Film reviews

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Review

Leave a comment

The jams of amazement and creativity are still full of chills and haunting nostalgia. Director Tim Burton knows his audience. He knows where to find the twists, the turns, and the genius in unconventional moments. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice thrives with cleverness. Over three decades later, a beat is still not missed in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. There is more that goes awry as adventure abounds in the world of Burton.

The film begins with the focus on Lydia Deetz (played by Winona Ryder), who I admire in this daring role. Lydia’s life has turned to having her TV series of paranormal activities. She is trying to dismiss that Beetlejuice (played by Michael Keaton) was part of her life. The dynamics of the characters offer more quirks and added value in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. Lydia’s daughter is Astrid (played by Jenna Ortega). Lydia feels her life is a blur of nonsense. With Delia Deetz (played by Catherine O’Hara) still in the picture, Astrid feels her life is a joke until things change. Lydia decides she is going to marry her assistant Rory (played by Justin Theroux) on Halloween night? How much more of a headache can the various aspects of Astrid’s life be?

Beetlejuice is still around. The film does a stellar job at keeping its audience in motion with the many revolving layers of creepy darkness. Keaton delivers that grizzly, demonic, yet hysterical voice with all the excitement that fans crave. Keaton never misses the beat as Beetlejuice wants to be back in Lydia’s life despite her being opposed to the idea. With Astrid going into the portal of the Afterlife, all bets are off. Lydia must rely on Beetlejuice to help save Astrid’s life.

Burton keeps the characters on creative and jaw-dropping adventures. Interesting characters include the monster with the small head, Bob Shrinker (played by Nick Kellington), the fake detective, Wolf Jackson (played by Willem Dafoe), and one of the wicked ladies of the past, Delores (played by Monica Bellucci). Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a continuation where spellbinding terror abounds. Keaton playing a guitar singing “I’ll be Right Here Waiting for You,” (by Richard Marx) showcases a unique way of connecting characters three decades in the making.

The Afterlife is the door into Burton’s visual and innovative world of a haunting emporium. Once the door of the Afterlife opens, there is instrumental formality because the Afterlife brings in an interactive storyline which proves magical. There are moving body parts, floating eyeballs, and shrunken heads—an enchanting array of Burton galore! The writing and lighting have not lost touch. Keaton and Ryder fulfill their destiny. What started back in 1988 finds a path to being reborn.

Is Lydia going to marry Rory? Is the Afterlife going to introduce and shift dynamics? What does Astrid want? Is there some good in the heart of Beetlejuice? Burton fills in connecting moments of what is love and lost. He is keen on bringing empathetic light into his writing and characterizations. There is a lot of that value in this film due to a new breed of peril combined with slightly over-the-top cheesiness. Still, the film delivers by staying on track and highlighting the gifts of Burton. Three-and-a-half out of four stars for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Film reviews

1992 Review

Leave a comment

The dangers of Rodney King’s era come with an added layer of pressure. 1992 has a trail of strain. There is a lot that goes bonkers. Directed by Ariel Vromen, the pattern is a boxing match between Tyrese Gibson and Ray Liotta (who died in 2022). The aptitude for vengeance reached for the sky in 1992. It is a film that falls in the era of the Rodney King riots. The added conflict is a heist. Who makes it out alive is the question in 1992.

Gibson plays Mercer, who has been released from prison. His priority is his son Antoine (played by Christopher Ammanuel). Mercer works at a factory. In the future, this is a rough dynamic. There is another mixed relationship. Liotta plays Lowell. Lowell has many years of a bad relationship with his sons Riggin (played by Scott Eastwood) and Dennis (played by Dylan Arnold). Its dynamics are faithful to the harsh times of the past. The reality of criminality (in the California setting) displayed a vigorous presence in 1992.

The conflict of the film is three moving parts. The riots outside, Mercer trying to keep Antoine safe, and a heist. The heist is in the operations of Lowell and his sons. Mercer feels taking his son Antoine to the factory (due to the riots) will help keep them safe. It leads them into a death match of survival. Lowell chooses to do the heist during the riots. This is the tactic because it creates a window where backup cannot stop their operation. Lowell wants to steal catalytic converters from the factory. The value is steep in the platinum of the catalytic converters. Chaos hits its anarchy once Mercer and his son are up against Lowell and his sons. It builds frequency with a clicking tock. The moving parts of the heist and the city going down under are a brawl. One that keeps audiences on the edge of their seats.

