Tag: Comedy

This film was watched as a part of the Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF). Egghead & Tinkie had its Seattle Premier at the festival and is currently on the virtual fest. See an interview with the director Egghead & Twinkie, here!

Are you an Egghead? Or are you a Twinkie? These are battlelines that have never been drawn before, but I am drawing them here today. Which side of the camp do you fall on?

Oh, I guess you might not know what side each of them really represent. Which is fair, you likely haven’t seen the movie. But the movie is called Egghead & Twinkie, so I at least know the point of it is that the pair is important. We don’t need to pick sides, we need to pick both of them. And ignore the strange doppelganger pairs like Eggkie and Twinhead.

Yep, this is the Eggkie and Twinhead pair for sure. Twinkie (Sabrina Jieafa) is living her life in her summer after high school, and finally realizing what she is about. She is gay, and doesn’t care who knows it. Well, she hasn’t told the people in her life. Her conservative parents (Kelley Mauro, J. Scott Browning) don’t know, and she assumes her best friend, Egghead (Louis Tomeo) knows, but for sure people on the internet know! Especially BD, which is short for BigDykeEnergy (Ayden Lee), the current love of her life.

But BD lives in Texas, and Twinkie lives in Florida. Life is unfair. They can talk all they want on the internet, but they can’t be close to each other, so its almost like Twinkie can’t even tell for real if she is a lesbian! But, an opportunities arrives. An invite, to a club, where BD is DJing, a complete lesbian night. But Twinkie doesn’t drive, and its a long ways away.

Sounds like a great time to convince Egghead to drive her, who recently found out about her sexuality, and still crushes on her hard. But maybe this bonding trip is important before he runs off to college. Even if their parents say no, what can they do to stop them? If they got wheels and they are on the road, and they got money, looks like they will just have to wait to punish them when they get back. And hopefully, along the way, they can find themselves before it’s too late.

Also starring Roger Greco and Asahi Hirano.

When movies have people watch movies, is there anything better?There are indie movies, and then there are indie movies. The first sort of indie movie has a very specific set of goals. It will be award winning, it will be a character study, it will have a lot of natural lighting. You will likely have a lot of shots of characters walking, often from behind. You won’t have lots of CGI, and you will likely cry over what seems like ordinary circumstances.

And then there is indie films that literally look like they were made by first time folks, with little experience. The lighting might be weird, the acting might not be great, the story will be unique and quirky. And it might be terrible, and maybe no one will watch it. It doesn’t have to be terrible, there is just a better chance of that occurring.

Egghead & Twinkie is the second sort of indie film, but thankfully, it isn’t terrible. Everything about it gives off an aura of fun and cuteness. The people making it were having fun, the story was fun. It felt like everyone involved maybe on their first film, and it is okay, because it invites the viewers on the experience.

There is nothing groundbreaking from the story here. Road trip film, best friends with one way crushes, shenanigans along the way and betrayals. But the movie does feel like a very Gen Z film. It was made by Gen Zers and acted by them and it shows. I am noting this as a positive. Just the way they spoke, the references, and all of that, was arguable refreshing because most films only do that in a mocking way and not in a genuine way. The animation between them adds to it as well, fitting the characters, and giving that same high energy aspect towards the whole film.

Egghead & Twinkie, a film made by Gen Z, with Gen Z people, for Gen Z people, and it is refreshing in those takes alone.

3 out of 4.

These films were watched as a part of the Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF). I Like Movies is the official CLOSING FILM and has its Seattle Premier on Sunday, May 22 2023. Check out my interview with Chandler Levack here! 

Do you like movies? I know I like movies. Hell, I might love them. I might be in love with them, if you ask my wife. But if you like movies, or like the idea of movies, then I got a movie for you.

Have you heard about I Like Movies? It is from Canada! And based on the film title alone, I knew it was the type of film I needed to see, as soon as possible. Describing what it is about is just a waste of time on me. I like movies and want to watch movies about liking movies. If that is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.

This is just a picture someone took of me in a movie theater, what the hell?

