I LOVE BOOSTERS

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-
Special Effects: B

I Love Boosters is only the second feature film by writer-director-producer Boots Riley; the first came eight years ago, Sorry to Bother You, a movie I struggled to connect to or make sense of. I Love Boosters is largely more of the same, but at least I can make slightly more sense of it. “Slightly” is the operative word here.

Riley is clearly a guy with a thing for gonzo excess. In this film, Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, and Taylour Paige play Corvette, Sade, and Mariah, respectively, also known as the Velvet Gang, the “Boosters” of the title—people who shoplift from high-end fashion outlet stores and resell them at a discount price. They quickly get the attention of the billionair fashion maven and Metro Designer outlet stores owner Christie Smith, played by a perfectly cast Demi Moore, who, along with her 2024 film The Substance, is really going for it with out-there roles in her sixties.

Moore is hardly the only fun casting choice in I Love Boosters, though. Don Cheadle shows up totally unrecognizable as Dr. Jack, a guy selling a pyramid scheme. Will Poulter is pitch-perfect as Grayson, the snooty manager at the Metro Designer store where Corvette, Sade, and Mariah manage to get jobs in an elaborate plan to boost its clothing. Eric André gets barely more than cameo time as a character credited as “Futuristic Police Tank Cop.” And while we’re on the subject of credited character names, LaKeith Stanfield plays “Pinky Ring Guy,” and I can’t even remember anything about a pinky ring; only that at one point one of the women says “He looks like sex”—and she’s right: LaKeith Stanfield need only stand still and stare at the camera to put a stir in the loins of viewers of any gender. (I guess I’ll take this moment also to name-check Jason Ritter as “Upstanding Community Member”; Kara Young as “Crying Black Mother”; and Jermaine Fowler as “Based Young Dude.” These characters all show up on news feeds offering backward talking points in defense of billionaires and corporations.)

I Love Boosters is surreal to the nth degree, to the point where the Velvet Gang are soon joined by Jianhu (Poppy Liu), a Chinese factory worker who steals two prototypes of a device with three different functions, depending on the setting: “Teleporter,” “Situational Accelorator,” or “deconstruction,” which renders anything it’s aimed at into the elements that made it. The plot is so wildly convoluted it would take an age to describe it all, but suffice it to say that the corporation is using this prototype to send product from China to the U.S. to save on shipping costs, but Jianhu teleports herself to the U.S. to start sucking all the Metro Designer outlet merchandise through the teleporter and right back to China.

This is where I Love Boosters has a lot in common with Sorry to Bother You, in which low-level workers are revealed to be literal “work horses.” The metaphor there was very on the nose, and much going on in I Love Boosters is moving in that same direction. Boots Riley throws in a lot of stuff about seemingly disparate groups of people actually fighting the same cause, and sets quite a lot of scenes in the Chinese factory where they are assembling the fashion. I’d say that there’s something ironic about the money spent to make a movie like this, using studios that arguably represent the very thing the movie is purportedly speaking out against, but this movie was made with a budget of $20 million and has grossed less than $5. Maybe Boots Riley knows what he’s doing, wasting production studio money!

I Love Boosters even features a bizarre, surrealist turn rather similar to the “work horses” of his previous film, just this time with a group of characters running after the Velvet Gang as stop-motion bodies of nothing but muscle and bone—complete with dangling, skinless penises—after being forced to shed their “suits,” which turns out to be their actual skin. This isn’t even the most memorable image in the movie; that would involve “Pinky Ring Guy,” who turns out to be way more than a guy wearing a pinkie ring, and is featured in the single most unfortgettably wild and hilariously disgusting scene in the movie. (It might also affect how much you agree that he “looks like sex.”)

This is a movie packed with gags, a ton of them visual, from Christie Smith’s office being in a leaning high-rise to the outfits worn by the Velvet Gang designed to contain all the clothes they’re boosting. A lot of the time, the gags work. A fair amount of the time, they kind of don’t. If there’s any signature trait to Boots Riley feature films—all two of them—it’s that they go in countless different wild directions and struggle to come together as a coherent narrative. I suppose a movie like this can work if you know what the very specific vibe is, and what it’s going for. I’m still not quite sure what I Love Boosters is going for exactly, but I picked up on the vibe. It worked better for me than Sorry to Bother You, but kind of barely. These movies are a lot, and you need to be ready for that. If you are then you’ll have a good time.

I Like Boosters Enough

THE SHEEP DETECTIVES

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+
Special Effects: B+

If you were one to judge a film by its title, you’d probably think The Sheep Detectives sounds pretty stupid, right? Well, slap that idea right out of your own face, because it’s not! This might be the sweetest, most pure of heart, live-action talking animal movie since Babe. That movie came out 31 years ago, for anyone who’s counting. Indeed, a lot of young people smitten with The Sheep Detectives likely don’t even know about Babe. Look it up! And then look up its 1998 sequel, Babe: Pig in the City—directed by George Miller—which I think is even better, but then I have a thing for children’s movies that go weird and dark. Which the original Babe absolutely did not do, and neither does The Sheep Detectives. Even though there’s literally a murder in it.

When I first saw the poster for The Sheep Detectives, I was like: Whaaaat? And then I saw the trailer, and was shocked by how delighted I was by it. Might this movie actually be hilarious? Well, I am here to tell you that “hilarious” is a strong word; it provides regular chuckles at best. But, that kind of misses the point. The Sheep Detectives is so sweet you might leave the theater with two new cavities, but it’s also got a rare kind of genuine sincerity to it. It’ll charm the hell out of you.

A big part of that charm is the comfortable ease into which it settles into the story, directed by Kyle Balda (Minions) and written by Craig Mazin (The Last of Us), adapting from the 2005 novel Three Bags Full by Leonie Swann. This is quite the mix of people, or at least resumes, but collectively they clearly understand the best sensibility for a story about a murder mystery in a sleepy town, where the sheep on the farm where a farmer is killed set about solving the mystery. Why? Because George Hardy (Hugh Jackman, still handsome but for once actually looking like he’s in his late fifties) reads to them every evening, from murder mystery novels. Not only do the sheep love this, but when George turns up dead, they know all the rules of what they call their “nighttime stories,” and use that to help them figure out what happened.

