Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2024 Edition

Living with a kid is seeing unbridled joy unfold. Anybody that is a parent can attest to that. Kids will show immense excitement over the most "inconsequential" thing in the world, and they will let you know all about it; be it a twist in their favorite cartoon show or a bird they saw outside... and then they grow up, and joy is often replaced with anxiety. How will this new experience go? Will they accept me? Will things go wrong? All of this serves as the basis of Pixar's latest outing.

Inside Out 2 follows 13-year-old Riley (Kensington Tallman) who is about to join a weekend ice hockey camp with her two best friends. Meanwhile, Joy (Amy Poehler) and the other "emotions" have to deal with new ones that want to take over her mind. The main one is Anxiety (Maya Hawke), whose frantic and desperate attitude leads Riley to various chaotic and problematic situations in her efforts to take control over Joy.

I came to see the original Inside Out a bit late, and although I liked it well enough, it didn't really resonate with me. Overall, I feel more or less the same about this one, although I admit it did hit a bit more. Maybe it's the fact that my kids are closer to Riley's age (10 and 11), maybe it's the fact that *I'm* "closer" to Riley's age. So I guess most adults can identify with that sense of letting go of "joy" while "anxiety" takes over, cause yeah, sometimes that is what happens when you grow up.

Just like the first one, I think the script cleverly portrays the inner-workings of the human mind in a way that's relatable to children while also being fun and entertaining (I mean, "sar-chasm" opens a up a "chasm"?). But more importantly, it does so in a way that feels emotionally effective. I like that it feels like we get to see more of Riley here, and I think there is some good build-up for the inevitable third part.

Ever since we started our journey as parents, it has been an emotional rollercoaster. There's been joy, but there's also been sadness, fear, anger, and yes, anxiety; a LOT of anxiety... and maybe that's what happens when we grow up. But even though sadness, fear, anger, and anxiety are still there, and will always be there, at least for 96 minutes while watching this with one of my kids and seeing the unbridled joy in him, I felt joy myself.

Grade:

__________________

A Quiet Place Part II continues the struggle of the Abbott family to survive against deadly aliens in a post-apocalyptic world. As was seen in the first film, Regan (Millicent Simmonds) has discovered a way to beat the aliens using her hearing aid, which allows them to leave their destroyed house to seek another shelter. Eventually, they stumble upon Emmett (Cillian Murphy), an old friend that has lost hope in humanity, which is why he delivers the above quote.

I'm not an adoring fan of the first film, but I thought it was a pretty solid alien horror film with an interesting premise and some effective setpieces. The sequel doesn't really bring a lot of new stuff to the table, but it's just as consistently effective. Most of the performances are solid, with Murphy being a welcome addition. His character adds a pretty good contrast to Evelyn's outlook and provides for a nice character arc. Djimon Hounsou also appears in the last act, but his role is fairly limited.

I really enjoyed the prologue which gives us a glimpse of how things started. This heightens my curiosity about the recently released prequel, but then again, I usually enjoy films that show society unraveling because of some attack or disaster. I do think the logistics of how the Abbott family handles the aliens (carrying a speaker and a microphone all around) and also traveling with a newborn baby through this world requires a decent amount of suspension of disbelief, but it is what it is.

Despite that, the film still manages to build some really tense moments where the characters lives are in danger. The important thing is that we do care about them. That is where most of the strength of the film is; in how they build up these characters and this family, making us feel that they're the kind of people worth saving.

Grade:

Yet another month for which I decided to skip my usual challenge. But obviously, I didn't stop watching films.

So this is my summary for JUNE 2024:

Horror films: The Borderlands, Pearl, A Quiet Place Part II
90's action: Trespass, TimeCop
Animated films: Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Ultraman: Rising, Inside Out 2
Other films: Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Pandora, The Hunted
Silent short films: The Electric Hotel, Miniature Theatre, The Mermaid, The Devil in a Convent


My favorite first-time watch of June was between Escape from the Planet of the Apes, which was surprisingly good, and Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, which was a lot of fun.

The weakest first-time watch was probably Pandora, but I still think it was a pretty decent disaster film.