Lawrence Kweller (Isaiah Lehtinen) is a senior in high school, and he knows what he wants in his life. He wants to leave Canada, go to NYU, and join their film program. Then he wants to direct films and become super famous and have love in the world.

But there are a few problems. He is notably not rich, and NYU is expensive. He could just go to a Canadian school and be much better off, but he doesn’t want to be a Canadian director. He also doesn’t have a lot of experience outside of film classes in his school. He can’t even watch every movie he wants to watch. So, he is ready to finally help his future career and he gets a job. At a movie rental store!

Now, not only can he start earning fat stacks of cash to go to school. But he can talk about film with coworkers. With customers. And see more movies (for free!). Things are really looking up for Lawrence. Ain’t nothing bad gonna happen to him now.

Also starring Krista Bridges, Percy Hynes White, Alex Ateah, Tavaree Daniel-Simms, and Romina D’Ugo as his boss at work.

Look at these happy people. Clearly they all want to talk about movies 24/7. 

If I had a fear about I Like Movies going into it, is that it would be a movie made for people who were really into movies. And let’s be clear, I am fine when that happens! I am into movies, so I will get it, and usually get hyped around it. And while I Like Movies carries that sort of vibe, and it will make plenty of movie references, it is also just a standalone good movie. On its own. Even if you are a normie not already at 250 films for the year (whoops).

What we have in this picture is a main character who will infuriate you and make him love him the next scene. He has some issues, that he has certainly not worked through in any positive way. But yet I understand where he is coming from every time. I understand his best friend, and his boss, and his mother. A film where everyone still feels like a real person, even when some more egregious events happen along the way.

And in general, it also gives me back some of that nostalgia of not just working in a movie rental store, but also being a shopper in a movie rental store. When you had time to choose and there were a finite, yet good amount of options. This is a film that wants you to remember those good times, and maybe even, the bad times you had with these stores and their late fees.

I Like Movies is a simple film, telling a simple story, about a main character who does not like simplicity in the films he watches. He is not here for re-releases of Shrek, he is here for cinema. When it becomes available, it is a movie worth watching in a theater, with others. It isn’t just a coming of age story in the like of late 90s coming of age stories. It is about the industry and how it changes people, for better or for worse, the struggles within it, and how despite it all, we keep crawling back towards the movies we love.

4 out of 4.

New Jackie Chan movie?!

Hooray! It has been some amount of time. Honestly, I think I just naturally assumed at this point he retired. As of this moment, he is 69 years old (nice) and spent his life doing action films and hardcore stunt work. It must take a tole on his body and at some point, you gotta stop pushing yourself so hard and actually enjoy the fruits of your labor. You know, unless the retirement age keeps going up. But that is another topic.

This time Jackie Chan is seemingly picking a new sort of costar. A horse. A horse he is, presumably, going to Ride On. Thus the title.

But over the last fifteen years, there was no guarantee we would get classic Jackie Chan action. He is in more drama films and films where he has a small role. So this could have all been a ruse, who knows!

There is a mask, what if it is not Chan behind the mask?

First of all, this was not a ruse! Lao Luo (Jackie Chan) is an old man, who is mostly staying out of people’s way. He has a daughter, Xiao Bao (Haocun Liu), who wants him to just be chill and careful. It turns out he used to be a stuntman for films. So he had to do hard tasks, and his body took a beating. Huh, sounds familiar. But eventually, at some point, a mishap did happen, and it took a big toll on Luo, where he for sure had to stop.

This led to other issues. And eventually, many debts.

So now he is just is raising a horse, notably Red Hare, basically his best friend. They train together and trust each other. So when some debt collectors come and try to attack Luo, he is able to fight them off, with the help of his horse, and some recordings have this go viral.

Turns out, this was just what he needed to get back into the game. An older man, sure, but the horse? Hell yeah. They can do exciting horse action stunts, doesn’t matter his age.

Where does that leave us? An old man, who was already injured before, putting his body on the line again. And still debt issues and legal issues at the same time. Too much for a retired life.

Also starring Rongguang Yu, Kevin Guo, Jing Wu, and Joey Yung.

Is there anything stronger than the bond between a man and his horse?