The rest of the cast is a stacked ensemble, comprising of both the townspeople and voice work for the fairly impressively rendered CGI sheep. These voices include Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Lily, the sheep who is always able to solve the murders in the books and so leads the charge in solving George’s murder; Bryan Cranston as Sebastian, a loner sheep with a tragic backstory of his own; Game of Thrones’s Bella Ramsey as Zora, a perpetually curious sheep constantly asking questions; Ted Lasso’s Brett Goldstein as two bothers with the same voice with an affinity for ramming things; Patrick Stewart as Sir Richfield, a sort of elder statesman among the sheep; Regina Hall as the “diva,” Cloud; Rhys Darby as Wool-Eyes, so named because his long hair largely blinds him; and Chris O’Dowd as Mopple, the one sheep who is unable to forget things at will.

This ability to control memory figures significantly into the plot, and is how The Sheep Detectives smuggles a surprising earnestness into the proceedings. This is a story about how sheep are smarter than we are, and capable of more than they give themselves credit for. They engage in a kind of willful ignorance, choosing to forget unpleasant experiences, but at the expense of the good ones too. These are all pretty simple themes, but perfect for a young audience, all the while entertaining a more adult audience with its overtly knowing uses of murder mystery tropes. Except in this universe, farm sheep gradually reveal themselves to certain townspeople as having surprisingly complex intelligence. Not a lot of made of this, which is right for a movie of this sort. Mostly it’s played for humor, and done very effectively.

A significant subplot involves how a flock will reject a “winter lamb,” which is how this flock perceives Molly Gordon (Rebecca Hampstead), the daughter George put up for adoption but who is recently in town, rendering herself one of the suspects. Often in movies like this the animal characters are far more interesting than the human ones, but the people here offer plenty color of their own, including Succession’s Nicholas Braun as bumbling Officer Tim Derry, the town’s one-man police force (and here putting on a very convincing English accent); Emma Thompson as Lydia Harbottle, George’s lawyer; and Hong Chau as Innkeeper Beth Pennock (also adopting a convincing accent), among others.

Also worth noting is Nicholas Galitzine as as ambitious reporter Elliot Matthews, here in town to cover a “cultural festival” he finds disappointingly tiny. Galitzine also played Prince Henry in the 2023 Amazon Prime Video original gay romantic comedy Red, White & Royal Blue, which I only mention because Galitzine immediately struck me as being entirely too pretty to be convincing in this part. But in the end, what we learn about him makes his beauty make a little more sense.

It’s often the case that a movie can get weighed down by having too many stars in its cast, where the long list of names is attempted to make up for what’s lacking in the story. But miraculously, The Sheep Detectives works almost shockingly well, even if it isn’t quite a laugh riot. The trailer was a bit misleading on that front, but that’s not the movie’s fault—and that’s why I think Babe is a good comp. That movie was very funny as well, but also had a charming innocence to its sensibility and to its characters. The Sheep Detectives, which also revolves around animals on a farm, is a refreshing throwback in this way, in that it has no cynicism to it whatsoever, and proves that such movies can still be well-rounded entertainment. That includes genuinely moving moments that mean you might want to have tissues handy. Yes, with talking sheep. Ultimately, The Sheep Detectives is the perfect mix, of human and animal, of heart and humor.

These sheep have no idea what they’re in for.

Overall: B+

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA 2

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

There’s a moment, relatively near the end of The Devil Wears Prada 2, when Miranda Priestly says, “I just love working, don’t you?” This is the line that is staying with me the most, as I wonder whether the meta aspect of it was at all intentional: the line is delivered by Meryl Streep, who might as well also be speaking for herself and her acting career. It serves as an explanation, beyond the obvious paycheck (Streep was paid a reported $7 million to reprise this role), for why she would bother with revisiting this role a solid 20 years later.

In 2006, the original The Devil Wears Prada came roughly 30 years into Meryl Streep’s career, and it became by some distance the most successful movie she was in—a record broken only by the ridiculous Mamma Mia! only two years later, in 2008. No role in her career has ever been more iconic than that of Miranda Priestly, however, as she singlehandedly turned what otherwise would have been a cinematic piece of mediocrity into a wildly rewatchable entertainment.

So how does the sequel stack up? In context, in its time, I’d say it roughly matches the original—with some elements that fall short. But, the original also had elements that fell short; they were just different. And, even 20 years on, we love these characters too much not to have a pretty good time. They brought back all of the heavy hitters, after all: Streep, of course; Anne Hathaway as Andy Sachs, now much more grown and confident; Stanley Tucchi as Miranda’s long-suffering professional sidekick; and Emily Blunt as Emily Charlton, now working leverage against Runway Magazine as the largest advertiser at Dior (the product placement and fashion cameos are, predictably, off the charts). Even Tracie Thomas returns as Andy’s best friend Lily—something I took way too long to clock, mostly because, while she still looks objectively great, she looks more naturally aged by 20 years than any of the other major actors do.

It’s worth noting that the original The Devil Wears Prada had things going for it that this film does not, most notably the notoriety of its source material: it was based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Lauren Weisberger, in which the Miranda Priestly character was widely known to be a thinly veiled representation of Anna Wintour. The speculation surrounding these facts fed the buzz around the film, although Meryl Streep came in and truly created a unique character quite distinct from Wintour. It’s probably telling that Weisberger wrote two sequels, but The Devil Wears Prada 2 is not based on either of them; both films’ scripts were written by Aline Brosh McKenna, but this time the story is entirely original.