The madness of tension boils solid in 1992. The robbery hitting plateaus is the added layer of detrimental scenarios (calculated). The performance of Gibson and Liotta possesses the power of authority for the opposite circumstances. Gibson’s role is to protect his son, and Liotta’s role is to pull off a criminal operation with his sons. Both the choices of fathers lead to this unexpected circumstance. The only chance is to fight. Many punches go back and forth in 1992. The ruthlessness leaves a monumental mark of cinematic achievement.

In 1992, the stakes were critical. It begins with Mercer thinking the only safety conflict is the riots outside. He tells his son, Antoine, “We just got to stay the course.” That quote brings the dynamic to a ten-question level of safety concerns. When the audience thinks Mercer is keeping his son out of danger, they walk into it (at the factory). The rough population of the livelihood has density in 1992. Its environment with detrimental infrastructure links to resilience. “Resilience” is how choices have consequences, and how some choices of harshness must be made.

Who is more at risk? Is it Mercer’s son? Is it Lowell’s son? Do the riots create any more layers of questions? How many conflicts come around with the heist? Find out in 1992. Three-and-a-half out of four stars.

Film reviews

Reagan Review

Leave a comment

Dennis Quaid as Ronald Reagan in Reagan

The hope for a moving biography does not find fulfillment. Dennis Quaid may fit Ronald Reagan’s performance, but his character is cheesy. There are a lot of “cheesy” in Reagan. Directed by Sean McNamara, the biography approach hits plateaus instantly in Reagan. The film covers most of the important events (in Reagan’s lifetime). It does so in the most out-of-focus continuity of writing I have ever seen. Do not expect a chronological order of a compelling timeline in Reagan. Expect one of pure mediocrity with the intent to add more layers of boredom. Reagan has historical value that fails to find its program of importance.

The film intends to tell the story of Ronald Reagan’s early years and his process to reach the Oval Office. The film’s first-person focus is Viktor Petrovich (played by Jon Voight). He is an ex-KGB agent. He is the one who narrates the moving parts of Reagan’s legacy. Reagan keeps becoming a blur.

Reagan‘s continuity continues in its downfall tracks of not keeping its audience in attention mode. It jumps between everything. His days of Hollywood, politics, relationships, childhood, and none find their correlation. It only continues to a road of questions. Even the dynamics Reagan had with his wives are aggravating. They do not hold solid ground. The first was Jane Wyman (played by Mena Suvari), and the second was Nancy Reagan (played by Penelope Ann Miller). They are around in the film and throughout the film’s mixed events. Chemistry has no establishment.

It jumps to try and find the lights without proper build-up. Timelines are skipped, reversed, and picked up. The many accomplishments audiences may expect are ones they are bound to not see in Reagan. Expect the film to transition to the showcasing days of Reagan. For clarification, the entertainment industry is the factor that shines faithfully. Overall, it still is a bust.

Reagan’s biography seems to be a jumble of historical events without a clear purpose. It presents a disjointed outline of events and jumps around randomly. What’s the point? Why are some events emphasized over others? Where is the faithful recounting of his life? It seems as if Reagan’s biography had intent for entertainment rather than historical accuracy.

I feel the central historical side was hearing the narration from Voight’s performance as Victor. It seemed that narration delivered more believability than the events of Reagan. His narration leads to a voice of having the audience in tune (while the rest of the film continues its plummet). It soars with the seriousness of Voight as Victor. It falls rapidly with Quaid as Ronald. The characterizations are in their lanes.

I do not hate Reagan, and I do not love it. I question its pattern of continuity truly. Can there be moments of examples to give its audience perspective on why there are sporadic events? There could be, but the development of understanding was not a focus for Reagan. It is only keen on trying to make a character of revolution. It does a poor job at that. One-and-a-half out of four stars for Reagan.

Treating cinema in many forms of art!