Ride On is a film that has a lot going on with it. In fact, I would say, too much.

In one obvious way it feels like a love letter to Jackie Chan’s career, just hiding it behind a new face. It is really easy to see this plot aspect, especially when it comes to the character trying to protect the horse, yet still push the horse to more and more dangerous stunts, despite the obvious limitations. The initial disgust and anger towards using CGI for a stunt, even though it was one that clearly would hurt. And of course another moment looking at a montage of the characters “past stunts” when they were younger.

That is the movie I was hoping to see, while still getting the benefit of some interesting cool fight and stunt work. Yes I wanted it both ways.  But I knew that at least the fights and stunts throughout the film would actually be helped with CGI and safety would be a concern, because it is not the 80s anymore and there would be no chance of disaster.

And so I was happy with the fun fights and stunts and classic Jackie Chan humor with these fisticuffs, just also with a horse.

Unfortunately, the film is bogged down with the legal and debt story. That is likely another aspect of stunt work they wanted to highlight. These people are movie stars, whose bodies decay and don’t get the riches the face stars get. And they have legal problems that can tear their lives apart. But that aspect of the film just wasn’t given to us as well as the other exciting parts. It slowed down the film, and didn’t really give the best context.

I wondered of course if this film, Ride On, was meant to be a retirement film for Chan. But IMDB showed 7 titles currently in Upcoming, it means that Chan had a couple year break, maybe from just COVID concerns, and now he is still going forth and ready to do his thing.

2 out of 4.

Poundcake is part of Make Believe Seattle, and it is playing on Sunday, March 26, 2023. 

Heh. Poundcake.

If you want to make an attention grabbing movie, it always starts with an attention grabbing title. And poundcake would certainly make most people curious about your film.

I mean, there is a chance it is about actual cakes. Which would for sure be a win overall. But it could also be slang and go a lot of different ways. And I am here to let you know, it certainly goes those ways.

Immediately, it is one of the more negative of those ways based on this image.

A new killer is out on the loose! Apparently. It is amazing that one could even find that out since it is in New York City, but these deaths are a bit different.

First of all there is a pattern. Everyone at that point had been a straight white male. Not too surprising there, I guess. They all had been strangled as part of their death. So there is some level of pattern there. Oh, and they also had been raped. Yep.

So despite no one seeing the killer, all of these happening in isolation, there is a clear theme and focus. And it has the city in, well, has them curious. Is this okay? Is this revenge? Is this a form of justice?

Who is to say overall, but those who have some level of minority are feeling a lot more safe about themselves during these times, for sure.

Starring Onur Turkel (also the director), Eva Dorrepaal, and Ron Brice. A lot of others too, but this isn’t on IMDB yet and I am limited in finding people.

People should talk more about serial killers at the workplace. 

To start off, this movie was a lot funnier than I thought it had the right to be. I mean, it was very low budget and its visual framings were never that creative. But it has got personality, friends. A lot of it. A lot of weird, oozing personality.

A large percentage of the film is framed through podcast recordings. Various different groups talking about current events in their lives and cities. Most of them themed around gender, race, or some sort of drug using identity. And from that we got to hear the discussions of “other New Yorkers” about their thoughts and feelings during these attacks, and how they affect their views on other people. The podcasters are real characters too, not just a narrative device, and their lives are explored for a bit in the film, including when groups break apart, change members, or share guests for interviews. Outside of the whole, murdering of white dudes angle, it was basically the other main plot in the film.

A film that also had some strange subplots, like the director playing a character really certain in his sexuality while exploring new things sexually. It related to the rest of the story, a little.

Honestly, the ending of the film, during the memorial, had me in all sorts of giggles. Quite a lot of scenes, but the ending went full ridiculous and I am happy that the film embraced the ridiculousness of the story. The write up on the festival site calls the director, “one of the most astute and fearless satirists of his generation,” which is obviously written by his team/PR group, but it is definitely some level of fearless satire going on here. In films we want originality, and if anything, Poundcake has some originality.

3 out of 4.

