as it takes away from the beautiful music in-between.  There’s definitely skill on display, and Todd Phillips definitely shows off his knowledge of classic films as the movie references not just old school Scorsese, but also has nods to the musicals of New Hollywood as well like New York, New York (1977), All That Jazz (1979) and Hair (1979).  Even older musicals like Singin’ in the Rain (1952),The Band Wagon (1953) and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) get shout outs.  There is clearly love of movie musicals in this movie, but the love also seems to be misplaced.  The fact is, even with all the skill put into the musical numbers and the drama side of the story, the film never really commits to one or the other.  It’s hard to tell if there is sincerity in the musical numbers, as it feels like Phillips isn’t so much trying to create a new kind of musical as he seems to be using it more for parody.  Unfortunately, the movie never feels clever enough to get the ironic use of musical numbers to carry much of an impact.

For the musical numbers to also work, it also matters to have the right cast in place.  The musical is primarily sung through by only two performers in this movie; Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga.  Phoenix is no stranger to singing on film, as he received an Oscar nomination for playing Johnny Cash in Walk the Line (2005), a film where he didn’t do any lip-synching in playing the country music legend.  For this film, he’s called upon to do some pretty big numbers which require a powerful singing voice, and strangely he still performs in character as Arthur Fleck, who he portrays as having a weak, damaged voice.  In a way, the strain in his voice makes sense, as it shows the struggle that Arthur Fleck has in controlling his emotions, showing the psychological damage he’s still dealing with.  And when we see him fully embrace his Joker side, his voice gets much bigger and commanding.  Joaquin plays both of these sides well and there’s a lot of crazy turns that he takes with the character in this movie.  Even as his character lacks the rich development that was found in the original film, he’s nevertheless giving it his all as an actor throughout the movie.  Of course, on the singing side, the movie benefits greatly by having Lady Gaga in the cast.  Here she’s taking over a role that in past films has been memorably played by Margot Robbie.  I find it refreshing that her version of Harley Quinn is nothing like Robbie’s bubbly little anarchist.  Her performance as Harley is definitely well suited for grittier version of the Joker mythos.  The only problem is that Harley Quinn is not as important to the overall plot as she should be.  We see her be a bad influence on Arthur Fleck in prison, but we don’t learn more about Harley outside of what Arthur sees with her.  Again, like the absence of Batman, we are denied the inclusion of seeing Joker and Harley committing crime together like they do in the comic books.  Harley is just there to be a motivator for the evolution of Joker’s story, and that sadly is another disappointing underuse of the potential of the character.  But, at least she sings the hell out of her songs in the film; far and away the best singer in the cast.  There isn’t much else to say about the cast other than there’s some decent work from a good collection of character actors, such as Cathrine Keener and Brendan Gleeson.  I also want to spotlight little person actor Leigh Gill, whose witness stand scene is a highlight in the film and he manages to steal the scene with a heartbreaking performance.

Joker: Folie a Deux is not the worst movie of the year, nor is it the worst comic book movie of the year; both easily go to the travesty that was Madame Web (2024).  But I will say that this is probably the most frustrating movie of the year, because of the waste of good talent that I saw on screen.  I was thinking back a lot to my experience watching Megalopolis the previous week.  Objectively, Megalopolis is a much sloppier, mismanaged movie than Folie a Deux, but it was also much more entertaining to watch.  Both movies are wild swings, but one of the movies misses and still manages to be memorable while the other misses and just makes you feel nothing.  There was little hope for Megalopolis, and yet I admire it’s audaciousness and the fact that it was just such a bizarre experience.  Joker: Folie a Deux wishes it could be bizarre.  Like I said before, there just seems to be this lack of committment to the bit from Todd Phillips.  He’s making a musical, but the musical numbers feel restrained to the point where they don’t soar, with Phillips still trying to tie it back into the grittiness of the original film.  And the fact that the movie never gives us anything more than a rundown of Joker’s criminal trial to center the story around also makes the movie feel small.  It’s barely a comic book movie adaptation, with a baffling absence of any hint of Batman. Lady Gaga is giving it her all in the belting out of her songs in the film, but her Harley Quinn has nothing else to offer and like everything else in the movie, she’s just there because she’s a piece of the Joker puzzle that ultimately never fully gets solved.  The must insulting part comes in the end, when Todd Phillips even appears to undermine the Joker origin that he set up in his original, beloved movie.  You leave the theater wondering what was the point in the end, and sadly there is none.  I get the feeling that Phillips was upset by just how many people misread the first film and he wanted to deconstruct the mythos that he himself had created as a means of getting the point across that he intended.  He wants us to see the way that fame and celebrity can corrupt, and that we as a society are embracing more and more people not for their good qualities but rather for their extreme personalities, and that can often lead to horrible consequences as villainous people can be elevated to heroes for the angry masses.  Unfortunately, too many people viewed the first film as a celebration of the extremes in society, and Folie a Deux feels too much like a not well thought out rebuttal to that misunderstood message of the first movie.  I imagine this is all we are going to get out of this brief else-world storyline from DC comics.  It’s not a good sign when you’re big musical comic book movie barely gets a reaction from even the most forgiving fans of the genre.  My screening was dead quiet by the end, and there were even walkouts before the credits rolled.  Joker will still live on in comics and on the big and little screen for years to come, but I doubt we’ll hear anymore singing from him for a while.