Well, not entirely—it still has a credit that states it’s “based on characters created by Lauren Weisberger,” after all. It even slightly pokes fun at that, with a character scoffing at the idea of writing a book about a boss you don’t like. And, much like the previous film, a lot of the story is pretty contrived—especially the setup now that forces all of these same people back together. In the opening scene, Andy and all of her newspaper journalist colleagues are fired via text while she’s accepting an award for her work, and coincidentally Runway is experiencing a PR disaster. Andy, now a respected journalist, is offered a job at double her previous salary in an effort to restore credibility to the magazine.

Much of Andy’s and Miranda’s reintroduction is pretty entertaining, in that Miranda doesn’t (or maybe pretends she doesn’t) remember her. Streep’s acting is great as always, but I found her characterization in this film somewhat curious, in that she is uncharacteristically more personable than she was before, even as she’s being rude to people (and particularly to Andy). I don’t know if this was meant to be an indication of how she’s changed a little over the years or what. That said, The Devil Wears Prada 2 spends a lot of time acknowledging how the world, and especially both journalism and fashion, have changed over these past 20 years. This would include regular corporate workplace norms, as there is a funny running bit about how Miranda has to choose her words more carefully now to avoid HR interference.

What love interests there are, are different this time around—fine by me, as Andy’s boyfriend from the first film, while very cute, was pretty dull as a character. This time she has a meet-cute with an Australian played by Patrick Brammall, and he’s moderately more interesting than the first guy, if distractingly performative with his eyebrows. Emily, for her part, is seeing a billionaire played by Justin Theroux, who also happens to be the ex-husband of Sasha Barnes, rendered significantly wealthy in her own right, a desired target for an interview with Runway after some years of reclusiveness. Sasha is played by Lucy Liu, a very interesting actor in a part that gives her virtually nothing interesting to work with.

Miranda is now married to a guy played by Kenneth Branagh; B. J. Novak plays the incurious heir to Runway’s parent company; even Lady Gaga makes a special appearance as herself (performing an original song, which, to be honest, sounds like a generic version of Lady Gaga—it turns out she recorded four original songs for the soundtrack). To say this film has a stacked cast would be an understatement, although it could be argued it was the first film that transformed about four of them into the stars that they are.

I was feeling kind of indifferent to the story for much of this movie, but still taken by the characters; this is how “lega-sequels” successfully traffic in nostalgia. It does have some similar beats to the first film, in terms of the tensions between Andy and Miranda; Andy trying and awkwardly failing to impress Miranda; Miranda finally deigning to be impressed. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t taken with the movie by the time it was ending, though. These movies never made grand promises, just modest ones, which they deliver on. I still left the theater with a warm and appreciative smile.

The gang strikes an uneasy pose in a new and rapidly changing world.

Overall: B

THEY WILL KILL YOU

Directing: B-
Acting: B-
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-

There are multiple things I don’t understand about They Will Kill You, but the thing I understand the least is the decision to release it all of one week after Ready or Not: Here I Come, which broadly speaking might as well be the same movie. They Will Kill You is even more similar to Ready or Not: Here I Come than to its 2019 predecessor, Ready or Not, which was the only one of these movies that was a morbidly delightful surprise. That movie’s sequel, and this movie, are both about a pair of sisters being hunted in an enclosed space by a large group of violent Satanic cultists. I find myself wondering if one of these movies should sue the other.

Still, I really wanted They Will Kill You to be better. I came for what the marketing promised: creatively cartoonish violence. I should admit that this film does deliver that, for a time anyway—I’m not sure the possessed pig’s head in the climactic sequence really worked. It was effectively gross, I’ll give it that.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that Zazie Beetz is the lead, and she has a very charismatic screen presence. This is her first lead role, and she carries it well. I wish I could say the woman who plays her sister, Myha'la, is as compelling, but in her defense, the writing doesn’t give her much to work with. I’m a little bit at a loss with what passes for a plot in this movie—movies that exist just to showcase fun violence don’t have to be deep, certainly, but they can be better than this. Honestly, Zazie Beetz is better than this. And between this and last month’s Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die, I fear she may start getting typecast as a woman who is better than the movies she’s in. Someone needs to send her a movie script that’s actually good.

Much of the rest of the cast in They Will Kill You punches above its weight, though. Perhaps most significantly, we get Patricia Arquette as Lily Woodhouse, the elevated superintendant and cult leader at The Virgil, the 100-year-old Manhattan building Beetz’s Asia Reeves arrives at to start a job as a maid. She arrives soaking wet without a coat in a nighttime downpour, by the way. Why would that happen? We are never told. But hey, it gives the “plot” an excuse to get Asia quickly into a shower, next to which someone writes THEY WILL KILL YOU into the fog on the mirror.

Lily is also the matriarch of a family, of sorts, with “very special needs,” as she puts it—there’s a reason they must offer a sacrifice to their Dark Lord every night, and tonight Asia is meant to be the offering. Among the family, which also double as bumbling henchmen in the face of a woman who learned how to fight hard while in prison, is Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy himself), and Heather Graham.

You could say that all of these established actors are slumming it in a movie like this, but no one’s going to begrudge anyone having a lot of fun—especially when they’re getting paid to do it. That said, you can only see characters get dismembered and spray blood like they’re in a low-rent Kill Bill so many times before it starts to lose its luster. The action choreography in They Will Kill You is actually pretty good; I would argue it’s even better than in Ready or Not: Here I Come. It’s the writing, and the pointless backstory about these sisters, that’s the problem. They Will Kill You saw how undercooked the sisters’ relationship was in Ready or Not: Here I Come and said, “Hold my beer.”

They Will Kill You even begins ten years before the majority of the action that takes place, with Beetz still playing Asia but a different, younger actor playing her sister, Maria. They are on the run from an apparently abusive father, though the only evidence we get of that onscreen is a really large man stomping through a convenience store looking for them. A shooting occurs but the dad lives, and manages to keep hold of Maria; Asia panics and runs, and now it’s ten years later and she’s come back for Maria after hearing she’s been seen at this Virgil building, where some shit is going down that has nothing to do with any of that.