I have had to write this title, The People We Hate At The Wedding, at least 10 times now in my life. And every time, it just feels wrong. I don’t mind long titles, but the “We” really throws me off, because who are the we? Are we the viewer, the we? Are we acknowledging that the leads in the film are the people we hate?

Because the title feels like something that the character should be saying. But at the same time, it is clear from the poster, that the main characters are the characters that should be hated. Are they hating on even more characters? Are they aware they they should be hated for their behavior?

I think it might be a better title if We was replaced by You. Then it has more of a documentary feel. We know we are watching and supposed to hate them. It is a movie showcasing them!

It turns out that my grumbles towards the title, despite loving the three leads, was just the start of my issues.

 

Hey look, it’s those people we all agree we hate.

 

Donna (Allison Janney) and Henrique (Isaach De Bankolé) got married and had a kid in London, named Eloise (Cynthia Addai-Robinson). But their relationship didn’t last, so they broke up and Donna went back to America, where she got married again (Andy Daly), and had two kids, Alice (Kristen Bell) and Paul (Ben Platt). They would get to see Eloise when she visited once a year, and got to do American cuisine like Taco Bell. They were an okay family, but Eloise was rich, and Alice/Paul were not, and it seemed to just get worse over the years.

So now that they are adults, and miserable in their lives. Alice is in a strange relationship with her boss (Jorma Taccone), who is rich, but also, you know, married. Ben is in a relationship with Dominic (Karan Soni), who apparently wants to experiment with a more open relationship. Their mom, Donna, is single again. And she doesn’t really talk to any of her kids.

But they all get an invite to Eloise’s wedding. She will pay for a lot of the trip too, but she wants her whole family there. However, her extended family is upset with her, or the situation for various reasons. And when miserable people conglomerate together, where they feel more miserable, then you’re gonna have a bad time.

 

Here are more people. Should we hate them too? 

Comedies can be hit and miss, depending on the subject matter. Wedding movies are similar. For example, six years ago we got Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (oh hey, something else starring Pitch Perfect alumni). It wasn’t loved overall, but I had a good time with it and laughed a long with. Unfortunately with this film, I just could never care about their experiences. 

The protagonists are in sad situations, but none of them feel relatable. So I don’t care about their downward trend then eventual growth throughout the film. Instead it is more of a “well, miserable people deserve to be miserable” sort of attitude I had. “Oh no!…anyways”

It just feels like absolutely no joke landed. I don’t know if it is because of how unoriginal the story felt, or if it was just poorly paced or what. I do know that I wasn’t shocked at any point of the film. Once it was fully set up, it was predictable where would be by the end of the movie. 

There are no stand outs from the cast. It is nice that they let Ben Platt be gay on screen, which hasn’t happened a lot. But the movie itself is as forgettable. Just like the actual phrasing of the title. 

 

1 out of 4.

 

Here is an interview with the director of Razzennests, Johannes Grenzfurthner!

Razzennest is a snazzy title, and something that really makes me crave pizza. Makes me want to seek out that razzle dazzle. That is all of the double z words I can think of in a short span of time, I apologize for not being able to make that introduction joke go longer.

Razzennest might be a German word meaning Rat Nest, or it can be something very different on who you ask.

Regardless of who you ask on translating Razzennest, the film itself is a film that cannot be translated into any other film for comparison. It is a film unique on its own, and we shall see why in a moment.

This is a cock. 

The Thirty Years War (which lasted about 30 years) took place in Central Europe in the 1600’s. It involved the church, of course, people getting kicked out of windows, and just a lot of religious inspired death. Razzennest is about that war, kind of.

The imagery that starts the movie, landscapes, broken buildings, statues, fill the screen, until we hear a voice. Whose voice? Why Babette Cruickshank (Sophie Kathleen Kozeluh) of course. Because she is introducing us to the director’s film commentary of the film, Razzennest. Strange names aside, you would have been confused (if you didn’t read this description first) and thought there was a mistake, but do not worry, this is intentional. Because while you will see the film Razzennest with your eyes, you will quickly see the real Razzennest was not just the friends we made along the way, but the fake director commentary on top of it.

