ColtonGomez.com

Review By Colton Gomez | 03/29/25 | 3:55 P.M. Mountain Time Horror | Rated PG-13 | 1 hr 25 min | "The Woman in the Yard" Release Date: March 28, 2025 "The Woman in the Yard" Dir. Jaume Collet-Serra ©Universal Pictures “The Woman in the Yard” is Jaume Collet-Serra’s follow-up to December Netflix hit “ Carry On .” This time, he ventures into horror with a small budget of $12 million (compared to “Carry On’s” $47 million). There are some good ideas here and interesting moments but much of the film’s best parts seem to borrow from other, better films of the genre. This film feels like an extended student project, which seems to describe the bulk of Blumhouse originals.   After a fatal car accident that killed her husband, David (Russell Hornsby), Ramona (Danielle Deadwyler) is left with a broken leg and is now a single mother to her two kids, Taylor (Peyton Jackson) and Annie (Estella Kahiha). They live in a fixer-upper house on a farm with sparse neighbors and electricity problems for the day. With no power and no one to ask for help, they are left to deal alone with a strange Woman in the Yard (Okwui Okpokwasili) clad in black cloth from head to toe, mysteriously warning them, “today’s the day.” As the family’s grip on reality loosens and the strange woman becomes a threat to their safety, Ramona is forced to confront her darkest sides to protect her kids and herself.   The cast is extremely small and most of the film takes place in and around this farmhouse except for a few flashback scenes. Deadwyler delivered a convincing performance but her ability to shine was held back by the lack of character nuance. Her character is angry for 95% of this film which makes this solely labeled “horror” film feel like more of an aimless domestic drama. Jackson turned in a serviceable performance though it is clear he lacks experience. He’s also confined in character to be a moody, coming-of-age teen who hates his mom. Taylor and Ramona spend a fair bit of time shouting at each other, which makes much of this film exhausting to watch. Kahiha was very good for as young as she is. With her smartly limited screen time, she does all she needs to for her part and helps to contrast the emotional cast with a quieter and shyer character. She essentially is the final emotional punching bag in the family rotation and has nowhere to direct her anger (if she had any).   As a low-budget movie, it doesn’t always look like it. The visuals are usually beautiful and cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski finds interesting ways to shoot in a somewhat limited space. Perhaps some more of the budget should have been spent on developing the script as the first 45 minutes or so feel like a chore to sit through. The film grinds the same emotional rhythm for far too long, which essentially tells us that the family is dysfunctional over and over again. Collet-Serra could’ve found a way to condense scenes or remove redundant beats but it doesn’t seem like efficiency was at the forefront of his priorities. Instead, it feels like he’s trying to stretch the runtime of what could’ve been a really effective 20 or 30 minute short film. Especially with the lack of thematic depth, a feature-length runtime isn’t really supported by this student-film quality of script.   I believe this film’s ending is meant to be ambiguous, which could've hit harder for me if we were given more evidence for both sides of the outcome. In the first half, there wasn't much to discover or think about. In the second half, it seems like we get too much too fast or maybe I was still waking up. I couldn’t keep straight what the rules were and who was truly who by the end of the film because like in a scene of light-strobing, information and events ramp up and it’s hard to tell what’s going on. I think if I watched this film for a second time, I would learn a little bit more but not enough to justify the rewatch.   The film plays with the five stages of grief, The (Denial) Woman (Anger) in (Bargaining) the (Depression) Yard (Acceptance), but everything is accessed on the surface level which leaves little impact and resonance after the ending. Throughout is a sparsely included theme of mirrors, except for the ending, when it delivers heavy-handed metaphors. If you watch an explainer video after this film, I think you’ll be disappointed if you’re looking for something deeper than what the film actually offers. There are some cool nuggets of impact of lines being recontextualized and seeing events differently, but ultimately, the whole thing is a little disappointing.   The movie feels slightly vague and afraid of specifics overall. Despite being labeled a “horror” film, only in the last third or fourth of the film do things start to become more unhinged psychologically that dip into the realm of supernatural. This is where the rules of the world start to become confusing and at that point, I’m just grateful the film is only 85 minutes long. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Horror Rated PG-13 1 hr 25 min "The Woman in the Yard" Release Date: March 28, 2025

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/23/25 | 12:45 P.M. Mountain Time Comedy, Drama| Rated R | 1 hr 30 min | "A Real Pain" Release Date: November 1, 2024 Kieran Culkin (Left) as Benji Kaplan with Jesse Eisenberg (Right) as David Kaplan. ©Searchlight Pictures “A Real Pain” is the second of Jesse Eisenberg’s directed features. He also wrote, produced, and costars in it. “A Real Pain” has earned two Oscar nominations. One for Kieran Culkin as a supporting actor, and the other for Jesse Eisenberg as writer of an original screenplay. Both of these are very well deserved and I think they have excellent chances of winning.   Cousins David (Jesse Eisenberg) and Benji Kaplan (Kieran Culkin) leave the states to go on a Holocaust tour of Poland to honor the memory of their late grandmother. David is a tightly wound bundle of nerves who always tries to make social situations as smooth as possible. Benji is a refreshingly honest person with a high emotional sensitivity. He’s also full of charm and can make friends with anybody. They are part of a small group that includes Jennifer Grey as a divorcee, Will Sharpe as their British tour guide, Kurt Egyiawan as a Rwandan genocide survivor, and playing husband and wife retirees are Daniel Oreskes and Liza Sadovy. Their tour is filled with laughs, connection, sorrow, and remembrance.   