Beverly Hills Cop follows Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) a Detroit detective that travels to Beverly Hills to investigate the murder of a friend, which might be tied to Victor Maitland (Steven Berkoff), an art gallery owner that also dabbles in drug trafficking. Meanwhile, local cops Taggart (John Ashton) and his young partner Rosewood (Judge Reinhold) try to keep tabs on Foley while doing things "strictly by the book".

Unfortunately, Foley has several issues to deal with which are highlighted in the above quote from Taggart: First, he's from out of town, and second, he is a "foul-mouthed jerk". Both things end up putting him at odds with everyone, but Foley's bold and unpredictable attitude is also what puzzles Maitland. Can it be enough to make people believe the "foul-mouthed jerk from out of town" instead of the "important local businessman"?

This is a film I've seen several times, though not in a while. So with the newest entry in the franchise coming out, I thought it would be fitting to revisit it. The film follows a similar pattern to many other cop action/comedies of the 1980s where there really aren't a lot of stakes, characters are safe from harm, and the focus is mostly big action sequences and/or witty one-liners. With Murphy in the lead, you know this one leans more towards the latter.

Murphy is indeed a standout in pretty much every scene. He just oozes charisma and feels so comfortable in front of the camera. But more importantly, the way he jokes feels organic and part of his personality, and not like a comedian doing a schtick inside a film. His interactions with Taggart, Rosewood, their superior Bogomil (Ronny Cox), and friend Jenny (Lisa Eilbacher) feel earned. But jokes aside, Murphy also knows how to balance between funny quips and serious delivery when the script calls for it.

The film also delivers some solid action setpieces here and there, and Maitland makes for an easy-to-hate antagonist. However, the fact that the film doesn't really have any stakes in terms of will they live or not eliminates any thrill or suspense. Instead, everything feels like just a sequence of scenes leading to the big showdown. Who will walk away victorious? The important local businessman or the foul-mouthed jerk from out of town? Well, you know who, so enjoy the fu˘kin' ride.

Grade:

Review might include some SPOILERS

Blood. That preciously important body fluid. While inside our body, it works as a transport system delivering stuff to and from different parts of our bodies. When it's out, it can lead to death. Maybe because we bleed, or maybe because it can be used to trace us and where we're headed, for better or worse. But in a somewhat metaphorical way, blood can also tell us where we come from, what's in our nature. All those qualities – literal and physical, figurative and metaphorical – flow through this disturbing British horror thriller.

Eden Lake follows Jenny and Steve (Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender), a young couple that decide to spend the weekend at the titular lake but end up being terrorized by a gang of local youths. But what starts as disrespect and just "bad blood" quickly descends into torture and actual bloodspill. This is a film I had heard from, specifically when talking about disturbing films, but I had never ventured into. Now that I have, I can say that the reputation is, for the most part, earned.

The film is indeed disturbing, definitely intense, and most certainly nerve-wracking. The director does a great job setting a pace that starts out as a pressure cooker, building up tension between the characters until it blows. Both Fassbender and Reilly do a pretty good job of setting up an idyllic relationship that's about to hit a wall. Then it becomes a cat-and-mouse game between them where blood is used as a literal way to trace the couple, as the above quote shows, but also as a way to figuratively trace where the abusers come from.

The film is, in many ways, not an easy watch. The abuse that the couple is put through is bound to make some squirm. But I appreciate the fact that the film seems to have a bit more to offer than just blood. From passing references in the first act to parental responsibilites and education ("boys being boys") to the actual revelation in the end which shows you why these teenagers might behave the way they do. Granted, the film doesn't dwell in any deeper social analysis about it, but the implications are there.

Aside from Fassbender and Reilly, special kudos go to Jack O'Connell as Brett, the psychopatic leader of the gang. His antagonist is ruthless and merciless, but also troubled. The script and his performance offer glimpses of what's under the skin. Just watch him during a climatic scene with his dog and Steve which leads to chaos, and watch him in the chilling final scene and the very final shot. Brett might be a psychopath, but if you wanna see how far or not the apple has fallen from the tree, just "follow the blood".