Rating: 5/10

There are many reasons why Francis Ford Coppola has been dubbed the “Godfather of Cinema.”  Of course the main reason is because he made the Godfather movies, but he has also earned the title because he was also a crucial figure in the re-shaping of cinema as we know it.  He was one of the batch of filmmakers that came to be known as the New Hollywood movement in the 1970’s, which steered the industry away from the old studio system and more towards auteur driven projects that were less glossy and more gritty.  While Coppola may not have been the one to start the movement, he was certainly the one who turned it into a powerful force, with The Godfather  (1972) and The Godfather Part II (1974) both rising out of this new style and becoming successes at both the box office and during awards season.  In the meantime, Coppola also steered himself away from Hollywood itself, choosing instead to craft his own mini industry in his home base of San Francisco.  His American Zoetrope company was a truly independent studio of it’s own, with it’s own soundstages, facilities for editing and post production, giving for the first time a Hollywood style level of filmmaking services outside the confines of Hollywood itself.  But, with that incredible progression of growth, there was inevitably going to be a fall of from grace too.  While Coppola did manage to achieve accolades for his ambitious war epic Apocalypse Now (1979), the production was a chaotic mess that began to take it’s toll on Coppola’s reputation in Hollywood.  And then the box office failure for the musical, One from the Heart (1981), put his company in a financial bind.  Coppola would work throughout the 80’s and 90’s on much smaller productions that while they did pay the bills and were generally well received they also were safe and not the kind of bold artistic statements that he used to make.  In that era, only Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) stood out as an artistically daring movie.  After 1996’s The Rainmaker, Coppola left filmmaking behind to focus more on his growing wine making business.

But, during those years in the wilderness, there was always this idea that was occupying his thoughts.  Coppola had long dreamed of making a Roman style epic, but have it set in modern day America.  His ambitious story would concern the theme of rising and falling empires, the disconnect between the patrician and plebian classes, and the new civilizations that grow out of the ashes of the old.  He dubbed this story, Megalopolis, and it was a story that was bold in concept but highly difficult to sell to potential investors.  Coppola would continue to work on the film periodically, but as the industry was changing and largely leaving him behind, the hopes of making the film a reality also diminished.  For the longest time, among fans of Coppola’s oeuvre, Megalopolis became this mythic thing; an unrealized project that we could only speculate what it may have been.  But, Coppola never gave up hope on it.  In the late 2000’s, Coppola regained some of his creative spark, and made three small scale films that while nowhere as ambitious as his earlier film were nevertheless granted him the creative freedom he desired; Youth Without Youth (2007), Tetro (2009) and Twixt (2011).  But even with that late career resurgence, Hollywood still wasn’t interested in investing in Megalopolis.  As Coppola has entered his mid-eighties, he was at the point where he knew that if he wasn’t going to make Megalopolis now that it would never get made at all.  So, he took the drastic measure of self-financing Megalopolis himself, to the tune of $120 million.  To accomplish this, he sold half of his wine making business, which was a sacrifice he was willing to make since his own grown children were uninterested in inheriting it, given that they’re all successful filmmakers like him.  And now, with a good chunk of his fortune poured into the film, the once impossible dream of Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis is finally a reality and making it’s debut on the big screen.  The only question remains, was it worth all of the wait and the many years of hype.

The story takes place in a heightened version of New York City named New Rome.  New Rome has been going through many years of decline due to a volatile economy, and it’s up to a select few to fix it’s crumbling infrastructure.  Unfortunately, two sides are at wat over the vision of the future.  On one side is Mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito), who is inclined to keep the city budget minded and exactly as it is.  On the other side is popular architect Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver) of the New Rome Design Authority, who has won the Nobel Prize for creating an environmentally adaptive building material known as Megalon.  Cesar’s dream of a utopia clashes with Cicero’s more pragmatic plans for the crumbling city, But, the mayor’s daughter Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel) doesn’t agree with her father’s vision, and finds herself seeking to help Cesar fulfill his utopian dream.  Both rivals desire the favor of a patron in the form of New Rome resident and richest man in the word, Hamilton Crassus III (Jon Voight), who’s also Cesar’s uncle.  Unfortunately for both Cesar and Cicero, there are troublemakers seeking to disrupt the power structure of the city by exploiting the old man and his money.  One is Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza), a former news anchor who was once Cesar’s estranged girlfriend and is now the new wife of Hamilton.  The other is the old man’s grandson, Clodio Pulcher (Shia LaBeouf) who is interested in stoking up the resentful working class people in a rebellion against the people re-shaping the city, manipulating them to his own benefit.  While Cesar continues to draw up plans for his utopian vision of the city, he and Julia form a relationship that becomes more romantic over time.  But there is a dark secret to Cesar’s past that continues to haunt him and force him deeper into substance abuse.  Even under the observant eye of Ceasr’s assistant Fundi Romaine (Laurence Fishburne), Cesar can still let himself go too often and that creates an aura of scandal around him that could derail his vision.  Will Julia be that calming influence that helps Cesar literally re-shape New Rome into a modern utopia, or will the wolves at Cesar’s door be able to destroy him and wreck havoc on the city as a result.

I was one of those observant cinephiles who had heard of this mythic production called Megalopolis,  and I would say I’ve probably been aware of it maybe for over twenty years.  The genesis of the project went even further back, but by the time I started to hear about it, it still hadn’t advanced more than just a title and an outline of the concept.  For many years, I wondered like many about what Francis Ford Coppola was cooking up for us.  The idea sounded bold, and I was really eager to see Coppola go for something big again like he did with the films of his glory days,  But, as the years went on and Coppola distanced himself more and more from Hollywood, it seemed like Megalopolis was just going to be one of the great never made films in movie history.  So, color me surprised when I learned that Megalopolis was indeed being made.  With nothing left to lose, Coppola is taking one last big swing as a filmmaker and getting this dream project across the finish line before he himself has left this world behind.  That in itself is admirable, and I’m just glad that I can now actually see this mythic film for myself.  So, was it worth the wait.  Well, the answer is going to be a complicated one.  The film, I would say is objectively bad.  It is a colossal mess in terms of story, tone, and just general common sense with regards to logic.  But, is it also entertaining?  Absolutely.  In a strange way, everything that made this movie awful is also what kept me interested.  I was never bored watching this movie, and it’s probably one of the craziest movie experiences I’ve ever had in a theater.  This movie was a self-financed passion project and it shows; we are seeing Francis Ford Coppola’s unvarnished creative mind on display in all of it’s unfocused glory.  There is so much going wrong with this movie that it somehow goes all the way around and becomes it’s own beautiful thing.