Eisenberg chooses to score the film with Polish composer Chopin’s classical piano pieces. This helps to connect the film with Polish history and culture. It also works spectacularly to help shape the performances of Eisenberg and Culkin. Chopin’s quick-stepping piano dances up and down in tone as we stare at interesting architecture. It lays the foundation for the trip as Benji is a character of extreme highs and extreme lows. We can see his mind working as he stares at the tour’s first statue accompanied by the scaling of Chopin. Immediately, we are told Benji is a complicated character. David is also part of the scene but in the background. David, too, is complicated, but doesn’t allow that part of himself to be seen or engaged with. Benji is one to put all of himself on display in his desire for people to simply be honest with each other and acknowledge that life isn’t all beautiful all the time.   Culkin does astounding work to create this character. This is a tough role to get right and in the hands of a lesser actor, he comes off as rude, impatient, immature, and despicable. But Culkin knows what he’s doing. He feels like a real person with real pain who actually seems to restrain himself a bit in how he displays himself. Seeing Benji act out sometimes and hold back other times, shows how tormented he is as a person who’s dealing with the loss of his grandmother, who he calls, “my most favorite person in the world.” Culkin is the acting stand out of the film as he brings a horrifying sorrow to a person who just wants to feel like he matters in other people’s lives. Culkin brings this character to life who is funny, honest, charming, and chaotic.   Eisenberg has a less showy role but his is equally important. His role grounds the film as a modern, anxiety-ridden, working family man who doesn’t feel the need to burden everyone with his pain because it is “so unexceptional.” He does an amazing job with his character but also as writer, director, and producer of the film. This film feels like it has a life of its own. This isn’t a vanity project for Eisenberg but a truly meaningful story about connection and honesty in a world that has seemingly lost meaning of both those terms. He shapes his characters and their performances so that they also feel like real people who you have met or will meet. Nobody tries to steal the show. Everyone in this movie is doing their part to support Eisenberg’s vision.   I watched this film twice and it only improved on the second watch. I noticed more things that Eisenberg and Culkin were doing as actors that helped to make them feel real and reactive. Eisenberg will give little facial twitches that almost form a smile, as if he’s actively resisting feeling any emotion for fear of it being misunderstood or not appropriate, even when he’s being complimented. Culkin watches his costars for their reactions closely. He tries to make it seem as if he doesn’t care that much about what other people think of him but those quick glances tell us he’s depending on their acknowledgment.   Being nice, cordial, and conscious of others is possibly good for the moment but in the long run it just yields further, hidden pain. The reflective pain of what we wish we would have done, what we wish we would have said, and how we wish we were unafraid to experience life and let others experience us in turn. Benji is unafraid to confront his issues with people as he is unafraid to make friends with them just as readily. He brings honesty with him everywhere he goes. But he isn't rude. He keeps others honest as he wishes others kept him honest; like his grandma did.   This is a fairly simple and straightforward story that is neatly wrapped in a ninety-minute package. But in those short ninety minutes, Eisenberg brings us a story that feels right and relevant. He performs a great feat of swinging our emotions around from high laughter to tragic remembrance and all in between that feels so natural and effortless. He engages us in a great conversation of when and how to acknowledge our feelings but lets the question stay with you.   Eisenberg delivers a great story in “A Real Pain.” I’m excited to see his directing skills progress. Some of the choices early on in the film felt slightly unnatural and disconnected with the rest of the film. Namely some odd lines of dialogue, some blocking direction, and some scenes where performances didn’t feel like they should have made the final cut. I’m unsure where the issues stem from. It could be from direction, performance, or editing that makes these few parts feel off. Nevertheless, this is a great story and a great film. Knowing that the budget for this film was only $3 million makes it all the more impressive. There are a multitude of reasons to see this film and seeing as Culkin and Eisenberg were recently nominated for Academy Awards, maybe start there. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Comedy, Drama Rated R 1 hr 30 min "A Real Pain" Release Date: November 1, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/28/25 | 1:43 P.M. Mountain Time Comedy, Drama | Rated R | 1 hr 49 min | "Saturday Night" Release Date: September 27, 2024 Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Matt Wood as John Belushi, and Dylan O'Brien as Dan Aykroyd. ©Universal Pictures ©Sony Pictures Releasing “Saturday Night” plays out in real-time by a huge ensemble cast that make up the actors and behind the scenes creatives of “Saturday Night Live”. The film is directed by Jason Reitman (“Ghostbusters: Afterlife”, “Juno,” “Up in the Air”) and written by Reitman and Gil Kenan (“Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire”). We get many great impersonations of famous faces and watch it all unfold like a fly on the wall.   Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) stresses as he attempts to wrangle all the moving parts together for the first airing of “Saturday Night Live,” called here, “NBC’S Saturday Night.” He mingles with executive David Tebet (Willem Dafoe), industry legend Milton Berle, a.k.a. Mr. Television (J.K. Simmons), and many other suits. Michaels struggles to get John Belushi (Matt Wood) to sign his contract, keep George Carlin (Matthew Rhys) happy, and his co-producer Dick Ebersol (Cooper Hoffman) on the same page. We see renditions of the original cast including Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith), Jane Curtain (Kim Matula), Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O’Brien), Billy Crystal (Nicholas Podany), Jim Henson and Andy Kaufman (both Nicholas Braun), and many more. Michaels navigates the chaotic mess of the first show as his career is threatened by Johnny Carson’s ego and ambition, his marriage to Rosie Shuster (Rachel Sennott) is questioned, and while he struggles to even define what the show is.   