And with a movie like this, do we need any of that? It would be far more effective to throw us right into the action, and start with Asia’s arrival at The Virgil. There’s a very strange element to this film’s narrative where it tries too hard and somehow the result is a feeling like it’s been phoned in. I was moderately entertained by this movie, but in better hands it could have been a blast. Instead, it feels like a copy of a copy.

Overall: C+

READY OR NOT: HERE I COME

Directing: B-
Acting: B
Writing: C+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

I’m going to nitpick right out of the gate, because I have to stay on brand. All of the marketing materials, right down to its IMDb.com page, lists this movie’s title as Ready or Not 2: Here I Come, which is boneheaded. The phrase is “ready or not, here I come!” Why stick a “2” right in the middle of that? It’s quite obviously a sequel either way. And guess what? The title card in the movie itself just reads, Ready or Not: Here I Come. That actually makes sense!

It’s also maybe the cleverest thing about this movie. Or at very least, there is nothing else in this movie more clever than that. This film was made by the same team as the 2019 original Ready or Not, with co-directors Matt Bettinelli and OlpinTyler Gillett; also with co-writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy. It’s been nearly seven years since the original Ready or Not was released, which is not ideal; that movie was a surprising delight, but not something you’d expect many to have a fresh memory of seven years later. You could partially blame pandemic-related delays, except nearly the exact same team (just one co-writer different) made Abigail, released in 2024. And all three of these films are very similar, ultra-violent horror-comedies, each with an ensemble cast either hunting or being hunted, and each in turn has offered diminishing returns. Ready or Not was a camp kick; Abigail was fine but undermined by the need to reveal its secret plot twist in order to market it; and Ready or Not: Here I Come is running on narrative fumes.

The major difference here is that Samara Weaving, as the bride Grace MacCaullay, is joined by Kathryn Newton as her estranged sister, Faith. I had high hopes for this casting choice; Newton is relatively unknown but a deeply underrated talent. She was a big part of what made the 2021 body-swap horror movie Freaky watchable, and was one of the better parts of the 2024 camp-horror film Lisa Frankenstein. She works well being cast as Samara Weaving’s sister, but the problem is in the writing. This movie wants us to be invested in their relationship and backstory, but all we get are vague references to Faith feeling abandoned by Grace when the latter moved away from their home with an apparently perfectly decent foster family at the age of eighteen. This backstory is narrative weak sauce, and exists solely as a lazy way to explain sisterly resentments. In a movie like this, you’d expect a shared history that was a little more twisted or morbid.

Granted, the whole premise of Ready or Not was that a seemingly innocent woman was hoodwinked into participating in a family ritual on her wedding night, which involves a game of Hide and Seek in which all of her in-laws compete to be the one to kill her. If they fail to do so by sunrise, they all die, and the manner in which this happens, at the end of that first film, was a big part of what tipped it over to the point of delight for me. These movies offer cartoonish violence for its own sake, and that is itself the appeal.

But what if it’s just more of the same as before? Ready or Not: Here I Come does little to innovate its premise beyond adding the sister. It attempts to raise the stakes by explaining to us that Grace’s rare victory triggered something in the Satanist organization’s “bylaws,” and now all the people that make up the worldwide “council” of five families must gather to play the exact same game again . . . the very next night. I will admit to finding it fun that this movie picks up right at the very scene that ended the first film: Grace lights herself a cigarette on the front steps of the mansion where she was hunted, faints, and she doesn’t get any further than the hospital before someone is hunting for her. But that hunter has jumped the gun and is about to forfeit his family’s participation; when he kills the cop who comes to escort Grace to the station for questioning by throwing a knife into his neck, a whole lot of time passes with not a single other cop coming to the scene. Does this hospital have no kind of security whatsoever? Okay, I’m nitpicking again.

One of the many delights of the first film was the mild-stunt casting of Andie MacDowell as one of the family members tasked with hunting Grace, and we get double the stunt casting this time around: Sarah Michelle Gellar as one of the council family members who, again, is hunting Grace and Faith; and Elijah Wood as a lawyer representing “Le Bail,” who is the demon behind all these people who otherwise control the world. It’s fun to see them in parts like this, except that Gellar’s fate in this film is disappointingly uncreative and unmemorable. Even I know Buffy deserves better, and I never even watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

It’s very difficult to catch lightning in a bottle twice, and calling the original Ready or Not “lightning in a bottle” is itself a stretch. But getting a particular camp sensibility just right is a delicate needle to thread; it either works or it doesn’t. I want to say that some of the times it works in Here I Come, except if it’s not always working, then by definition it’s not working. The cast is game and it makes a difference that they all seem to be having a good time, but it’s the reheated leftovers of a script that is the problem. I had a moderately good time with this movie, taking it for what it was—one thing all these movies have in common is that they don’t pretend to be anything but what they are—but there is no lasting mark being made here.

You’ll totally be ready for this.

Overall: B-

SLANTED

Directing: B-
Acting: B+
Writing: C
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

Slanted has been widely referred to as “Mean Girls meets The Substance.” There is some accuracy to those comparisons, except that Slanted lacks the gonzo savagery of The Substance. And I really want to say it lacks the wit of Mean Girls, except that at the time I even thought Mean Girls was rather overrated, a warmed-over Heathers, which had far greater satyrical bite. This is precisely what Slanted is missing: satyrical bite.

I really wanted Slanted to go harder. A story about a high school girl who undergoes cosmetic—some say “trans-racial”—surgery to become White is some fertile ground for the kind of satire it’s going for. But Slanted is less biting satire, and a little more lower-rung Black Mirror. It does a pretty good job of reflecting the social and racial structure of America, but doesn’t go very deep into it. This kind of movie only really works if it makes you go deep. A bunch of White kids salting otherwise unadorned salads for lunch in synchronized movements isn’t really going to cut it.