There’s no doubt in my mind that many people are going to hate this movie.  Anyone expecting this to be another Godfather like masterpiece will be very disappointed.  This is a Coppola that is far closer to the gonzo weirdness of Apocalypse Now, though I will say it’s still no where near as masterful as that movie managed to be.  Apocalypse Now managed to somehow come together into a coherent narrative, but Megalopolis is far from coherent.  So much of the movie does not make sense.  Cesar has the ability to control time.  Is it ever explained why? Nope, and it doesn’t even have a purpose to play in the story itself.  Megalopolis is full of these incongruent elements, all thrown together into this melting pot of ideas that Coppola’s trying to force together into a story.  Francis’ overall thesis about this movie is that he wants to spark a debate about what should be done about our future.  But, he sadly undermines his own message by throwing so many ideas at us that it all gets muffled amidst all the noise.  And yet, there’s so much creativity abound in all the madness of this movie.  This movie really is unlike any other film I have seen.  At some points of the movie, there are moments that genuinely soar and show what the potential of the film could’ve been had there been more of a focus to it.  While this movie can in no way fall within the same category of beloved epics of the past, I do feel that it does stand out as something bold and original, which is welcome in a Hollywood market that has grown more homogenous in recent years.  It’s hard to tell if Coppola is aware of the oddball nature of this movie.  There are a lot of moments that I think were unintentionally hilarious that Coppola had maybe intended to be taken seriously.  But, then he’ll have an intentionally funny moment, and it’ll be actually funny.  So, I wonder if the weirdness was intentional and all of the abrupt tonal shift were actually all meant to be farce after all.  The movie is such a hodgepodge, I honesty could not peg down what Coppola was doing at all.

There’s definitely a lot to be said about the performances as well.  Anyone who accepted a role in this film must be commended for their bravery, because it must not have been easy.  Nobody talks like a real human being in this script; the whole thing is heighted with characters speaking in these grandiose terms and with grand soliloquies.  But, some actors are better equipped than others.  For one thing, I think the only leading man you could ask for to carry a movie like this is Adam Driver.  Driver has chosen to act in some very out there films recently, and he’s committed himself to the craft no matter how bizarre the film or role may be.  He brings that kind of energy to the role of Cesar Catalina, taking it big when he needs to go big, but also finding the moments to reign it in find the subtlety in the character when it’s called for.  While the character ultimately gel together on the page, with Coppola making him too enigmatic, Driver at least gets the job done in his performance.  He’s also got a great match in Giancarlo Esposito.  His performance as Cicero may be the best in the entire movie, because it’s the most grounded.  He definitely captures the grandiose nature of the character, but also finds the ability to make him feel like a real person as well, unlike so many of the other characters that come across more like caricatures.  The supporting roles are the most bizarre in the film.  Aubrey Plaza is really vamping it up as the character Wow Platinum, in a performance that leave no room at all for subtlety.  And the fact that she goes whole hog with this character makes her performance pretty fun to watch.  Shia LeBeouf is a bit more mixed, as he’s trying to be a bit more method while at the same time playing a character that’s supposed to be wildly erratic, and the mix doesn’t always work; though there are flashes of entertaining moments from him here and there.  And I honestly don’t know what Jon Voight is doing in his performance, but I’ll say this, he has one hell of a final scene that was ballsy for an actor of his age to be a part in.

With a $120 million price tag, you would imagine that a lot of that had to go into the visuals.  For quite a bit of the movie, Megalopolis is a visually impressive movie.  In terms of costuming and cinematography, the film does have some incredible craft behind it.  The film was shot by DP Mihai Malaimare Jr., who has worked on films as varied as Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master (2012) and Taika Waititi’s Jojo Rabbit (2019), as well as shooting all of Coppola’s last three films.  He manages to create some really beautiful shots throughout the movie, including a romantic scene that takes place among hanging steel beams high above the skyline of the city.  He also incorporates many beautiful uses of lighting, especially during some of the more dreamlike moments of the movie.  The costumes used in the film also are well crafted, giving the film it’s best connection to the underlying theme of this being a modern day Roman Empire.  The suits that the men wear all have these capes that the characters fling over their shoulder like the togas of a Roman senator, and the women’s dresses also carry over that Roman aesthetic, in a nice visual connection contributed by designer Milena Canonero, who had previously done costumes for another member of the Coppola family in Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette (2006).  But, even with a $120 million budget, the film’s ambition seemed to still test the limits of the budget, and that unfortunately leads to some visual effects that don’t entirely work.  There’s a heavy use of some very obvious green screen that comes across as clunky in the final look on screen.  Also, the ill-defined substance Megalon that is supposed to be this game-changing building material never comes across as tangible and also it looks like a very low quality digital effect from decades ago.  But, as bad as some of the visual effects come across, there is still a sense of ambition behind all of it.  Coppola put his own money behind his vision and there are moments where the film does carry across some striking visuals.  The sequence with giant stone figures coming to life and growing weary may be a ham-fisted metaphor in the film, but it is visually striking at the same time.  It goes along with so much of what the rest of the movie represents; it’s messy, but it is also unique.