Because director Manus Oosthuizen (Michael Smulik) is an asshole, and has a vision, and hates dumb questions and mispronounced names. And the beginning of the commentary is full of conflict and angst. But unfortunately, darker forces are afoot in their commentary room, and things will only get weirder and scarier from there.

Also featuring the voices of Roland Gratzer, Joe Dante, Jim Libby, Anne Weiner, and Bob Rose.

This is a hole in the ground. Razzennest is a HARD film to talk about, because honestly, just mentioning the type of film it is feels like a spoiler, even though that happens immediately. It almost felt like telling people to “get ready for the fake trailers” in front of Tropic Thunder. Just let it happen. But I also know it would be hard for me to talk about anything else, than the commentary track, since that is 95% of the film.

Yes, it still has visuals. But the visuals were clearly chosen to not be distracting, but aiding instead. Real footage of places in Europe, of old destruction, of old structures, of nature, and former battlegrounds. But there are no characters on that screen. There is not other dialogue, or interactions. It is just scenes spliced together, sometimes aggressively, to enhance the commentary story. It often matches the tone and uncomfortableness in some ways with the commentary, clearly being extremely deliberate with the editing so that it is an enhancer, not a hindrance.

In terms of the dialogue, you know, the 95% of the film, it has a pretty varied cast of characters with distinct enough voices and mannerisms to not confuse the viewer. Without knowing exact amounts, the first 1/3 of the film is meant to just be uncomfortable, awkward, and a bit silly and funny. But there are hints of what to come. And damn it, I can keep at least that part a secret still. After all, this is a Horror Comedy, not just a Comedy.

The film’s goal is to both make fun of the pretentiousness of arthouse award winning indie films, while also, at the same time, being one itself. It is punching across, not down or up. It was done on a shoe string budget, with an idea that Hollywood would never try out, because it would be a hard sell for audiences.

I had to go back into my memory banks, the only experience I had that was similar to this was Sounds Dangerous!, which was a Drew Carey audio show attraction at Disney World. The audience was given headphones, and were mostly in the dark, to experience this audio story telling device, with many sound cues to make the audience get all weird feeling. It was unique, and yet, Razzennest is clearly unique-r.

Razzennest is adding complexity to it, by having visuals, by making it meta, and by both deconstructing a genre while partaking in the genre at the same time. There is really nothing like Razzennest, and I honestly can’t imagine too many things being like Razzennest in the future either. Unless this sort of film starts to take off, like Found Footage films did after The Blair Witch Project.

I fully recommend checking out this movie if it is ever in your vicinity, although I realize that will likely be hard for some time. Because there is nothing else like it available. Until we get Razzennest 2 in twelve years, to tell a similar story, but with water!

3 out of 4.

Here is an interview with the director of Unidentified objects, Juan Felipe Zuleta! 

Everyone wants to talk about the UFO’s, but what if they aren’t flying? What if they walk? What if they teleport? What if they just sit there like a rock and do nothing?

I guess they would just be called UOs, Unidentified Objects. They are less exciting than UFO’s, but they still are unidentified, so I guess no one knows what they are. They are mysterious.

So for a film that goes by that name, we know it has to involve some aliens, but the walking variety. A welcome change, if I am being honest.

I can confirm, neither of these objects look like they can fly. 

Peter (Matthew Jeffers) lives alone in NYC, and honestly, he prefers it that way. He is angry at the world for many reasons. There is a pandemic, that is one of them, sure. But he is gay, a dwarf, and just in general doesn’t have many friends.

So who knocks on his door? Winona (Sarah Hay), one of his neighbors, whom he doesn’t really talk to ever. But she has an emergency. She needs to go on a small trip, and doesn’t have a way to get there. It is to visit her sister. And she offers to pay him almost $2000 for the trip. He does need the money, so…screw it.

However, it turns out that she did mislead Peter on their destination and the reason. First, they have to go into Canada. Second, it is with a goal of getting to a specific spot at a specific time in order to meet…aliens! She believes in them and has some good information. But they will have to sneak across the border, and meet a lot of interesting individuals along the way. Not that they aren’t interesting individuals themselves.