There’s a very strange irony to this production as well. Writer-director Amy Wang is herself of Chinese descent, which bodes well for a movie about a Chinese-American family. She casts actors of Chinese descent to play characters of Chinese descent, particularly Shirley Chen, who plays the protagonist, Joan Huang, for the first third or so of the movie; also Joan’s parents, Sofia (Vivian Wu) and Roger (Fang Du). But these are the only characters—or actors—of Asian descent in the entire production, and once the surgery takes place, Joan renames herself “Jo Hunt” and is played for the rest of the movie by Mckenna Grace. The irony is that this is a film about the denial of racial and ethnic identity, made by a woman of Chinese descent, but the vast majority of the actors given work to play parts in the cast are pointedly conventionally—maybe even blandly—attractive White people. You know, the very people afforded the greatest opportunities in this society.

It even seems worth mentioning that Amy Wang is Asian-Australian—not, it must be noted, American. To be sure, there are other international directors out there with an astonishing ability to reflect deeply authentic, American characterizations. But Ang Lee, Amy Wang is not. Much of Slanted takes place in a high school environment that feels like a critique of what an outsider might thing American high school is like, based on countless other American movies they’ve seen. The “Mean Girls” vibe among the popular girls Joan/Jo is desperate to become friends with feel very contrived.

It’s the writing I have the biggest issue with in Slanted, which doesn’t even manage to be consistent. Joan is using an app to create White-faced filters on her phone called Ethnos, which clocks her heavy usage and then offers her a discount on their cosmetic services. Ethnos declares that they cannot do the full surgery without a parental signature due to her being a minor, but they’re perfectly happy to do a hair transplant without it—complete with masking her with gas to put her to sleep. We then see bloody spots where they begin pulling her black hair out. None of this requires parental consent?

I’m fully aware that Slanted is meant to be a fantasy world of subtle horrors, not something to be particularly concerned with realism. After all, when Jo’s face skin starts to droop, a significant plot point in the latter half of the film, Ethnos simply provides her with a cream and some tape. We see hands go to her face without the camera actually showing her face, and suddenly she looks normal again. The sticking point for me is that the parental consent is used only as a plot point in the process of Joan losing her parents’ trust; it otherwise has no point in the plot, if this guy’s going to do a hair transplant on a minor without parental consent anyway.

Where I really must give Wang her due is that the performances in Slanted are actually kind of astonishing. Shirley Chen is serviceable as Joan; it’s when Chen is replaced by Mckenna Grace that the cast truly impresses. Grace performs most of her role in English but does occasionally speak in Mandarin, and quite believably (not that I would have any idea how good or bad her accent is, mind you). Most significantly, even after Joan is no longer shown onscreen, but the character comes home and takes some time to convince Sofia and Roger that she’s actually their daughter, they’re still completely believable as a family. You never stop accepting that Jo is their daughter, even after she’s transformed into a White girl. This is a true testament to the performances of all three of them.

There is a bit of a plot twist that comes along that you can see easily see coming, but the performers involved, particularly Amelie Zilber as Olivia Hammond, the most popular girl in the school, also perform it well. Joan’s best friend, Brindha, is played by Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, from the Netflix series Never Have I Ever, and seems to exist simply to be a fellow Asian character who is not a member of Joan’s family. There is so much potential for a film like this to explore that it does not bother with, most significantly the intersection between White racism and the anti-Blackness of other races. Brindha is a young Brown woman who comes closest to representing the experience of anyone outside the Huang family who is also not White; the only Black people we see in this movie are extras used at the Ethnos clinic, and in one pivotal scene, a nameless and silent Black friend of Brindha’s who Jo is peer pressured into disinviting from a party. This feels like the very essence of Black tokenism.

If Slanted had any real curiosity about the diversity of American experience, even among insecure, White-supremacy-pilled people of all races and ethnicities, it might be easier to like. It’s perfectly fair to tell a story like this from the singular perspective of an Asian-American family, but then it brings in characters of other races and does them a narrative disservice. To be fair, Slanted still has its moments; I certainly got a good laugh out of Ethnos announcing new locations in “Richmond, Virginia; Pittsburgh, and Spokane.” If it spent a lot more time with pointed jabs like that and less time with a misguided undertone of melancholy and barely a hint of the “body horror” it seemed to promise, Slanted would have worked a lot better.

I see White people: this misguided irony of Slanted.

Overall: B-

HOPPERS

Directing: C
Acting: B
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B
Editing: C
Animation: B+

Has it finally happened? Have I become a contrarian crank? The old man who just doesn’t get it, who says Pixar movies were so much better back in my day? They just don’t make Pixar movies like they used to anymore! This is objectively true, actually, but does that matter to younger audiences? It’s certainly not going to matter to children, who will be perfectly entertained by Hoppers while I found it dumb as hell.

It’s a common refrain for me now, to say that Pixar once reliably made films that worked just as well for grownups as they did for children. They had a sophisticated sense of humor that made them stand apart from other animation studios. Those days began to end roughly a decade ago. Now the people at Pixar keep themselves afloat by riding their own coattails with endless sequels, interspersed with overstuffed nonsense like this.

I am reminded of The Wild Robot—a far superior film—and my one real complaint about it: that it depicts a wild animal world in which predators and prey become friends for the greater good. The same thing happens in Hoppers, they just don’t even do that as well. And Hoppers is a wildly derivative work of cinema. Its premise is so similar to that of Avatar, in fact, that the main character, Mabel (Piper Curda), literally says “This is like Avatar!” Mabel’s college professor mentor, Dr. Sam (Kathy Najimy), immediately retorts, “It’s not like Avatar!” but the cat’s out of the bag.

Or the beaver is, I suppose. Because, for reasons that are never made clear (who cares, it’s a cartoon), Dr. Sam and her helpers are doing research on porting their brains into robot animals as a means of communicating with them in their own language—which is somehow the same among all species of animals except human. Mabel, who is desperately trying to save the forest glade where she grew up with her late grandmother in an early sequence reminiscent of (but nowhere near as good as) the growing-old montage at the beginning of Up. The mayor of the nearby city of Beaverton (Jon Hamm) has selfishly dislocated all the animals there in an attempt to make way for a freeway bypass that will save commuters four minutes. Seizing an opportunity, Mabel ports herself into the body of a robot beaver, and then unwittingly ignites an animal uprising against humans.