The best thing that I can say for Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis is that it will be remembered.  Whether that will be either infamously or lovingly is up for debate, but I am sure that anyone who sees this film will never forget it.  It is just this weird, anomaly of a movie that could only exist through the sheer will of a legendary filmmaker investing everything he has into it.  He may burn through more good will with casual filmgoers as a result, but he got this dream project to the finish line in his twilight years and that seems to be the goal in the end.  He’s not seeking to reclaim past glory and put himself back on top in Hollywood.  He wanted to make this movie for most of his career, and he lived long enough to see it through, and now it belongs to the world.  He’s not looking for the awards season gold anymore.  And he’s also very well aware that this movie will not see a return on investment, as the box office looks to be pretty weak.  It shouldn’t be surprising, given that he had trouble convincing any studio to help distribute the film, before Lionsgate ultimately stepped up.  It may be a box office flop, but I can see this film finding a cult following in the years ahead.  While the movie may have been a colossal mess, it did manage to entertain the audience at my screening.  They were laughing pretty consistently throughout at all the weirdness of the movie, including the clunky dialogue and the unexpected tonal shifts.  Every time you think the film has peaked with it’s craziness, it somehow finds another way to go a level beyond that, and that kind of is impressive.  I don’t think it will tarnish Coppola’s reputation at all; the Godfather movies and Apocalypse Now are still undeniable masterpieces that will continue to shine a bright light on Coppola’s legacy.  But I am happy to see him trying to swing hard at his advanced age, even if also becomes a big miss.  Megalopolis may be a mess, but it’s a very beautiful mess that gave me one of the best and most insane theatrical experiences I’ve had in a long time.  It’s almost impossible to really rate it like usual because it almost defies a quantitive value.  As a story, it is without a doubt in a 4/10 range, but as a theatrical experience, I would put it near an 8/10 or even a 9/10, just based on how much fun I had.  To split it down the middle, I’m giving the one below which is about how I feel as a whole.  In the end, it was worth the wait even with all those flaws I mentioned.  It’s no where near a masterpiece, but in a way I kind of love the movie for being an uncompromised work of originality that only a great, legendary filmmaker can make.

Rating: 7/10

When we look at the whole career thus far of Tim Burton, there is a definable split between the early years and the later years.  When Tim Burton was first starting out, he was a unique voice unlike any other in Hollywood.  He cut his teeth as an animator at Disney before expanding his talents in the realm of live action film-making.  He would get his first shot at directing when LA-based comedian Paul Reubens selected him to make a movie adaptation for his Pee Wee Herman character.  Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985) certainly showed off the great creative mind that Burton had, but it would be his follow-up that people consider to be the first true Burton movie.  Beetlejuice (1988) was a true original.  It was bizarre and eerie, but in a way that was still appealing to a mass audience.  It was also irreverently hilarious in a way that many movies of it’s kind in the 80’s were too afraid of being.  Creating a oddball twist on the haunted house sub-genre, Tim Burton created this imaginative world where life and afterlife intersect.  The peaceful serenity of a small New England town becomes a gateway to a strange and otherworldly purgatory with “newly dead” tenants waiting for their turn to be processed through underworld bureaucracy.  And at it’s center is a ghoulish prankster who is too much to handle in both realities.  The titular “ghost with the most” Beetlejuice features remarkably briefly in the movie (less than 20 minutes), and yet he is the centerpiece of the whole movie.  Michael Keaton, the actor who played him, had been around for a while, but Beetlejuice was the character that catapulted him to super-stardom.  If Keaton hadn’t shown off his incredible talent as a performer as Beetlejuice, would Tim Burton have had the confidence to cast him as the caped crusader in his next film, Batman (1989), even when everyone else thought he was crazy.  Burton would have eventually found his footing as a filmmaker, but because of Beetlejuice, he was able to make a name for himself early without having to compromise his vision, and because of that, Burton movies are a category of their own.

But, like with most other filmmakers, it becomes difficult to try to live up to your own legacy.  That’s why the latter years of Tim Burton’s career have been a little more hit and miss.  When he was a much hungrier young filmmaker, he was more willing to take chances to prove himself.  That’s why that early run of movies feel so creatively vibrant.  From Pee Wee, to Beetlejuice, to Batman, to Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Ed Wood (1994), there was a sense of Tim Burton using his talents to transport audiences into another world that only he could imagine.  But, the latter half of his career seems to have lost a bit of that creative spark.  Movies like Planet of the Apes (2001), Alice in Wonderland (2010), or Dark Shadows (2012) feel more like parodies of a Tim Burton film rather than genuine artistic expressions.  As the Burton name has gained it’s reputation, so has the interest of Hollywood in using that to appeal to audiences.  And it seems like Tim Burton has become more inclined to bend to Hollywood’s will rather than them bending to his.  There are occasional flashes where Burton makes something that he feels genuinely invested in; like the Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) musical adaptation, or the Margaret Keane biopic Big Eyes (2014).  He’s also shown an interest in animation that has proved fruitful, going back to his dream project of The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and continued through his adaptation of his own live action short, Frankenweenie (2012).  But, even still, he’ll still return to the Hollywood machine and make a soulless project like the Dumbo (2019) remake for Disney.  But, he recently found renewed creative and commercial success with the popular Netflix series Wednesday, which he produced and directed half the episodes for.  The home run that that show turned out to be is giving long time Burton fans hope that he is finding his creative mojo again, which is helping to build anticipation for his next project.  And what that project has turned out to be is a long in development sequel to the movie that defined his career from the start; the highly anticipated Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024). The only question is whether or not the world is ready to bring this ghoul back from the dead again, or is it dead on arrival?