Grade:

That's the assurance that John Garrity (Gerard Butler) gives to his father-in-law in the midst of a cataclysmic disaster. Despite all his faults, he will make sure that he saves his family. That's what Greenland is about, as it follows Garrity and his family trying to survive the impact of a destructive comet that is heading towards Earth. But to make it, they're gonna have to go past military roadblocks, desperate people, and numerous comet fragments.

Butler is no strange to action/disaster films. Maybe you've seen his Fallen trilogy (I haven't), the superbly titled Plane (haven't either), or the critically acclaimed Geostorm, but I guess I was in a certain frame of mind and expectations when I decided to give this a try. Imagine my surprise when this turned out to be a pretty decent disaster film with a solid emotional core at the center. Wasn't expecting it at all.

The film does follow the typical disaster film template: family discovers threat and prepares to go to a safe place, family is separated and encounters obstacles, family is reunited and have to race time to get to the safe place, i.e. Greenland. The thing with Greenland (the film, not the island) is that it takes its time to develop a connection with its main characters. The performances are not superb, but they're good enough to work with a solid script that does enough to expose certain key points and then builds tension on top of them with good action setpieces.

I found that first act as we're finding out the news of what's going on and the family's getting the alerts to be quite effective and well executed. There were some moments between the family and their friends and neighbors here I thought were quite powerful. The middle act does the usual trope of chaos getting the worst out of people, while putting our characters in the middle of tense situations. Parts of it are a bit predictable, but still works; while the last act goes more balls-to-the-wall with showers of comet fragments dropping on cars, shockwaves crashing planes, and some last minute saves.

Overall, Greenland doesn't really bring a lot of novelty to the table; but what it does, it does fairly well. It presents a flawed family that's easy to root for, and then puts us on the obstacle course to get them from point A, their home, to point B, the secure bunkers in *check notes* Greenland. Knowing Gerard Butler, you know he's gonna get his son and wife into that bunker, so it's up for us to enjoy the ride.

Grade:

That's the advice and assurance that Sergeant Neff (Lance Henriksen) gives 12-year-old Damien Thorne (Jonathan Scott-Taylor) after a particularly intense confrontation with a teacher. You see, Damien is the Antichrist. We know it, Neff knows it, but neither the world nor Damien himself are ready to know his true nature. Damien: Omen II follows him as he comes to terms with his fate as the "son of destruction".

Like the original, this is a film I had seen numerous times. Probably one of my entry points in horror cause I remember seeing them both on TV very often when I was still a kid. However, it had been a while since I had revisited it, so it was fun to go back to it. Even though the original is usually held as the superior one, I think the sequel does enough things well to hold its own as a worthy sequel. Is it a lesser effort? Yes, but a pretty good film nonetheless.

One of the highlights of the film, for better or worse, are the numerous deaths scenes. They're all big, bold deaths like being run over by a truck after a crow has pecked out your eyes, or being bisected by a falling elevator cable. I won't deny that I find most of them to be quite memorable, but like the first one, I think a bit of restrain would've served the film better. I have to give props to the guy that drowns in the frozen lake, which always gives me the heebie-jeebies.

It's great to see William Holden as the lead, and he adds a certain elegance to the film, and Henriksen is always a treat. But the true standout for me is Scott-Taylor, who I think shines in the role of Damien, offering a tragic quality to the character. The aforementioned confrontation with the teacher and the moment when he realizes who he is are standout moments for him. On the other hand, Lucas Donat's performance as his cousin Mark is somewhat weak.

Much like a 12-year-old that has grown past his childish charm, Damien: Omen II lacks the, umm, charm of the one that preceded it. It is a bit clumsy and ends up perhaps too abruptly. But it still offers enough dread, thrills, and gory kills to make for a worthy watch.

Grade:

Holy wordplay! Can Batman and Robin figure out a way to stop them? That's what Batman, the 1966 TV movie, will answer. Following up the success of the TV series, the film follows the Caped Crusader (Adam West) and his sidekick Robin (Burt Ward) as they try to foil the plans of their arch-nemeses who have joined forces against them. Like Commissioner Gordon says in the above quote, something "too monstrous to contemplate!".