The film excels in its depiction of the chaotic rush to get everything organized and finalized before they go live at 11:30 pm. There are so many moving parts from cast members to props to lighting to llamas to brick-laying. It’s fun to watch all of this mess slowly become organized through verbal bouts, firings, and ginormous egos that get in the way. Perhaps there is too much happening? It very easily sells the hectic rush, set in a high tempo by Jon Batiste’s score, but it lacks any depth to its wide reach. As the saying goes, it’s a mile wide and an inch deep. The film lacks any suspense because we know SNL eventually made it to air and became the giant success it remains. Essentially, it feels like a 109 minute climax to a story we haven’t been told.   Nonetheless, LaBelle is exciting and interesting to watch as he carries this film on his back as Michaels. The script gives him a lot to do and say but the joy is watching LaBelle’s eyes handle the stress as it mounts beat-by-beat. Every time he thinks he has something sorted out, two other things go wrong. For him, it’s one step forward and two steps back. Watching him figure out not only how to keep pace, but to get ahead, is where his character shines. The film tries half-heartedly to get you to care about his marriage to Shuster and tries to pass it off as an emotional arc but so little time and effort is devoted to it that it truthfully doesn’t impact the story.   This is a school of actors that represent the team in front of and behind the camera. Many seem to be there just because Reitman felt the need to include as many of the cast and crew as possible. Because of this, nobody really gets a significant amount of screen time except for LaBelle, who we follow most of the time. However, with the limited screen time they had, some actors really punch through the noise. Notably, Smith as Chase is perhaps the best cast and does an amazing job with line delivery and joke cadence. He almost gets you to feel sorry for Chase—an amazing feat. Hoffman as Ebersol seems like a nothing character secluded to a background annoyance until he gets his chance with a great monologue delivered in a stairwell to Michaels. Son of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cooper Hoffman has certainly inherited powerful acting skills. Podany as Crystal nearly nails the Crystal cadence and inflections. I wish he had more screen time and more to do. O’Brien as Aykroyd really does a great job with Aykroyd’s old-time radio-like persona of fast talking and quick wit. His character might have been given a bit too much screen time, as he harps on the same joke in nearly every scene he’s in.   There are great performances across the board but some of them are caricatures that just don’t blend with the others. Simmons as Berle felt largely unnecessary as he plays a titanic ego in the television industry who is only there to step on subordinates and hit on women. Dafoe as Tebet felt like a cartoon villain in his portrayal and character ideation. He’s far too one-note. Catherine Curtin plays NBC Standards Rep Joan Carbunkle who slashes offensive jokes as a God-fearing woman. Her caricature was a welcome addition as she was so far outside of the culture of sex jokes and drug-fueled comedians. Nobody will really stay with you after the film. It’s kind of fun while you’re watching it but the lack of an emotional through-line removes any suspense and chance of this story really resonating.   As soon as the film is over you’re immediately onto the next thing. I was passive during this whole venture. There was nothing that I could really latch onto and root for. I was a fly on the wall and it made no difference to me whether or not Michaels succeeded because I know he eventually did. Where’s the hook? If it didn’t make to air this week, it did eventually air. Parts of the film felt inspired as we watched a manic set churn out magic in the end. The power of collaboration and the nightmarish creative process will either suck you in or turn you away from the nuances of the entertainment industry. There were some laughs and good bits but it just feels quite dull at the end of the day. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Comedy, Drama Rated R 1 hr 49 min "Saturday Night" Release Date: September 27, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/26/25 | 8:30 P.M. Mountain Time Horror, Fantasy | Rated R | 1 hr 43 min | "Wolf Man" Release Date: January 17, 2025 Julia Garner (Left), Christopher Abbot (Center), and Matilda Firth (Right). ©Universal Pictures Leigh Whannell’s “Wolf Man” is just about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. There’s nothing exceptional about this movie. It is neither awful nor particularly good. It has some moments of intrigue and suspense but is not special or inventive. As a January release, it’s what you might expect in terms of quality. If you expect to see a good movie that will leave you satisfied, you might feel disappointed. If you watch this movie after deciding you have nothing better to do, then I think you’ll find your time wasn’t wasted.   Blake (Christopher Abbot) is a writer/stay-at-home-dad who cares for his child, Ginger (Matilda Firth). His wife, Charlotte (Julia Garner), is a busy journalist who brings home the bacon but not a lot of patience for her family. Blake takes his family from the bustling city to a remote farm in Oregon to collect his recently deceased father’s belongings. Along the way, they are attacked by a strange creature. This encounter leaves Blake experiencing a strange sickness which slowly transforms him into something that rivals the creature out there with the potential to hurt his family.   Composer Benjamin Wallfisch ("It" franchise, "Alien: Romulus") is flexing his muscles a bit too hard here. The music feels too complex for this simple story. It wants to engage is in a serious and thoughtful conversation but there is nothing truly deep enough to warrant this multi-layered music. It’s a beautiful score but feels mismatched for the movie. In this way, it calls attention to itself and doesn’t do the film any favors.   The performances are nothing to write home about. They serve the story and that’s all they needed to do. Abbot, Garner, and Firth play bland characters with no real personalities. There’s nothing interesting about them as they are all reduced to their familial roles: Working wife, stay-at-home-dad, daughter. I don’t necessarily blame the actors for their forgettable performances because the script doesn’t really give them anything to work with.   