Set in the present day, decades after the events of the first film, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice catches us up quickly with what has been going on with Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder).  Her ability to speak with ghosts has turned her into a bit of a celebrity, with her own ghost hunting show, produced by her manager and romantic partner Rory (Justin Theroux).  Lydia’s show is interrupted one day when she receives the news from her quirky stepmother Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara) that her father Charles has died. The news hits her hard, and it also means that she’ll have to return to the home that she thought she left behind years ago.  In addition, she has to break the news to her estranged daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega) in order to get her to come along.  Meanwhile, in the Netherworld, a malevolent ghost with the power to devour the souls of the dead named Delores (Monica Bellucci) has arisen from her exiled imprisonment and seeks to take revenge on the man who killed her; a familiar ghost by the name of Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton).  Beetlejuice is desperate to steer clear of his soul-sucking old flame Delores, and he seeks the help of a ghost cop named Wolf Jackson (Willem Dafoe), who was an actor who played cops in his past life.  While Beetlejuice is on guard, Lydia finds it hard to balance the new life she has made with the life she once had, as it increasingly begins to intrude more with her return home.  Rory is also pushing her to make important life decisions that she is clearly not ready to make, such as getting married, and it’s creating even more of a wedge between her and Astrid.  In the midst of all this, she is having traumatic flashbacks to her original encounter with Beetlejuice, to the point where she’s starting to see him everywhere she goes.  Is she on an inevitable collision course with Beetlejuice once again, and is it possible that this time he may need her help more than she needs his.

A sequel to Beetlejuice has been in off and on development for over thirty years, and given that lengthy span of time, it’s a wonder that Burton and Company managed to actually get it to finally happen.  In many ways, the idea of a sequel seemed to be treated like a joke, with the movie at one point being called Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian. Obviously that version never happened, and I imagine nothing of that original treatment made it into this sequel, with Tim Burton opting to not stray too far from the original recipe.  Beetlejuice Beetlejuice more or less covers much of the same ground as the original, which for many legacy sequels tends to be where they fall apart creatively.  Thankfully, this sequel manages to avoid most of the pitfalls that a long in the making follow-up falls into.  While Tim Burton is revisiting the same settings of the first film, he doesn’t turn Beetlejuice Beetlejuice into an endless string of memberberries.  There are a lot of new ideas thrown into the mix that builds upon the world of the first film rather than just exploiting it for cheap nostalgia. The most pleasing thing about this movie is that it’s the first Burton film in a long while that actually feels like a Burton film.  I think this is because he’s not working with an adaptation this time of someone else’s work; like a book adaptation or a Disney remake.  This time he’s working with a universe of his own creation and is allowed to expand upon it and even poke fun at it a little.  What is especially pleasing is that it shows that Tim Burton is still capable of making a movie like this after a decade or so of feeling like he’s just been coasting on his past glory.  Given the special place that Beetlejuice holds in his legacy as a filmmaker, you can see how he wanted to approach this movie with a bit more resolve to get it right, almost like he’s trying to prove himself once again just like he had with the original.

But, this movie is also far from perfect as well.  The big problem with the movie is that it’s unfocused.  There are half a dozen plots going on in this movie, and Tim Burton doesn’t seem to know which one he wants us to focus on.  There’s the Lydia/Astrid storyline, the Beetlejuice/ Delores storyline, a subplot with Astrid getting to know a local boy in town, Lydia’s trauma coming back to haunt her, and a few others thrown into the mix.  The problem is that none of those stories intersect in an organic way, and they all keep butting into each other.  When one storyline finally hits it’s footing, it will be undercut by another storyline, and in some cases, storyline’s that have potential will suddenly be dropped in favor of another.  The movie is missing a traditional three act structure, and is instead a bunch of fun but loosely connected scenes strung together in the hopes that it tells a cohesive story.  The biggest problems with this occur when it robs the effectiveness of the character development within the story.  Delores for example is a really interesting character, with a fantastic introduction scene.  But then she disappears for most of the movie, only becoming an active threat once again towards the end.  Too much of the other subplots got in the way of Delores’ development, and it lessens her presence as a villainous threat in the story.  The original film may not have been the tidiest of plots either, but it had a consistent through-line in it, with the Maitlands (played by Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis in that movie) being effective audience surrogates whose eyes are the ones we follow along with as they observe the weirdness of Beetlejuice’s world.  They were the cornerstones on which the rest of the movie could focus on.  This sequel seems to not know which character it should be focusing on; Lydia, Astrid, or Beetlejuice.  It’s the thing that makes this movie fall well short of it’s predecessor, even while hitting the right notes when it comes to the visuals and the humor.

One thing that certainly is pleasing to see with this film is the absence of CGI in the effects.  It really seems like Tim Burton made an effort to return to his roots with the way he made this sequel.  Instead of relying heavily on computer animation to recreate the world of Beetlejuice, Burton instead resorts to old school practical effects that feel like the ones he would’ve used back in his early days as a filmmaker.  For one example, the sandworms that make a return from the first film are animated in stop-motion.  This gives them a more dynamic presence than how they appeared in the first movie, which was done with puppets and models, while at the same time helping to retain the hand crafted effect that Tim Burton is striving for with this film.  There’s also some incredible make-up and puppetry work that help to make the more cartoonish moments of the movie feel genuinely in line with the original film’s low budget charm.  But, even with the drive to do everything with practical effects, Tim Burton doesn’t cut back on the scale of his film either.  The full practical sets of this movie are expansive and pretty incredible to look at as well. They definitely feel in line with the visual style that we all are familiar with when it comes to Tim Burton.  Some of the corridors still retain that off-kilter aesthetic that he’s known for, especially the ones with uneven floors.  And you can tell when watching the movie that these are real sets on real soundstages, with the minimalist of green screen enhancements.  These Netherworld sets also pair nicely with the actual, on location shooting that they did for the film, bringing a beautiful juxtaposition to the film between the world of the living and that of the dead.