To call the plot of Hoppers convoluted would be an understatement, and I haven’t even yet mentioned that the animals basically split into different factions, one who take the idea overboard and declare all humans need to be “squished,” and one that understands that’s a little much. Will children even be able to follow this? Probably not. Will they be delighted by a lot of the cute and funny animals? Definitely yes. Will Hoppers enter the echelon of classic Pixar animated feature films, like the original Toy Story or Finding Nemo or The Incredibles or WALL-E? Not likely. This movie will be forgettable to children and grownups alike.

I keep thinking about the 2022 film Lightyear, the first Pixar film I rated as low as a C+. And here we are again. The difference was that was an extension of an already-existing franchise, one that already had four previous installments (the fourth one being the weakest of the bunch—and yet, I’ll come back for #5). Hoppers is easily the most disappointed I have ever been in a wholly original Pixar film. It’s way too busy. It’s overstuffed. It’s convoluted. I don’t get it.

And this is a case where I am in the minority. At least in the case of Lightyear the response was definitively mixed. Hoppers is getting a pretty positive response, and I can only theorize that I am perhaps too whetted to what Pixar once was. Would I feel the same way about Hoppers if all else were the same but it were made by a different animation studio? I think I would, actually.

A lot of Disney properties stand the test of time, and Hoppers will not be one of them. You want to see a movie that examines relationships of substance using wildlife characters? Watch Bambi—which is not even my favorite Disney film, but I can recognize an enduring classic, complete with innovative animation techniques, when I see one. The makers of Hoppers are entertaining us, sure—I got a few good laughs—but they’re phoning it in. Why bother casting the likes of Meryl Streep as a megalomaniacal Insect Queen if you’re not even going to register that it’s her?

Setting all of that side, some wild shit happens in this movie. I probably shouldn’t spoil what happens with a flock of birds and a giant shark voiced by Vanessa Bayer, except to say that it’s ridiculous even by this movie’s standards. Director and co-writer Daniel Chong woke up one day and chose chaos. I was actually kind of locked in with Hoppers in the beginning, even though Mabel as a little girl is far more compelling than Mabel as a 19-year-old college student. I even leaned forward when Mabel found herself following a mysterious beaver into a science and technology lab. But then Mabel ports into a robot beaver, infiltrates a weirdly homogenous animal society, and winds up at a giant mound atop of which is King George the Mammal King beaver (Bobby Moynihan), to whom animals of all other species is bowing, and I’m just thinking, What the fuck is this? I haven’t even mentioned the brown bear (Melissa Villaseñor) who, much like in The Wild Robot, is for some reason everybody’s friend. She does eat a perfectly friendly fish at one point, so, points for that I guess.

I long for the days when Pixar made films that were both wildly entertaining and featured narratives of nuanced substance. In Hoppers, it feels like the relentlessly chaotic action exists to distract us from the fact that it’s all just empty calories for the mind. We might as well be plugging these looney antics right into our eye sockets, entertainment as overstimulating pacification. I want to say that Pixar is still capable of greatness, but it’s been a good five years since they last made something truly great; four since they squandered potential by dumping really good material direct to streaming. But I still believe in you, Pixar! I’m just waiting for you to climb to the top again, because this isn’t it.

Don’t ask.

Overall: C+

NIRVANNA THE BAND THE SHOW THE MOVIE

Directing: B+
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A
Special Effects: B+

Here’s the burning question about Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie: what if, like me, you watch this film having zero familiarity with the Canadian TV show on which it was based, Nirvanna the Band the Show, which aired on Canadian premiere network Viceland 2017-2018; or the web series that was based on, Nirvanna the Band the Show, which was made 2007-2009? Does this movie even work for such audiences? The answer is an emphatic yes, and surprisingly well at that.

I suppose it might work better for audiences familiar with these earlier works, but I don’t know if it’s by that wide a margin. I had a great time with this movie, which blends old and new footage so seamlessly I kept wondering how the hell they did it. There is a sequence in which Matt Johnson and Jay McCarroll, playing fictionalized versions of themselves (as they did in the previous iterations of the show), go back in time 17 years to 2008 and encounter their younger selves. None of this looks like a special effect; none of it looks like digital de-aging—just looking at the screen is enough to convince you this is actual footage of these two from 2008. I had to find a current YouTube video to learn that not only did they indeed use original video footage from 2007 to 2009, but everything you see in this film was culled from the cutting room floor of those original web series episodes—everything you see here, even if it’s 17 years old, is something never seen before.

As far as I can tell, the series never used time travel as a plot device—this is something new cooked up for the movie, and how they tied the new footage together with the old. They use well-used plot tropes that make no sense upon close examination, which is clearly part of the point. In fact, it lifts so many plot elements from the Back to the Future series that the film is legally regarded as a parody, which allows them to get away with a lot. In this film, Matt creates a fake “flux capacitor” for their RV, which then magically works exactly the same way it does in Back to the Future thanks to short circuiting after he spills 1990s Canadian fruit drink Orbitz all over it. (It’s the last one of a case they’ve had for years. Who could never make a case of favorite discontinued drink last a decade and a half? This movie is very unrealistic.)

They wind up in the year 2008—specifically in Toronto, where the series were filmed. It didn’t even occur to me until later that all the establishing shots of the urban environment indicating it’s 2008 would likely also have just been pulled from old footage from the time. This includes things like a movie poster for The Dark Knight or other pop culture references. As part of the present-day Matt and Jay navigating 2008, there is one pretty hilarious scene where Matt goes into a movie theater playing The Hangover. (That film was actually released in 2009, but let’s not quibble.) Matt witnesses the scene in the film that features the line “Paging Dr. Faggot”—one of several things in that film that have no aged well—and it’s when Matt notices the entire audience finding this hilarious that he realizes something is amiss. It’s worth noting that a film with no queer content otherwise makes it a point to highlight how awful it is to use that language regardless of context; I was really happy to see it contextualized this way, even contextualized as humor (the humor being that he had gone far enough back in time that average people thought this was okay).