I grew up in the 1980s at a time when the 1960s Batman TV series was a staple in local television. I have no specific recollection of watching this film, but I must have seen it during that time, even if I didn't remember it fully. But what a joy it was to go back to this world and this characters. Batman is a perfect example of camp done right.

It's interesting that I think this was the first time that I saw these characters in English (it was always dubbed when I saw it) and I think that the vocal delivery of the actors, especially West, adds so much to the overall vibe and feel. The caricaturesque innocence of the characters and the tongue-in-cheek wordplay, which included a surprising amount of innuendo, makes of this quite a fun watch.

It's also great to see actors like Cesar Romero and Burgess Meredith jump head-first into their characters. It's evident that they're all having a blast. If anything, I think the script short-changes The Joker a bit in favor of The Penguin, making the former feel more like a lackey to the latter instead of equals. Still, it's great to watch them, along with Frank Gorshin and Lee Meriwether, chew scenery like madmen (and madwoman).

Granted, most people dismiss this TV show and film as silly nonsense. However, although I won't contest the silliness of it, I do think that the creators knew exactly what they were doing and were doing it perfectly. I know that this villainous get-together was too monstrous to contemplate for Gordon, but I had a ton of fun contemplating it. KA-POW!!

Grade:

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

Glorious!

Re: Batman '66, I think this exchange as Batman and company try to figure out who's behind everything is so magical

Commissioner Gordon: It could be any one of them. But which one? Which ones?
Batman: Pretty *fishy* what happened to me on that ladder.
Commissioner Gordon: You mean where there's a fish, there could be a Penguin?
Robin: But wait! It happened at sea. See? C for Catwoman!
Batman: Yet, an exploding shark *was* pulling my leg...
Commissioner Gordon: The Joker!
Chief O'Hara: All adds up to a sinister riddle. Riddle-R. Riddler!
Commissioner Gordon: Oh, the thought strikes me. So dreadful, I scarcely dare give it utterance.
Batman: The four of them. Their forces combined.
Robin: Holy nightmare!

I mean, you gotta love this

Godzilla first stomped its way into our screens in 1954. A metaphor for nuclear weapons, it features humanity at the mercy of this seemingly aimless threat that they just can't control. My knowledge of the franchise doesn't extend beyond the original film and its American remakes, but as pop culture has taught me, this perception of the monster changed as Godzilla became a sort of hero invoked by the government to help them in certain crisis; like a pet, maybe? That "goofy" nature of the monster is more or less reverted to its original roots in the American Monsterverse, or is it?

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is the second installment withis this franchise to feature the big lizard. The film follows Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler) who is still coping with the death of his son during Godzilla's attack in San Francisco in the previous film. Meanwhile, his ex-wife (Vera Farmiga) and daughter (Millie Bobby Brown) are kidnapped by a group of eco-terrorists led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) who are trying to take control of several monsters, or "Titans", across the world. This forces Godzilla to return to fight them, as Mark tries to rescue his family.

I had seen 2014's Godzilla several years ago, but that's a film that literally vanished from my mind as soon as I saw it. But when one of my kids became interested in the franchise, we decided to dive in with him. Ironically, when he was watching that first one, I started watching it with him but ended up drifting away to do other things by the third act. That kinda says where I land with that one. Still, I decided to sit down with him for this one and I'm really glad I did, cause it might be my favorite from the Monsterverse.

The thing that puts this one above the ones that came before and after is its focus on real characters. 2014's Godzilla tried, but Aaron Taylor Johnson didn't really have the chops to carry the film. Here, the plight from Mark's family feels real and the emotional weight from what happened before and the twists that this film takes are effectively portrayed by the cast. The actions from Emma (Farmiga) feel believable within this world, and all of them – Chandler, Farmiga, and Brown – do a great job. Plus you give me the excellent Charles Dance as a bad guy and I'm sold.

Beyond the characters and performances, the film also delivers in the action department. Most of the action setpieces are thrilling and look great. How all the different Titans are awakened feels a bit like going through a checklist, but considering the material, I think it all feels well integrated. I also think some of the supporting characters get lost in the shuffle, which is made more notable by the fact that they are played by the likes of Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, and Zhang Ziyi, but at least it keeps us focused on the Russell family.