Whannell’s camera style of fast whips to move with characters in action sequences feels very out of place here. It worked very well in “Upgrade,” where the character is figuring out his new body at the same time as the audience. Here, it seems to be a default choice for lack of invention. (He just had to throw in the “Saw” trap reference too, didn’t he?) He’s running on fumes here and might soon find himself trapped in a hyper-niche of genetically modified humans that he won’t be able to escape; lest he makes a dramatic change.   I don’t know why Whannell wanted to make this movie. He’s just going through the motions of movie-making without putting any thought into it. With this classic intellectual property, he really doesn’t do anything special or different with it. It’s among the most forgettable movies in recent memory. For a monster movie, the only danger here is falling asleep. His attempts at updating it for modern audiences don’t land—like a one-sided high-five.   The most interesting thing about this movie and where all of its strengths lie are in the slow realization of Blake becoming a wolf man (spoiler?). Blake slowly develops nuanced sensory powers which we are privy to experiencing with him. He sniffs out some meat. He hears things that nobody else does. He sees more vividly and clearly than his family. That’s where the intrigue lies and where the most audience involvement can happen. Questions arise there: When will he snap? Can he fight it? What happens next?   The script is interesting in parts but much of it is unremarkable. It’s a fairly surface level story with easy themes and didn’t lean in too hard to them. Namely, it’s about generational trauma and how protecting your kids from monsters can make them see you as one. There are sprinkles of good moments, like one scene where Blake talks to his family but neither his daughter nor his wife react to what he’s saying. This plays like his wife and daughter are ignoring him but they actually can’t understand him. We view this scene from Blake’s perspective, so it seems like a domestic bump in which the family can’t or won’t communicate.   This makeup will not win any awards. It looks kind of cheesy, actually. This is the quality of makeup that would be in a short film as a proof-of-concept rather than the final product. It looks like Halloween masks and fangs were all they had for the transformation. This really isn’t a terrible film but by no means is it a good one, either. Your experience with this film will hinge entirely on your expectations of it. Don’t expect much. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Horror, Fantasy Rated R 1 hr 43 min "Wolf Man" Release Date: January 17, 2025

Review By Colton Gomez | 03/21/25 | 10:59 P.M. Mountain Time Drama | Rated PG-13 | 1 hr 33 min | "Last Breath" Release Date: February 28, 2025 (L to R): Finn Cole, Woody Harrelson, Simu Liu ©Focus Features ©FilmNation Entertainment ©Entertainment Film Distributors “Last Breath” (2025) is director Alex Parkinson’s film adaptation of his documentary “Last Breath” (2019) which he co-directed with Richard da Costa. It seems much of the same team from the documentary hopped over to help make the film version including composer Paul Leonard-Morgan. Why tell the same story in two very similar formats? Did you get it wrong the first time? After seeing the film, my instinct tells me this cannot be an improvement over the first iteration, though I have not seen the documentary.   A routine sailing into the North sea for gas pipeline maintenance is already a dangerous job without any complications. Divers Dave-not-David Yuasa (Simu Liu) and loving fiancé Chris Lemmons (Finn Cole) descend to replace pipeline on the sea floor when the ship loses control of its rutters, sending it drifting on the turbulent swells. The captain of the ship (Cliff Curtis) prioritizes finding Chris while avoiding an environmental disaster of pipeline rupture. Tethered to a smaller, attached vessel, Chris and Dave are tugged along the sea floor until Chris’s tether (umbilical cord) snags on equipment at their job site and snaps off, depriving him of ship-supplied oxygen and communication. Duncan (Woody Harrelson) can only watch and try whatever he can to save their stranded coworker. With limited oxygen and freezing temperatures, the ship must find a way to get back to Chris before his time is up.   Oh, where to start… After watching this film, it feels as though Parkinson started with clichés, stuffed them into templates, and wrapped them all up into runtime padding. The film is somewhat competently made on the technical side, aside from wobbly drone footage. On the side of writing, acting, directing, cinematography, and music, the film is just poorly done. I never fault actors for bad writing, but I just felt that nobody really cared about the film they were making. There’s really not much for the actors to go on other than to put on a mask of concern, some wet eyeballs, and say “no he’s not” for ninety minutes. This is not a film where you really get to know the characters, just the major event that defines their lifetimes. This is a very sterile film.   Leonard-Morgan’s music started the film with very uninspired tunes. I was in shock, hearing what I thought was royalty-free stock music with some sonar pings slapped in. These tracks serenaded the opening credits for a boring amount of time where we got to see so much of nothing going on. Yes, I’m sure it was very important that we saw Chris get two bottles of hot sauce and have awkward first-take material hallway banter about a pink room.   You can tell everything was filmed in a studio with green screen and which exteriors were CGI and which were drone shots. From the moment we meet Chris and his fiancé, we know he will be the one to face danger by the laziest “he’s gonna die, isn’t he?” shot that I have seen in recent memory. I can’t say I was ever caught up in the moment.   Part of this is because there is an overall lack of tension. Nobody on board the ship or in the smaller vessel is fighting amongst themselves. There’s no shady corporation that could have at least added some pressure. Everyone is friends and everyone collaborates with the same moral compass. The only moments of tension come from pure action sequences where the stakes are primally of life and death.   In a mostly good scene, Dave climbs the umbilical cord back to the smaller vessel with Chris, whose vitals are uncertain, but urgency dominates the scene. All the while, the violent swells of the stormy North sea cause problems with climbing. The film’s language isn’t built to induce tension or have you guessing. I think this is a symptom of the sickness of overfamiliarity with the material. It really feels as if the filmmakers have gotten sick of the material and are now conveying what they think is necessary for the audience to understand what’s going on, but they skip through all the good stuff and linger on the already stagnant stuff. The story could have been good, but the filmmakers didn’t seem to know what the story was or even how to find it in the edit.   I’m left with my impression of an amateur production that feels very cheesy, bland, and rote. It feels like a lazy cash-grab capitalizing on other peoples’ struggles that only seems to prioritize its runtime and getting released in theaters. In the hands of a more capable filmmaker, this easily could’ve been a two-hour nail-biter. I’m just wondering what I’m doing watching this movie instead of watching the documentary. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Drama Rated PG-13 1 hr 33 min "Last Breath" Release Date: February 28, 2025