Of course, the thing that matters most is how well the cast is able to perform in this imaginative Tim Burton world.  Michael Keaton and Tim Burton go way back, with their shared history obviously going back to the first.  And while this isn’t a long in the making reunion between the two, since Keaton had a part in his Dumbo remake in 2019, it is still very pleasing to see these two working together again on a character that matters a lot to both of their careers. Of course, even with the 36 year gap, Keaton doesn’t miss a beat playing Beetlejuice.  It’s a part that Keaton, whose in his 70’s now, can still play despite the passage of time, given that the character is literally a decaying corpse.  It’s also pleasing that he gets a lot more screen time in this film, though I still believe it’s a lot less than it should be.  Winona Ryder also gets to explore a bit more of Lydia’s character this time around.  It’s interesting how she is a much different person this time around now that she’s a mother, but at the same time, you still see the rebellious little goth girl underneath the surface.  The movie wouldn’t be the same without both Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder both on board, so it is pleasing to see them both say yes to being in this sequel.  Jenna Ortega became an audience favorite with her acclaimed performance as Wednesday Addams in the Wednesday series, and it’s nice to see Tim Burton bring her on board this project as well.  Unfortunately, there isn’t much to the character of Astrid, other than her being an angsty teen.  Jenna does her best with what she can with the role, but Astrid unfortunately is the least interesting character in the movie.  The always great Catherine O’Hara consistently steals every scene she’s in here, and it’s great to see her return as well.  Her throwaway one-liners may be the highlight of the screenplay all on their own, and she delivers them perfectly.  And while stars like Willem Dafoe and Monica Bellucci are sadly sidelined for much of the film, they still bring a strong presence to every scene that they are in.  The only actor I feel is wasted is Justin Theroux as Rory.  He’s a one-note character that sadly Theroux isn’t able to do much with, and in the end, it becomes an unfortunately underwhelming performance.  But, the highlights of the cast are the ones we were all hoping to see return, and Keaton, Ryder and O’Hara all look like they are having a blast being back in this world.  Burton certainly likes working with the same people over and over again in his movies, and it’s pleasing to see how far after the fact that his troop of stars are willing to get right back into this quirky world again.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is nowhere in the same league as the original film, but it’s not exactly going to reflect poorly on it either.  It’s flawed, but still entertaining enough to be worthy of being a continuation of the story.  The most positive thing about it is that it’s Tim Burton finding himself once again comfortable with making the kinds of movies that he made in his early career.  While I don’t think we will ever see him make a film again that hits the same way that his early films did, this sequel is certainly the closest he’s gotten in quite some time.  The movie is very funny in all the right ways, the visuals are distinctly Burton-esque, and there was an effort made to use real, practical effects in the making of this film.  All of that is a welcome change from the way Tim Burton was making movies over the last couple of years.  We may be witnessing a new, third phase of Burton’s career starting to emerge with this and the Wednesday series.  It would appear that Burton is no longer coasting on any big studio gig that he can get (though this film is still certainly that too).  He’s now starting to seek challenges again as a filmmaker, and trying to build upon his legacy rather than compete with it.  My hope is that he applies some of that renewed creativity into something original.  That’s the thing that we have been missing from Tim Burton over the last couple decades; an original concept brought to life on film.  Even still, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice should still prove to be an audience pleaser.  Michael Keaton slips right back into Beetlejuice’s striped suit just like he’s never left, and it looks like he’s happy to be back, as does Winona Ryder.  A lot of things had to happen to make this sequel possible.  It helps that both of it’s stars have seen big career comebacks in the last decade, with Keaton earning an Oscar nomination for Birdman (2014) and Winona getting a boost from her role in the hit series Stranger Things.  Their hot streak, plus the addition of Jenna Ortega to the mix is almost certain to drive audiences to see this movie in massive numbers.  But hopefully, the biggest beneficiary will be Tim Burton, who needs his own Renaissance as a filmmaker.  While far from a perfect sequel, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice still delivers enough entertainment that’ll keep this franchise alive and far from dead and buried.

Rating: 7.5/10

The Alien franchise has gone through a rocky history since it’s inception back in the 70’s.  The original Ridley Scott directed film from 1979 was a breakthrough in both horror and science fiction film-making.  A truly terrifying experience that lived up to the film’s tagline, “In space, no one can hear you scream.”  No other genre film looked like it and it completely raised the bar in how to make alien lifeforms a terrifying presence on the big screen.  Many would have thought that this kind of film would be a hard act to follow, but in 1986, James Cameron brought us a sequel to the original film called Aliens that not only matched it in popularity but was also in some ways superior.  What helped to make Aliens work as a sequel was that it didn’t just try to repeat the formula of the first.  Scott’s Alien was a haunted house movie in space, using atmosphere as a valuable tool in crafting the scares in the movie.  Cameron’s Aliens was an action film set within the same universe, still featuring the same scary xenomorph aliens but using a louder action heavy scenes to drive the thrills.  And it worked.  The thing that helped to connect the thread of both films was actress Sigourney Weaver’s performance as Ripley; the sole survivor of the first film and the main heroine of the second.  Weaver’s performance in the second film was so beloved that it even earned her an Oscar nomination; unheard of for a horror based sci-fi flick.  Unfortunately, the years after the success of these first two films wasn’t kind to the series.  The making of Alien3 (1992) was a production nightmare for everyone involved and almost prematurely ended the directing career of it’s then novice filmmaker, David Fincher.  And Alien Resurrection (1997) was an embarrassing misfire that killed the franchise for over a decade.  It might have been wise to potentially just leave the series as it was and move on, just so that the legacy of the original first two classics could be preserved.  But, as it is with every well known franchise, the end is never set in stone.