As I'm writing this, it's been already a while that I've seen the following two films so I've had some time to process it all. As much of a spectacle as those two other films offer, I'd rather stick with the stronger emotional core and the more coherent script of this one where the characters feel more at the mercy of these seemingly aimless threats that they just can't control, instead of just treating them as "pets".

Grade:

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEE!!! Godzilla vs. Kong follows the clash between the two titular figures as humans try to move Kong to a safer place while trying to decipher the reasons behind Godzilla's recent random attacks. Bla bla... yada yada... who cares? Godzilla vs. Kong, right? That is what the title promises and, for better or worse, that is what the title offers as the two creatures have multiple fights during the 113 minutes of the film.

Set several years after the events of Godzilla: King of the Monsters, the film features Alexander Skarsgĺrd as the new reluctant "human hero", Dr. Nathan Lind, a geologist who specializes in Hollow Earth and thus is recruited to lead the expedition to take Kong there. He is joined by Kong expert, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) and her adoptive daughter, Jia (Kaylee Hottle), a survivor from the Iwi tribe in Skull Island. Meanwhile, Millie Bobby Brown returns as Madison as she recruits conspiracy theorist and podcaster Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) to investigate Godzilla's attacks.

But anyway, Godzilla vs. Kong, right? This is one of the cases where you can infer that the plot is just an excuse to bring these two creatures together and have them fight over and over. So what this film lacks in human character development and emotional pull, it kinda makes up for with some pretty cool creature fights and action setpieces. I appreciated the different ways in which the two main fights are staged, with the final one in Hong Kong taking the upper hand for me, mostly for its use of the neon lights from the city to the benefit of the fight choreographies.

That's not to say that the cast doesn't do a great job, but they're really not given much to work with. It's been about a month since I saw the film and I've literally forgotten about Skarsgĺrd. On the other hand, I think Hall comes out as the best performance and her interactions with Jia do try to bring some emotional drive to the story. Henry has some moments, but he walks a fine line between funny and annoying. The cast is rounded out by Demián Bichir as the CEO of Apex Cybernetics, the company trying to solve the "Titan" problem. There are several other "important" characters, but who cares?

Even though it might seem I'm leaning towards the negative, I won't deny the pleasures of watching two big monsters punch each other repeatedly as they crush entire cities and buildings. Even if it lacks the humanity of the previous film, it is still a fun outing that delivers exactly what the title promises. Who will be the one standing in the end?

Grade:

That's the question that Crystal (Rae Gray) asks herself in the middle of a liquor store robbery. The literal answer is with an Uber driver called Ruben, but this short film from the great Jim Cummings seems to be more interested in the figurative answer.

With a 10-minute runtime, The Robbery presents Crystal as a lot of things. She is a bit laid-back, a bit desperate, a bit dick-ish, and clearly pushed to the edge because of multiple situations, and Gray excels in every single angle. As usual, Cummings shows his mastery at exposition by not giving us all the information, instead revealing little crumbs as the story advances.

In addition, as seems to be the trademark with a lot of Cummings' shorts, the whole film is shot in one continuous take, which makes everything even more impressive. So it doesn't matter if you're won over by Gray's excellent performance, Cummings' hilarious dialogue, or his skill with the camera, the important thing is that you got here.

Grade:

That's how crime-fiction writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings) describes why there is no such thing as a "perfect murder" outside of paper. Things won't always turn out the way the murderer wants and, as he says later, they might not even realize they've made some stupid mistake until they found everybody was looking at them. But that doesn't stop some from trying.

Dial M for Murder follows Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), a retired tennis player who has discovered that his wealthy wife Margot (Grace Kelly) is having an affair and secretly plans to murder her to inherit her money. Can he carry out the "perfect murder" or will "stupid mistakes" lead to everybody looking at him in the end?