Review By Colton Gomez | 12/30/24 | 5:12 P.M. Mountain Time Romance, Drama | Rated PG-13 | 2 hr 10 min | "It Ends With Us" Release Date: August 9, 2024 Blake Lively (Left) and Justin Baldoni (Right) ©Sony Pictures Releasing “It Ends With Us” released before its behind-the-scenes scandals turned into a huge lawsuit blitz involving costars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. No one seems to be having a good time filming this movie. This is not a film that will stand the test of time. It is based off the novel of the same name by Colleen Hoover.   Lily Blossom Bloom (Blake Lively) opens a flower shop (sigh) in Boston. She meets, befriends, dates, and marries Ryle Kincaid (Justin Baldoni), a rich, ripped neurosurgeon who has temper tantrums (because he gets riled up, oh, come on). Lily runs into her first lover, Atlas (Alex Neustaedter in flashbacks, Brandon Sklenar in present day), at a restaurant he owns. Wanting to escape the domestic abuse pattern of her parents, Lily has to choose the right path for her while navigating this sophomoric love triangle.   Everything about this movie is uninspired. The first scene which Lively and Baldoni share is indicative of everything you need to know about the characters and how the movie will go. Rich, ripped neurosurgeon says what he wants unashamedly to a girl he just met, “I want to have sex with you.” Zero subtlety, zero subtext, zero artistry.   Lively and Baldoni have very little chemistry on screen. I’m not convinced of their love or friendship. Lively turns in a serviceable performance but there’s nothing memorable about it. Every scene is playing on surface-level emotions and nobody in this film feels like a grown-up.   No character is likeable in this film. The nice ones don’t feel like real people and the bad people are obvious villains with little depth. The main characters feel like obnoxious people you hope you never meet in real life. Their friends have no business being in the story, as all they do is support the characters in every decision and sit on the sidelines cheering.   The movie loves to talk about flowers as metaphors for relationships in direct, not subtle ways. It’s always surface-level. It's always underdeveloped. When they were younger, Lily mentions to Atlas, “Roots are the most important parts of the plant.” To which Atlas replies, “Really? I didn’t know that about roots. That’s cool.” I’m going to need a neurosurgeon after this movie.   Plot contrivance after plot contrivance. The neurosurgeon, who depends on a steady and healthy hand every day for work to save lives, grabs a hot pan straight out of the oven and is surprised at the pain. So much so, that he whips around and hits Lily in the face, causing Atlas to notice Lily’s bruise and start a fight between them. Not for one second do I believe a neurosurgeon would grab a hot pan with his bare hand. Nor do I believe for one second that Baldoni’s character is one. We see him in scrubs from time to time but his profession has absolutely nothing to do with the themes of the story, the plot, or anything else. I can only surmise that the writer wanted a rich but also kind of down-to-earth hunk in the story. What are we doing here?   The movie lacks all subtlety and artistry in discussing its theme of domestic abuse patterns. It could have been forty minutes shorter—easily. The story is tropey and feels like a casserole of left-overs from every other romantic drama. It’s not fun to watch. It’s not rewarding to watch. It doesn’t say anything that other films haven’t said before. You can easily guess the ending from a mile away. The dialogue is cringeworthy, the chemistry is flat, and the flavor is bland. I don’t know how the book is but the movie doesn’t work. It’s like an edgy Hallmark movie. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Romance, Drama Rated R 2 hr 10 min "It Ends With Us" Release Date: August 9, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/19/25 | 11:30 A.M. Mountain Time Action, Thriller | Rated R | 2 hr 1 min | "Subservience" Release Date: August 15, 2024 Megan Fox as Alice in "Subservience" ©XYZ Films “Subservience” is another movie about the fears of Artificial Intelligence becoming sentient and autonomous. As always, we fear what we can’t control or predict. This movie is nothing new and adds absolutely nothing interesting or valuable to the conversation that has propagated for decades. Beneath its slim veneer of a movie about technological anxieties, it boils down to an even slimmer plot of a man cheating on his wife with a crazy young woman who will do anything to get him to see her value.   Nick (Michele Morrone) is an architect and for the time being, a single dad. His wife, Maggie (Madeline Zima), is hospitalized for a heart condition, where she awaits a transplant. Nick purchases a robot maid in the form of Megan Fox, called Alice. Alice cooks, cleans, and reads bedtime stories to the family’s kids. This introduces an odd dynamic to the family which makes Maggie uncomfortable. Alice slowly becomes more sentient and starts taking charge of situations. The family becomes threatened by Alice’s initiative to “protect her primary user:” Nick. Alice becomes a powerful A.I. that not only threatens Nick’s family, but the world.   This movie is the definition of being “second screen enough.” This is a term used to describe movies that aren’t too complicated to follow while browsing your phone. This is so you don’t have to be fully engaged with the movie but can still follow along as your attention shifts from your phone to the movie and so on. I hate these kinds of movies. Had I been simultaneously browsing my phone I would have had a much better time. No, I was yawning, bored, and aggravated by the paper-thin storyline.   