Also starring Elliot Frances Flynn, Hamish Allan-Headley, Kerry Flanagan, Tara Pacheco, and Roy Abramsohn.

Canada means lumberjacks, that is a fact. 

Unidentified Objects on its own sounds like a story you may have seen over and over again.  A road trip film about unlikely companions, to discover something about the world, and hopefully, themselves. And sure. Yes, this is one of those films. And yet despite that, it feels quite unique in its story telling and it is worth the time.

The strength in the film lies mostly in their leads, who both bring about what feels like real passion and real emotion to their roles. This isn’t a zany road trip film. The people met along the way would normally be the types of characters at the butt of the jokes for our main characters, but everyone met is explored and given room to breathe. Whether that is good or bad for the leads depends on whom they meet along the way, but despite being a film about going to potentially meet aliens, it reminds grounded and it excels in that aspect.

Despite being a realistic film, it does feature quite a few dream sequences, to keep the viewer on their toes, and to help explore the characters better, especially our main lead. They almost always got me too, they mostly flowed well from the regular scene, until they didn’t. One cop scene in particular got very weird, very quickly.

With Unidentified Objects, it is a film that is easy to skip from the description alone, but I was blown away by how much I cared about the characters and their individual journeys before the end of it. Strong acting performances from people who aren’t big names. You love to see it.

4 out of 4.

A lot of times to start these reviews, I will talk about the title as an effective or ineffective tool, or how people might perceive the movie. This time it isn’t a joke. It is all honesty. See How They Run sounds like a horror film. It just does. Or maybe even a war film.

I would have never guessed a Comedy/Mystery movie. I certainly would never have guessed it was something Agatha Christie adjacent. What does that mean? You will soon find out.

You will also find out why this stacked cast, full of actors I love, did very little for me unfortunately throughout the picture.

This is most of the cast! Not even the biggest names! One or more of these characters might die!

In the 1950’s, there was TV and Movies, but let’s be clear, it wasn’t the top tier stuff we know about now. So what did people do? Well, there wasn’t a war, so they went to plays!

One popular playwright was Agatha Christie, whom you have heard of before. She wrote a lot of murder mystery plays, which had the audience guessing and sworn to secrecy that they wouldn’t spoil the ending of the play. After all, then people wouldn’t come and see them!

One play in particular, The Mouse Trap, was doing very well, and it got a lot of people excited about murder mysteries. It may have been even based on a real story. It is doing so well, a few people have the great idea to turn it into a film. People are watching films now, so why not let a lot more see it on a bigger scale? Great idea!

Until people start dying, who are associated with the film. No, this is not Scream 3. This is See How They Run. Now we have an Inspector (Sam Rockwell) and his rookie assistant (Saoirse Ronan) are going to try and find the killer. While also dealing with apathy and inexperience. And some intrigue, sure.

Also starring Shirley Henderson, Adrien Brody, David Oyelowo, Ruth Wilson, Reece Shearsmith, Charlie Cooper, and Harris Dickinson as a young Richard Attenborough.

See, I kept the biggest names hidden. Oh what a mystery that was!

This film is going for some sort of meta look on Agatha Christie plays, by having a murder mystery involved with the making of an Agatha Christie film. A real murder during fake murders! It is something that has been done before, so while feeling like it could be a unique look, it isn’t actually too unique. Now we have to compare it to just meta murder films and plays. At the same time, we have to compare it to actual Agatha Christie plays.

That is a lot of comparisons it needs to overcome. Unfortunately, it fails on those levels.

In terms of positives, I can say this movie is really well shot and costumed. It has a great visual look to it, and it is clearly using some good cameras and interesting scenes. I also think Ronan’s character was interesting, and that this one felt a bit more unique when compared to the majority of her other roles. Again, the spunky new cop who is smart and gets things figured out is not a new archetype either. It is just unique for her own body of work.

In terms of everything else, I am just left disappointed. From the eventual reveal, to the death scenes, to the jokes (this is a comedy, technically), and to even Sam Rockwell. I love Sam Rockwell. But much like his character didn’t want to be there, it felt like he didn’t want to be there either.