There was hope for a potential re-boot of the series being able to bring back the past glory of the Alien franchise.  In the 2010’s, it was announced that a prequel film set in the same universe as the original Alien was going to be made, and better yet, Ridley Scott himself was returning to direct.  This seemed like great news, because many believed that Ridley Scott would help bring the franchise back to it’s horror roots, though those hopes may have naive in the end.  Instead, Ridley was looking at making a film that was more sci-fi based than horror.  His film, Prometheus (2012) had all the visual hallmarks of the series, but was far more of an action film than a horror film; and it didn’t even feature one of the xenomorph aliens until literally the very last scene.  Suffice to say, audiences were mixed on the results.  Some liked the fact that Ridley Scott was doing more world building in this franchise and exploring the mythology a bit more; particularly when it came to the mysterious Sentinel being hinted at in the first film.  Others thought it was a dull, methodically paced movie that didn’t deliver on the thrills and was a far cry from the roots of the series that Ridley Scott himself established.  It didn’t help that the follow-up film to this one was a far inferior sequel itself, the universally reviled Alien: Covenant (2017), which was neither thrilling nor scary.  That film was also unfortunately directed by Scott as well, and it further tarnished his reputation as the shepherd of this franchise.  For the series to move forward, it needed to find an identity once again, because so many mediocre reboots and sequels were dragging the franchise down.  It would take a while though, as the franchise was put in limbo after it’s parent studio 20th Century Fox was being absorbed into the Disney Company.  Under new management, Alien had a chance to be looked at with a fresh perspective.  The only question was, how Disney would take the still valuable IP and work with it as a part of their cinematic output.  For some, it was pleasing to see that the plan was to bring the series back to it’s horror roots.  Horror film director Fede Alverez was brought on board to bring his own unique vision to the project.  The only question remains does the new film, Alien: Romulus, bring back the same chills that made the original so scary or is it yet another disappointment that falls far from the peak of this franchise.

Alien: Romulus begins on a remote planet that has been completely colonized and exploited by the Weyland Yutani Coporation.  Among all of the exploited workers, a young girl named Rain (Cailee Spaeny) is desperately trying to work her way off planet.  She is accompanied by her “brother” Andy (David Jonsson), who is a synthetic humanoid drone that her late father save from the junkyard and reprogrammed to protect her.  After being rejected by her superiors for off planet privileges, she seeks the help of other space colonists  to give her passage.  She meets up with an old friend named Tyler (Archie Renaux) who is ready to take off from the colonized planet with his sister Kay (Isabela Merced), his associate Bjorn (Spike Fearn) and their pilot Navarro (Aileen Wu).  Just few days prior, they made the discovery of a derelict Weyland Yutani space vessel that has drifted into the orbit of their planet.  Their hope is to find still working cryo-chambers in the wreckage that can enable them to make deep space travel possible in the hopes of reaching a new inhabitable planet.  The only catch is that they need Andy’s droid clearance to access entry into the ship.  Rain and Andy agree to help them in exchange for their safe passage.  Once they reach the vessel, they find that it isn’t just a simple ship, but rather a full station, meant for research purposes.  Split into two sides, each one named Romulus and Remus, the station is a fortress and not so easy to enter.  One other complication, the station is drifting in orbit towards a ring system that encircles the planet, and they only have a short window to complete their mission before the station is destroyed.  Tyler, Bjorn and Andy make their way into the interior of the ship, finding the place to be a ghost town.  All the crew seems to have completely disappeared, and there are massive holes throughout the ship.  Some violent incident had to have happened and the crew decides to speed up their mission so as to not invite whatever caused the mayhem that destroyed the ship.  They find the cryo-chambers they need, but in the same room there are scary looking alien creatures that try to latch onto their faces.  These Facehuggers are dangerous, but as all the crew members soon learn, there are far greater dangers aboard the ship, and the mission soon becomes not just getting out of this world but just surviving long enough to get off the ship.

The bar for Alien movies can definitely be described by it’s extremes.  The original film and it’s direct sequel are absolute masterpieces of the genre where as everything that has come afterwards has been either disappointing or outright junk.  Alien: Romulus is seeking to bring the series back to it’s more grounded roots by leaning more heavily on the horror film side of the series.  The only question is if they managed to succeed.  Thankfully, I can say that Alien: Romulus is unequivocally the best Alien movie we’ve seen in almost 40 years.  But, even as I say that, I do also have to say that it is no where near perfect either.  The bar has been lowered so much over the years that being just better than average immediately puts the film in the upper half of the series.  There are flaws in this movie that did prevent it from being considered among the greats, but thankfully the pluses outshine the minuses.  For one thing, it is pleasing to see a film this in this series that actually is attempting to be scary rather than just being moody or grotesque.  There was effort towards getting this movie back to the simple horror of Ridley Scott’s original vision.  It helps that Scott is still slightly involved with this film as a producer, helping to guide this new generation in line with the legacy of what’s come before.  But make no mistake, this is thoroughly Fede Alverez’s movie, and you can tell that he put his own horror twist on this film that works very well, at least when it comes to making things genuinely scary.  For one thing, I really appreciated his use of sound in the movie.  Whether it’s the absence of it in outer space (including a very effective intro that is completely sound free) to the sudden bursts of loud noises once the mayhem starts.  You really have to appreciate how much the sound plays a role in generating the thrills, especially when there are monstrous creatures that could be lurking in the shadows.  It really is where I feel this movie definitely comes closest to getting back those roots that the series was built off of, and which have been lost ever since Scott and Cameron left their marks on this series long ago.

Unfortunately the flaw that I found with this movie is one that I see all too often with lazy horror movies.  It’s the cliché where your main cast of characters continuously make stupid decisions that end up getting themselves killed or attacked, all with the purpose of manipulating the plot.  There are a lot of out of character moments where the crew decides they are going to go into the obviously dangerous place for the flimsiest of reasons.  I don’t want to spoil too much, but there are decisions made where you know that the character is deciding to walk into a death trap and low and behold, they get themselves killed.  I have seen other horror movies do this cliché worst, but it is unfortunate to see this movie do it as well, especially after it gets so many other things right.  The other flaw of this movie is the way it shoe-horns fan service.  It takes you out of the movie when the film will suddenly throw an Easter egg at you, especially when a character recites a line that’s a catch phrase made famous by the other movies.  There’s no reason for the characters to say those lines.  It’s just there to make the audience laugh or cheer and it’s pandering.  I would have rather the movie just used it’s connection with being part of the same universe as the only thread between itself and the other movies.  Shoehorning in Easter eggs and catch phrases just seems like a desperate move to garner audience approval.  Like I said before, the movie stands well enough on it’s own without them.  Fede Alverez nails the atmosphere and the thrills of this series.  He doesn’t need the assist of fans service.  Thankfully, these elements don’t drag the movie down as a whole, and if you’re not a long time fan of the series and just coming to this film casually, these references will likely just fly over your head.  But, for someone that is familiar with the series, I did find them a bit distracting and it was one of the things that did knock the movie down a peg in terms of it’s place as a part of the series as a whole.