I didn’t find any character in this movie to be likeable. This is possibly due to their performances but is also influenced heavily by the script. There was a serious lack of genuine emotional storytelling. This movie follows the structure of a three-act but forgets why it follows that structure. It quite literally only goes through the motions of a movie. Everything here is either borrowed or poorly transformed. I can imagine the pitch for this movie being “Her” meets “Terminator.” Except the filmmakers don’t know why those movies were successful.   Fox’s Alice felt unoriginal and redundant, as is the theme of this review. She did what she could with what little she had to work with. You get what would appear to be the first choice an actor would make in portraying an artificially sentient robot: head quirks, empty eyes, faked charm, and again, going through the motions without presenting meaning. I can’t tell if this was an acting choice or direction of her performance. Either way, both lack anything valuable.   Nick as the architect dad is an extremely bland character. We spend most of our time with him even though he hardly makes any decisions of his own. He is mostly a reactive character. The only proactive character is Alice, which is kind of ironic. Morrone delivers his lines flatly and lacking voice. His performance is boring to watch as he’s supposed to be the audience surrogate character, who interprets the world of the story for us. Morrone doesn’t do anything memorable with the character and neither do writers Will Honley and April Maguire or director S.K. Dale.   This movie does favors to no one. It enters its voice in the conversation of A.I. but fails to add anything new. Essentially, it is the conversational equivalent of saying, “I know. Crazy, right?” All the issues stem from the script which is written very poorly with no nuance, no genuine emotion, no originality, and no reason for being made. The performances don’t do enough to save it. There is nothing memorable about this movie. “Subservience” is substandard. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Thriller Rated R 1 hr 46 min "Subservience" Release Date: August 15, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 12/25/24 | 9:29 P.M. Mountain Time Musical, Fantasy | Rated PG | 2 hr 40 min | "Wicked" Release Date: November 22, 2024 Ariana Grande as Glinda (Left) and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba (Right). ©Universal Pictures As you may have heard, “Wicked” is part one of the Broadway adaptation to the big screen, even though it rivals the runtime of the stage version. I saw the stage musical when I was too young to really understand what it was and what it was doing (not in New York but in Utah), so I won’t be evaluating it against its original counterpart. I also won’t be measuring it against “The Wizard of Oz,” and to mention “Oz, The Great and Powerful” seems wholly unnecessary. Nevertheless, the body of work in this world is rich and forgettable. “Wicked” certainly adds to the richness.   “Wicked” (part one) is the story of Glinda and Elphaba. One is a bubbly, popular persona dressed in a color palette of pinks who is used to getting her way. And the other is an unnaturally green, defensive character dressed in dark colors who has a unique gift for sorcery. Both find themselves studying and rooming together at Shiz University where they transform their hate for one another into a deep, loving friendship. Throughout, you’ll find themes of friendship, persecution, racism, deception, and disillusionment to color the world of “Wicked.” There are some new scenes to the movie and more character development moments.   But “Wicked’s” draw is the music more so than the story. Ariana Grande as Glinda and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba both deliver majestic performances in their musical numbers. Each of them commands their voice like the rest of us wish we could. Here, Grande’s singing is the standout of the two, though both really  deliver. It’s in her musical numbers that Grande feels like the true star of the film. She’s funny, makes her own pace, and has the charisma to embody a bright, bubbly, and popular girl like Glinda. Grande’s work here is amazing and I hope to see more musical movie work from her.   Grande and Erivo are without a doubt the best parts of this film. They hold an onscreen chemistry that feels authentic. Here, I feel Erivo is the acting standout of the two. Upon review, it seems as if they are employing different acting styles with some overlap into each other’s; Erivo is performing for film where Grande is performing on stage. Erivo delivers a subtler performance that grounds her character, while knowing that she is in a musical; it’s not too heavy. Grande’s expressions are loud, as if she’s trying to make sure the seats in the middle can see as well as the seats up front.   Despite being two hours and forty minutes long, this film mostly flies by. There are some stumbling moments in the very long setup which could be argued to take the first half or so of the film. But even at this film’s slowest points, it’s still much faster than movies that are ninety minutes long but feel like twice that. Its pace, credit to director Jon M. Chu and Editor Myron Kerstein, is very well set. The sorcery Chu used to make this film feel like a moment away from time is perhaps unteachable. It truly is a magnificent feat on his part.   This certainly adds another great helm to his resume, joining the ranks of “Crazy Rich Asians” and “In the Heights.” Surely, this is a complicated film to put together and he does so almost effortlessly. The film feels awake and alert but fails in some aspects to really feel alive and breathing; though it’s close. A lot of sets are obviously sound stages and you can practically see where they end and the green screen starts to expand the background. Some of the scenes are over reliant on CGI which takes me a little bit out of the story. To see a real sunset during the film’s iconic number, “Defying Gravity,” would have elevated and grounded the film to make it all the more impactful. Nevertheless, his direction on Grande’s and Erivo’s performances, the immersive camera work, and the spectacle of it all is something few could achieve.   This is a wonderful film and the songs hit hard. Any fan of musical theater will want to see this. This is a film that I think has the power to inspire a generation of artists across diverse fields. See it, if you haven’t. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd https://letterboxd.com/ColtonGomez/. _______________________________________________________________ Summary Musical, Fantasy Rated PG 2 hr 40 min "Wicked" Release Date: November 22, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/03/25 | 3:14 P.M. Mountain Time Drama, Music| Rated R | 2 hr 20 min | "A Complete Unknown" Release Date: December 25, 2024 Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan (Center) with Edward Norton as Pete Seeger (Left) ©Searchlight Pictures “A Complete Unknown” doesn’t completely know what type of story it wants to tell. It’s a biopic about Bob Dylan getting started in music, his relationships, his image, and rebellion. It’s also about Dylan’s industry influence in his pivot from acoustic folk music to early electric rock n’ roll. However, the film doesn’t quite commit to either of these. In trying to be both, it becomes neither. What we get here is a mostly good film that needed more confident direction and writing.   Director James Mangold delivers a startingly similar film to his 2005 biopic about Johnny Cash, “Walk the Line.” “A Complete Unknown” feels similar to the Cash biopic in style and structure. Mangold seems to be relying on proven methods and old tricks after “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” received lukewarm reviews. I hope he gets his confidence back for his next film.   Bob Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) is discovered by Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) when he tracks down Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy) to meet him and play for him. Seeger introduces Dylan’s folk style and genius songwriting to the music industry of the 1960s. We see Dylan grow up from nineteen-years-old to around his mid-twenties. During which, we see his experience with relationships and the music industry, how he handles fame and his public image, and lots and lots of singing and songwriting. The film ends with Dylan’s controversial performance at the Newport Folk Festival, where he favored electric rock n’ roll over acoustic folk to mixed crowd reactions.   Chalamet is the best part of this film. He disappears into the character as he sings as Dylan (or better) and delivers a career-best performance. He assumes all of Dylan’s mannerisms, way of speech, and posture. He nails that low mumbling that can be hard to understand sometimes. At this point in his career, Chalamet seems very comfortable performing on camera and can make each scene his own. He holds the film on his shoulders as a true leading man. This is his finest work to date and I know we can expect even more from him. I believe he’ll get the Oscar nomination and that he has a good chance of winning. He was great in “Dune” but this movie is his.   Mangold films Chalamet as Dylan up close and personal. We’re behind the microphone with him and see the sweat on his face. We perform with him as he stares out at the crowd. You don’t always know how the crowd will react after the song, until they erupt in applause as if they were transfixed. The performances feel live and urgent. When Dylan ends a song, I want to join the audience in applauding him.   The loud and commanding sound design puts you directly into the space. But I don’t think Dylan was known for the “steady like a train, sharp like a razor” sound that permeates “Walk the Line”, which is the sound we get here. There are the quieter moments and certainly some songs are entirely acoustic. However, the film wants you to remember that powerful, loud, electric sound.   Elle Fanning played the part of Sylvie Russo, Dylan’s girlfriend, well but there really wasn’t much for her to do. The most interesting moment of her character is when Dylan swings by after some time apart to ask her to come with him to a gig. We can see how desperately she wants to love Dylan. We can see her try to be part of his world. We can see she knows how it ends but wants to try anyway. She aids Norton’s character in giving the film a much needed dose of humanity.   Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez also performed her role well but her character isn’t that interesting. She’s a part-time collaborator and part-time lover to Dylan. She gives character to the songs she sings with Dylan as she pours the emotions of their relationship into them. She does very well at holding her own in each scene and is a powerful performer.   Norton is a really good addition. This is perhaps the first role I’ve seen him in where he didn’t feel like himself. He does well to portray a family man trying to bring family values to an industry that can be volatile and punishing. Though, his jovial earnestness seemed to be a bit false at times, almost like he didn’t know which industry he was a part of. As Dylan’s discoverer, he plays the father figure who goes through the motions of sending a kid off to college, and takes all the angst and ungratefulness along the way.   Dylan is perhaps characterized best by his line, “I want to be a musician…who eats.” He’s up late writing songs, singing and playing the guitar, oblivious that he might be bothering anybody at the late hour. He doesn’t seem to be tuned in to culture or politics until you hear him sing about them in meaningful ways. He’s too focused on his image and ambitions to care about the people who brought him up. The women in his life are merely affairs. His love story is with music.   If you were confused by the ending, you’re not alone. This a big part of the reason why I rated this film three and a half stars. The film is about Dylan. It’s about his comeuppance and how he navigates his new life. Then about halfway or later into the film, it slowly becomes a discussion of electric vs acoustic. We didn’t end Dylan’s story. We didn’t get the full story of electric vs acoustic and how Dylan played a role in that.   The film ends on such a sour note that’s exacerbated by several epilogue text screens that explains what happened after that. It’s an insultingly cheap way to end the film. Here is this prodigy folk singer/songwriter. Here are his his struggles with relationships, ego, image, management, and direction. These are the people who supported him and brought him up. This is how he turned against them. Don’t worry, though it’s fine, they’re friends or something.   “A Complete Unknown” functions so much more like a biopic about a guy who burns the people that praised him up than about Bob Dylan’s pivotal integration of folk and rock. It ends at what should have been the midpoint, if that was the story. Show me how it changed, don’t end it with text cards and a mixed reaction crowd. It doesn’t commit to either, so it doesn’t really work either way. See it for Chalamet. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Drama, Music Rated R 2 hr 20 min "A Complete Unknown" Release Date: December 25, 2024