See How They Run is just a snooze. The jokes fall as flat as the bodies that eventual hit the floor. Its meta qualities don’t even feel like a unique enough reason to give it a watch out of curiosity.

1 out of 4.

Twenty-eight years ago, Clerks was released into the world, and I would like to think that the world changed a bit. It helped independent films gain some notoriety, right? It certainly helped Harvey Weinstein, but that is a different story. I watched this film years later, somewhere as a teenager, after already seeing Mallrats at the time.

Sixteen years ago, Clerks II was released! I was able to see that movie the day it had came out. We had to drive an hour to see it, my brother and I, and there wasn’t a lot of people in the theaters. It was certainly a good time. The sequel had similarities with the first film, but certainly stood on its own. And plus, they could afford to Rosario Dawson money, who was actually famous!

The release of Clerks III has taken a long time to come. I know at some point, a script was written for a film, but that did not happen. At a different time, it was turned into a screenplay where the goal was to have it performed on stage for some amount of time, and then shown in theaters in some sort of Fathom event. That also did not come to fruition.

It took Kevin Smith almost dying for him to make Jay and Silent Bob Reboot. But using that same influence, he decided to then make Clerks III about his experiences as well. Even though, theoretically, Clerks was about some of his experiences. And well, that means are getting what they call one of them/there Meta films.

 

Damn, the stoners are back to doing drugs. Ain’t that a shame.

 

At the end of Clerks II, Dante (Brian O’Halleran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson) bought the Quick Stop that had burned down with Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob’s (Kevin Smith) movie money. They hired Elias (Trevor Fehrman) as one of their employees. And of course, Dante finally was able to realize what he wanted in a love life with Becky (Rosario Dawson), whom was pregnant with a child and now engaged.

So where are we at the new movie? Well, the same amount of time has passed and everyone is still at the same store, doing the same job. Except the job is more fun. For example, they can play hockey on the roof without it being a big deal, because they are the owners.

Unfortunately, Randal ends up having a heart attack and almost dies. [Hey, like Kevin Smith!…] Well, Randal doesn’t like that. Sure he might have to change some of his lifestyle, but since he almost died, he wants to make sure he leaves some impact on the world. Instead of just sitting around all day watching movies, he wants to make a movie. He must have learned enough about it now to make a good one right? And why not just make it about what he knows best, working a convenience store as a clerk serving the public.

And Elias worships Satan now.

Also starring Marilyn Ghigliotti and Austin Zajur. 

 

“This job would be great if it wasn’t for all the goddamn movie critics.” – Kevin Smith, probably.

 

How did Clerks III do? Did it nail the landing? Was it poignant yet funny? Was it sad and finale? Was it just dick and fart jokes? The Before trilogy is wonderful, telling the story of two people every 9 years in their life. Starring the same two actors, and the same director. Is the Clerks trilogy technically doing the same thing, over a longer time frame? Yes. But each part does not feel worthwhile, I am afraid.

There are two very specific moments that I certainly cannot talk about. One found out early on, and one dealing with the film’s climax. The earlier one annoyed me greatly, and changed the context of the film. The latter one made me cry, and yet at the same time, it felt cheap. It felt like something I have seen before. Heck, part of it feels like it was ripped straight out of Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. Unlike Clerks II, where I cried due to great love on the screen, this film had me crying from sadness, but sadness that did not feel earned, nor did it feel like it was even well respected by the material. A very odd position to be in, given the creator’s closeness to this franchise.

Outside of those two specific spoilery moments, most of the movie was watching these older characters try to film and create, what is essentially, the clerks movie. Using friends of theirs from the past to do similar roles inspired by their own fictional real events. What that means is that we got to see a LOT of cameos from the first film, reprising their same roles, and doing the same scenes. That is pretty interesting. Sure. But at the same time, the hardships that came with filming, and the specific things that popped up, were all real experiences as well. And they are all well known and well documented experiences. Because if there is anything Kevin Smith likes doing, it is telling stories from his life. So I was seeing scenes I have already heard before and read before, making the whole thing lose its edge really quickly. I didn’t care about seeing an episode of SModcast, I wanted to see a new movie. 