What does work wonderfully in this film is the craft behind it.  When I say that this movie marks a return to form for this series, that’s in response to seeing the return to old school tactics in the filmmaking process.  Unlike most other legacy sequels that we have seen, particularly in this franchise, this one is relying less on wall to wall CGI and instead uses a lot more practical effects.  Sure, there are plenty of CGI moments in this movie, but I was very pleased to see that whenever we got a close-up of the xenomorphs or the facehuggers, they were actually done with either puppetry or with robotics.  That was what made the original films so effective, that the aliens themselves were manufactured to be physically on set.  The xenomorphs themselves were sometimes even portrayed on screen with stunt actors in a rubber suit, and I was happy to see that they did that here are well.  Of course, the wide shots used for the aliens resort to CGI models, and I’m happy to say that those shots are done effectively as well.  It’s what a good action movie should do, which is to mix you effects so that it tricks the eye.  You use the CGI to show the agility of the aliens that otherwise would be impossible with practical effects, and then mix that with the up close shots of the physical puppets and you’ll get a better result in making the alien creatures feel real and threatening, which thankfully this movie does.  The movie also does a great job with it’s world building, especially when it comes to the sense of scale in the physical environments.  Fede Alverez does an effective job of conveying the epic scope of the Romulus space station, while at the same time making the tight corridors feel effectively claustrophobic and foreboding.  And there are some shots in this movie that are just outright beautiful to look at, especially towards the end when the looming ring system begins to near the orbit of the space station.  There are also some really imaginative moments in the movie that I thought brought something new to the series, especially one sequence involving the acidic alien blood.  In many ways, this film has felt the closest in a long time to being the best spiritual successor to Ridley Scott’s original classic, at least in terms of the visuals.

The performances in this movie are generally good as well, though the personalities of the characters are very thinly defined.  The easiest highlight of the film is David Jonsson’s performance as Andy.  The synthetics of the series have always been some of the most interesting characters in the series, dating back to Ian Holm’s Ash in the original film.  Jonsson manages to create a surprisingly complex character out of an android with many limitations.  He is shown to be partially functioning in the beginning, but when he is plugged, so to speak with the operating system of the Romulus station, he almost becomes a new character, and it’s really interesting to see the actor pull of those two different aspects almost like he’s playing different characters in each situation.  There isn’t a whole lot to Cailee Spaeny’s Rain; she’s pretty much there to be a substitute for Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley.  But, she does the best that she can do in the role, and she has excellent chemistry with David Jonsson in the film.  Their two characters are certainly the heart of the movie, so it is good to see the actors actually make that surrogate brother and sister dynamic work in the film.  The other actors in the movie are less well defined, but none of them are distractingly bad in their performances and for the most part are effective.  Let’s face it, these characters are just there to be lambs to the slaughter for aliens.  The movie doesn’t waste any time getting us to the gory parts of the movie so these characters don’t need to be particularly deeply defined personalities.  The movie does focus on the characters that matter and thankfully they are characters that we want to root for.  But at the same time, what we go to these movies for are the aliens themselves, and they’ve never been more complex than the deadly terror creatures that we’ve always known them to be.  The one caveat I will mention that I think might be divisive for many is the inclusion of a character loosely connected to the original film that they reference in this movie.  People are either going to love his inclusion here as an Easter egg or hate it and see it as pandering.  I was a bit iffy on it myself but it wasn’t a deal breaker for the experience as a whole, though it is another one of those things that does bring the movie down a peg.

In general, I would rank Alien: Romulus easily as the third best film in the series, though the gap between it and the two classics in front of it is vast.  The reason this gets the third spot is simply because we have been devoid of so many good films in this series that by being merely adequate enough it rises almost to the top.  What this movie gets right is it’s craft.  It has the look and feel of an Aliens film down, and it’s a great return to form for a series that sadly has lost it’s way over the years.  Just get things back to what works, which is scary aliens hunting humans in dark corridors, and that’s the bullseye that the movie manages to nearly hit.  The only thing that holds it back is the paper thin story behind it and the fact that it falls back on so many tired tropes.  I liked that the story was simple, but there has to be logic behind the characters’ motivations and sadly the movie just ends up making it’s characters look like idiots by having them resort to non-sensical actions to help propel the plot forward.  There are thankfully a couple characters that still garner sympathy, and thankfully they are the focus of the film.  I particularly was impressed with the work of David Jonsson, who brought a surprising amount of nuance to a character that otherwise would’ve been a tad bit unbelievable.  And what the movie does get especially right are the aliens themselves.  The xenomorphs are legit terrifying here, which is a welcome return to form after the unconvincing CGI versions that we saw in the movie Alien: Covenant.  It will be interesting to see what might happen next with this franchise; will it still lean into the horror aspect or will it become more action oriented.  I honestly would favor the former, because I’ve always associated Alien more with the horror genre.  My hope is that it stays in that vein in the future, but perhaps they can improve on it with a more grounded premise.  Perhaps a smaller cast of characters with which there will be more screen time devoted to building up their personalities.  Also, please refrain from shoe-horning Easter eggs and catch phrases into the film that don’t need to be there.  There are some frustrating fan service things about this movie, but I do feel that it does get a lot right as an experience, particularly in bringing back old filmmaking tactics that help to make it feel more timeless.  We’ll see what the future holds, and my hope is that Alien will hopefully become a franchise that once again brings out the terror of the unknown that awaits us in the vast darkness of space.

Rating: 7/10