There are so many references to the Back to the Future franchise, in fact, that they go back in time, return to a present day that’s been altered, and then go back in time yet again to fix the mistake—this means they reference both the first and second Back to the Future films. And I haven’t even mentioned the mockumentary style, a whole lot of it shot guerilla-style with unspuspecting, real people on the street. This seems to have been largely the premise of Nirvanna the Band the Show all along, and it works here much better than, say, in Borat, which exists to expose regular people’s prejudices through the use of “ironically bigoted” humor. That shit never sat well with me, and there is none of it here. Even the presence of a queer epithet exists only to show how much progress has been made, rather than having the protagonists pretend to be homophobic themselves.

This gets back to how much of the film had me wondering how they pulled it off. Very early in the film, Matt and Jay attempt a publicity stunt in which they parachute off the CN Tower. A lot of this is clearly staged, but even here we see people around them who seem to have no idea what’s really going on—and it sure looks like there was actual footage shot atop that building, in one case all the way to the tip-top of its antenna, a spot not accessible to the public. Is it possible that this show is just so beloved to Canadians that they managed to get access for filming? Some of this footage is astonishing.

Clearly the most impressive element of Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie is its editing, not just with present-day footage combined with footage from the late aughts, but with narrative (or, as was mostly the case, improvised) footage of the actors interacting with regular people. I would recommend this film on that basis alone. But, there would also have to be a VFX element to this, particularly when old and younger Matt and Jay are in the same sequence together (using clever narratives where neither of their younger selves fully register that their friend looks 15 years older—there’s a lovely line about how you don’t notice your best friend growing older). There are also the scenes in which the RV-turned-time-machine does its time jumps, with effects that look exactly like those used in Back to the Future.

What I find most impressive about Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie is how lovable the characters are, and how easily invested you get in the outcomes of their stories, even if you haven’t seen the series it’s based on. I don’t know much about how “Nirvanna the Band” came to be, as there isn’t a single reference in this film to the Kurt Cobain-fronted band, and I have no idea whether there ever was in the series; I can only assume this was itself a joke, this duo who call themselves “Nirvanna the Band” but make music that sounds nothing like Nirvana. It makes for a fun, if misleading, expansion on the series title. I have a friend who was a huge Nirvana fan and when I first told him I had seen this film, he clearly thought it must have been some amazing documentary about the grunge band. Nope, not even close.

I mean, it is in the documentary style. There is a lot of inconsistency regarding how the guy holding the camera follows Matt and Jay around without being noticed by key people in certain scenes, not to mention a documentary crew actually traveling through time with this duo, and even keeping tabs on the two of them when they have conflict and separate. But as I already indicated, plot logic is nowhere near these guys’ top priority here. And the overall experience is so much fun that anything you might want to nitpick is incidental. Given all the elements of how it was put together, the fact that this film exists at all is practically a miracle, and how funny it manages to be is icing on the cake.

Matt Johnson and Jay McCarroll pull an extension cord connected to the top of the CN Tower in Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie.

Overall: B+

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, DON'T DIE

Directing: C+
Acting: B
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-
Special Effects: B

The more I think about Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die, the less impressed I am with it. The best thing I can say about it is that Sam Rockwell gives a great performance, and is clearly having a blast. I wish I could say the same of the rest of the cast, who really seem like they’re just phoning it in. Well, Juno Temple gives a relatively strong performance, but far from a comic one; she plays a grieving mother bewildered by the offer of getting a subpar clone of her son who was killed in a school shooting. Michael Peña and Zazie Beets play school teachers who are a couple struggling in their relationship, and Haley Lu Richardson plays a suicidal young woman with an allergy to cell phones and wifi. Yes, really.

Rockwell is the otherwise nameless Man From the Future, who shows up at a diner and announces to everyone that he’s come back in time to save us from destroying ourselves with social media and AI. Social media gets name-checked early on, but only once or twice; after that, the target is both generally and consistently “AI,” and this film’s penchant for conflating the two (both being dangerous when unregulated notwithstanding) does nothing for its effectiveness.

This opening scene plays out very strong, giving a real sense of hope and promise for a fun and clever movie, which does not take very long to fade. And this is definitely a movie that thinks it’s clever—written by Matthew Robinson and directed by Gore Verbinski, I’d say at least this is a singular vision that is not written by committee, except that it feels like it was. I was diverted well enough by this film as I watched it, but it is blandly entertaining at best. The script takes on the point of view that AI is bad for us all, and then puts a bunch of VFX onscreen that looks like AI slop. I want to be amused by a centaur with an upper body made of hundreds of cats, except that it looks exactly like the AI crap that people keep sharing on Facebook.

Perhaps this was exactly the point? I can’t really tell how “deep” this movie is trying to be. If that is the intention, however, it fails. Satire needs to go hard, and this movie is jus lobbing thematic softballs. I wonder how many people watching even realize how deeply derivative it is? The aforementioned cat-centaur is the result of our group of heroes basically dreaming up their own adversary—exactly how the Mr. Stay Puft Marshmallow Man was manifested in the original 1984 Ghostbusters. Michael Peña plays a substitute teacher who makes the mistake of touching the smartphone screen of one of his students, which triggers to signal to all of them and causes them to mindlessly come after the teachers like zombies. Get it? There are even multiple scenes of teenagers, phones in hand, crashing through walls to get at the adults trying to hide from them.

Much later, in a climactic scene in which The Man From the Future is attempting to get the attention of a 9-year-old child said to be the architect of the AI that becomes self-aware, there is a moment when a bunch of dismembered and reassembled robot and toys come to life. One of them looks straight out of the Star Wars sequel trilogy; others look straight out of the scary neighbor kid’s yard in Toy Story.