There are other elements of the trilogy that this one doesn’t follow. I am not saying it has to, but it does help stylistically set the Clerks movies apart. This film does not take place over a day, it takes place over many many weeks. A small annoyance, but notable nonetheless.

The Elias plot line with his crypto friend was incredibly wasted. I don’t think either made me laugh at all. 

The problems with Clerks III is that instead of telling a good new story, Smith instead chose to tell an old story. And when a lot of your movie is literally rehashed jokes from the first one, it is hard to care. At least in the Jay and Silent Bob Reboot I got closure for Chasing Amy, so it doesn’t need some bad sequel. For this specific series, I should have stopped after it peaked with the interspecies erotica. 

 

1 out of 4.

 

Did John Lasseter fuck around with employees and sexually harass people while working for Disney/Pixar?

Well, most assuredly yes. He even admitted to it and called them missteps. That is pretty poorly worded. What a fuck. So he got booted out of Disney/Pixar, which makes sense. But damn it, he has /talent/ so he can’t not have a job. How will he live off of his previous riches?

So Skydance Animation was made! Okay, it was made before that controversy. But they hired Lasseter to run it, because they wanted a big name I guess. And that is the intro you get to have for their first animated film, Luck! Which is premiering straight to Apple+.

Oh, but this movie has dragons. Why isn’t it on HBO?

Luck is a story about Sam (Eva Noblezada), whom you might have already guessed, is unlucky. She is clumsy, she is late, her stuff stops working, she falls, she gets pains, but damn it she is 18 now, and about to live life on her own. Her own apartment, her own basic job. Why is that? Oh yeah, because she was also in a foster home. Yep, her unluckiness meant she was also there for years and never got taken in by a “forever family”, and just had to live a sad life alone. Yep, we are going depressing with this real quick.

But leaving the home meant that that Hazel (Adelynn Spoon) is now alone. A newer foster kid in the home. Sam makes sure she should still visit so often, so she won’t be alone, and hopes she has better luck.

Sure enough, she runs into a black cat, who drops a coin (ah, must be a lucky penny), and then Sam has good luck! She blames it on the coin of course, and wants to give it to Hazel so she can be adopted (fuuuck, that’s too depressing for me). But, once again, she is unlucky and loses it after intentionally setting it down.

That is when she runs into the cat again and….well, the rest is history. You know, after she follows it to a secret Luck world where Good Luck is created and fostered, with a polar opposite Bad Luck side that brings bad luck into the world, with a smorgasbord of diverse characters.

Also starring Colin O’Donoghue, Flula Borg, Jane Fonda, Lil Rel Howery, Maurice J. Irvin, Simon Pegg (as the cat!), John Ratzenberger, and Whoopi Goldberg.

Oh shit, emotions rising. Characters are hugging!

Honestly, this movie made me cry. But it is seriously hard not to. The first ten minutes are extremely sad. I feel so bad, that the took something kind of whimsical like having good or bad luck and equating it to something so serious like having someone fucking adopt you. Normally the stakes for this type of thing are missing a shot in a big sports game, or question in a competition. But sorry, your unusual unluckiness prevented parents from wanting to have you in their life? And often not show up at all for visits? Goddamn, calm down movie people.

Honestly, writing that makes me a bit more annoyed as it all comes together.

For the film itself, it is pretty damn basic. It feels like a lot of other generic kid fantasy films. Go to a magical realm. Have a diverse cast of different characters and magical beasts to look at. Have to go from point to point to collect things, to get closer and closer to a goal. And learn a lesson, that is really obvious from us the viewer. Just a standard, unimaginative story line. Even if it is in a new world we haven’t been before, it doesn’t do anything particular shocking with that world.

Overall, Luck is really lazy. For a child, it might be nicely distracting. But its tone is off, and honestly leaving a bad taste in my mouth to cheapen foster kids and adoption into good and bad luck. Sure the film made me cry, like twice, but it did so by being very manipulative with some real tragedies that didn’t actually matter for a lot of the story.

1 out of 4.