This is a film I've seen several times and one that I have ranked on my Hitchcock Top 5, maybe even Top 3. What I love the most about it is Milland's performance as the calm and collected Tony. The whole first act when we see him detail his plan to his would-be accomplice, C.A. Swan (Anthony Dawson), is a masterclass in acting, but also in directing as Hitchcock makes the most of the enclosed space of an apartment to make us feel the tension from the characters.

The rest of the cast is great, especially Kelly, but Swan also makes the most out of a relatively small role. John Williams rounds out the cast as Hubbard, a clever inspector investigating the case that adds tinges of light humor to the story. Cummings' performance as Halliday is not bad, but the way his character is written is probably one of my main gripes with the film. I just don't feel the way he is integrated in the story feels as organic as it should.

But that's just one small gripe in an otherwise superbly acted and written story, masterfully directed by Hitchcock. Even if "perfect murders" don't always turn out the way some people want, this "murder" definitely turned out perfectly. A must-see for any fan of Hitchcock and/or well-written and well-acted thrillers.

Grade:

With that quick sentence, Marvel/Disney representative Kyle (Jim Cummings) dismisses the concerns of a grandmother whose terminally ill grandson is about to experience the newest Captain America film, as part of a sort of "Make-a-wish" program. Just like Kyle tackling those concerns with a quick brush, Cummings masterfully takes on the whole Marvel/Disney machinery and the state of Hollywood nowadays with this 11-minute short.

Is Now a Good Time? is Cummings' latest short film; the second he releases this year as part of a career that has been defined by a sort of DIY attitude, an evident love for filmmaking, constant and affable fan interaction, charisma, and non-stop grinding. This is part of what makes it so interesting AND funny to see him take jabs at the massive, "conveyor-belt-like" production system of Marvel/Disney.

Is Now a Good Time? continues Cummings' style of mixing heartfelt and honest drama with biting humor, as his character has to put on this facade to "sell" this film to this kid; a facade that cracks at times during his presentation and eventually crumbles in the end. As for the ending... it was a choice, but one that highlights the fact that Cummings is here to do his own thing, and not bring you something that is "just like the other ones".

Grade:

Obviously I loved The Robbery. So funny.

With Dial M for Murder, that's a movie we owned when I was a kid, so we watched it a LOT. My one thing with it that I can't unsee is the fact that it was made to be shown in 3D (something my mom pointed out the first time we watched it together) and now I always notice, like, the random row of bottles between you and the action in one scene, or the way that the key is aggressively pushed toward the camera in another scene. It's not terrible, but just a bit silly.

Probably a top five Hitchcock for me.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

In Godzilla x Kong, Kong's control of Hollow Earth is threatened by an evil monkey called Skar King and his "pet" lizard, Shimo. This forces Kong to team up with Godzilla as he tries to take back his home. At the same time, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) has to deal with the struggles of her adoptive daughter Jia (Kaylee Hottle) to adapt to "regular life".

The latest entry in the Monsterverse takes all the worst aspects of its predecessors and tries to make something out of it. On one hand, it pushes most of its human characters to the background and makes mere caricatures out of most of them, while on the other hand, it treats the two titular creatures as "pets" instead of real threats (see my review of Godzilla: The King of Monsters). Heck, Godzilla even sleeps all curled up inside the Colosseum like a puppy.

There is a certain amount of silliness expected from a film like this, but it has to be handled properly. Godzilla vs. Kong did a solid job with it; this one, not so much. It's just one stupid contrivance after the other surrounded by a whole bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make any sense. Did I mention the underground civilization that communicates telephatically while using portals to travel to the surface? It's just too much nonsense.

There is some fun to be had out of the fights between the creatures, even if at times it feels like a checklist. Look! They're fighting in the pyramids. Ha! Now they're in Rio. There is also a fun rapport between new character Trapper (Dan Stevens) and returning character Bernie (Brian Tyree Henry), but like I said, they're all caricatures used to move the plot forward until the inevitable clashes between the creatures. For the most part, I was bored by it.

Grade:

Agree on King of Monsters! While most of the latest big monster flicks didn't do much for me, I really enjoyed King of Monsters. Easily the best of the most recent Godzilla flicks. That said, I have yet to see Godzilla Minus One.

__________________