A lot of these things reference movies so old that a many young viewers today won’t even know such references are happening. Or are we supposed to believe these similarities are coincidental? If so, that’s preposterous. If not, I can’t tell what the point was. Have Fun, Good Luck, Don’t Die has a lot to say about how our constant attention to screens is making us all brain dead, while doing exactly the same thing to its own viewers. Is this a lack of self-awareness, or a stroke of genius? I can assure you this film is not a work of genius, and a movie like this will hardly work as intended when the joke being made is on the audience.

But is it fun? Sure, some of the time. It’s far too long, at 134 minutes, for a film of this nature, which ultimately takes it into the realm of tedium. There are some scenes that work incredibly well, such as when Juno Temple’s grieving mother is asked by a smiling but impatient staffer to choose from comically limited personality options for her cloned son (who, by the way, is conditioned to inject ads into everyday conversation—this being something we already saw in the most recent season of Black Mirror). Or when she later meets another set of parents who have lost both their original daughter and two subsequent clones to school shootings, this being the kind of cutting, dark satire of our present era that this film doesn’t lean into enough.

Other times, the backstory just doesn’t land, as with Haley Lu Richardson’s young woman in a princess costume (she works children’s birthsay parties as a job) loses her “anti-phone” boyfriend (Tom Taylor) to a virtual reality game that mysteriously shows up at their door. They’ve been living off the grid, so who sent this console to him, and why? This movie has no interest in these questions—only that he’s received the device. In any case, the dissolution of this relationship is too rushed and contrived, even within the context of a film in which you readily accept its ridiculous (and overused) premise.

I cannot find any evidence that AI tools were used in the making of Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die, but it sure feels like it was. If you asked an AI prompt to create a comedy about the dangers of AI, it’s easy to imagine this movie being the result. Aside from Sam Rockwell’s impressively committed performance—it was his delivery alone that got the most laughs out of me—really nothing about this film is particularly smart or clever. It’s just a barrage of shit we’ve already seen before, repackaged and redelivered.

This movie is about as smart as it looks.

Overall: C+

THE MOMENT

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B-
Editing: B

Listen, I’m nearly 50 years old now. Anyone who has been reading the movie reviews the more than 21 years I have been posting regularly would be for the most part as old or older. It should come as no surprise that I barely even know who Charli XCX is—even though she’s been actively making pop music for 13 years. As in, since she was 20 and since I was 36. I was well plugged out of the pop music zeitgeist by then, unless you count Kesha I suppose. And it was a year after Kesha released her second album that I even started paying attention to her.

Okay, what’s my point, then? The Moment follows a long tradition of pop stars using their music career as a launch pad into the movie business. Until last year, she only had a couple of parts and a couple animation voice acting gigs. The key difference with The Moment and any pop singer movie vehicle in the past is that here, Charli XCX not only plays herself, but in a documentary style. Anyone not in the know might actually only gradually realize it’s not actually real. This is something it very much has in common with its direct cinematic ancestor, This Is Spinal Tap, which was released eight years before Charli XCX was even born. That movie was hysterically funny, particularly in its time—when it had its own moment. The Moment has moments that are well-observed and very funny. But, I could hardly go so far as to call it hysterical.

As such, for me The Moment was kind of a mixed bag. I wonder if it plays any differently to her fans, who know all of her music and whatever her real story is? It’s clearly very much a product of its time, and casually reflects how pop stars make their money performing and not from music sales—something that has been the case for basically Chari XCX’s entire career. This makes all the people in her orbit approach her, and their own careers in relation to her, differently than they might have ten or twenty or forty years ago. What The Moment illustrates very effectively and vividly is that the industry remains as ridiculous as it ever was.

It’s a fascinating exercise to watch a pop star play herself in such a straight way. She’s not really satirizing herself, and plays most of the scenes straight. It’s everyone and everything around her that is heightened, and exaggerated—or is it? You get the feeling that most of this stuff is inspired by things she has actually witnessed in the wild. I would believe it. Charli XCX spends most of the movie either responding to everyone around her with a varying mix of frustration, exasperation, and befuddlement.

To get very specific, The Moment focuses on—and is literally a reference to—the whole “Brat Summer” phenomenon of 2024. (I barely knew what it was while it was happening.) This film is an alternate reality in which a documentary crew follows Charli XCX as she prepares for the tour in support of the Brat album. In this fictionalized world, her label (Atlantic Records, which is her actual label and gets name checked multiple times in the film) and other industry people are desperate to keep “Brat Summer” going as long as possible, if not forever. They bring in a douchey concert film director (Alexander Skarsgård—hey, at least he’s my age! which is astounding considering how hot he is) who ultimately takes over and strips the concert’s artistic vision of any of its soul, alienating the people who were helping her stay true to herself in the process.

I do have a particular nitpick about this, and that is director and co-writer Aidan Zamiri’s apparent inability to fully commit to the bit. There are passing references to the camera crew following Charli around, but there are countless scenes in which no documentary camera crew would ever actually have access or be privy to the conversations we see. This is a key difference from any of the Christopher Guest mockumentary films, which quite earnestly stay true to the “documentary” gimmick. It’s an inconsistency of style that I found distracting.

What I did find fairly impressive was the acting. The Moment is a film full of people onscreen who understood the assignment, and that includes Charli XCX—who, by the way, is credited as having the “original idea”—more than any of them. Charli has a choice to make by the end of the film regarding her artistic integrity, and there is a pretty clear difference between the fictionalized version of Charli and the real-world version of her.

When The Moment has humor that lands, it really lands—it got some good laughs out of me. They were just fewer and further between than a movie like this really needs. The story unfolds with incisive cleverness, but the tone goes a bit back and forth, and would have been helped by more frequently pointed humor. I had a good time; it just wasn’t quite the party I wanted it to be.

Charli XCX is just along for the ride. Or is she the one driving?

Overall: B