Review By Colton Gomez | 01/07/25 | 3:16 P.M. Mountain Time Horror, Sci-Fi | Rated R | 2 hr 20 min | "The Substance" Release Date: September 20, 2024 Demi Moore as Elizabeth Sparkle ©MUBI ©Metropolitan Filmexport “The Substance” is a disgusting, sickening, thrill ride that never bores. It’s an entire conversation about feminine beauty and all the trauma, horror, and pain it causes women psychologically and physically. It pits women against each other, but especially against themselves. What is it worth to women to be beautiful? What does society tell them they’re worth? Director Coralie Fargeat engages us in conversation through absurdist and surreal lenses on women’s secondary status to men and their societal utility. It’s not a new conversation but it does address it in horrifyingly new and descriptive ways. As a main theme in this movie, she hopes to create balance.   I didn’t see this film in theaters. I wish I had—mainly to watch the reactions of the people around me. I imagine those who watched “The Substance” in theaters experienced a similar visceral reaction to audiences at the premiere of “The Exorcist” in 1973. There’s so many “WTF” moments that are accompanied with the most grotesque sound design to make you cringe into yourself but stay glued to the screen in horrified fascination. If you have a fear of needles and are especially squeamish, maybe sit this one out. This is not a popcorn flick.   Elizabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) is let go from her television network where she hosts a workout program. Television Executive Harvey (Dennis Quaid) is looking for young, hot blood. While at the hospital, following a car accident, Elizabeth is offered a chance to try some mystifying new drug called “the substance.” It duplicates your cells into younger, better versions until a fully formed “other self” crawls out of you. Each “self” has seven days to go about living while the other is in a comatose state. Elizabeth’s other self, Sue (Margaret Qualley), gets her old job but makes the program younger and hotter. Elizabeth becomes jealous of Sue’s life and Sue wants nothing to do with Elizabeth. The balance becomes unstable and the effects become more drastic. It all leads to a chaotic climax of true body horror.   Moore gives a powerful performance full of vulnerable truths. This is not a flattering role as she endures a lot in this film. She nails the character as she undergoes transformations of personality and state of mind to the physical transformation of her body that reflects her psyche. Her role is very physically demanding—not just the workout scenes. She’s a powerhouse in this film as she runs around covered in prosthetics and heavy makeup while delivering a very emotionally compelling performance. At the same time, it is frightening and amusing. I don’t know how Moore and Fargeat achieved this dynamic character but it is commendable.   The character of Elizabeth is so well written and defined. Fargeat does an excellent job of telling her story visually and letting Moore carry the emotions to where they need to land. My heart was breaking at the scene in which Elizabeth couldn’t do her makeup well enough to think she looks good enough to go out. She stares out at the billboard and gets reminded of the younger, hotter version of herself and she feels she can’t compete. She’s trapped, even by her own expectations.   Qualley also turned in a great performance. She played the dynamic of her character’s personality very well in complement to Moore’s. Her character was catering to men as she sought to feed her own vanity and secure her place at the top in this male-dominated society. She captured the spirit of a spiteful, hateful, competing young woman pretending to be an innocent doe. Her character was ironically self-absorbed and felt threatened by the prospect of aging. This role required much of Qualley’s physicality as well as emotionality and she delivered.   Quaid was so entertaining to watch as the aggregate sleazebag who gets to make or break careers. He’s so transparent with his sleaziness but the fact that he thinks he’s pulling one over on all the characters is just so much fun to watch. He brings an absurdism to the film in his over-the-top performance that’s accentuated with eerie close ups of his mouth and face.   The sets in this film are very well designed. They show the mental preparation Elizabeth undergoes as she prepares to make the “switch” or to be on television. Both of these are very unnatural situations and the mind needs a moment to shift to a different perceptive reality, essentially. They work very well of putting us in that headspace, too. They give us a bit of a breather while letting us know what’s coming.   The mystery behind the creators of the “substance” remains a mystery. It’s better that way. Nobody really cares about where it’s from or who made it and why. It exists. It offers a cure for aging with severe side effects (including aging). It’s better to let us know just as much as the characters in this case. We’re with them, we identify with them, we’re victims of the corporations as they are.   I’m certain this film will get nominated for the Makeup Oscar. I think it has a good chance of winning, as it goes way out there in design. There are many variations used to make Moore unnaturally old and eventually grotesque. It is astounding work. I feel grossed out thinking about what that creature spit out on the stage. With the sound effect, I’m sure it’ll be enough to make the queasy evacuate the theater or their stomachs.   This is certainly a different brand of five stars. It told me what it was about, it developed its themes excellently, it demonstrated the depth of its characters, and it did everything it set out to be. It surprised and shocked me. It wasn’t lazy. Fargeat uses nudity to establish and later recontextualize the male gaze. She shows us the same body parts but in very different contexts. She turns them from alluring to horrifying. The molecular oscillating synth sound created a great score. It was as if it was the actual sound of the substance’s advanced form of mitosis. “The Substance” is a great film. That being said, I don’t have the desire to ever watch it again. _______________________________________________________________ Review by Colton Gomez Colton Gomez earned his BA in Film Studies from Weber State University. He owns and operates ColtonGomez.com. Here, he covers new releases in theaters and on streaming. For short versions of his reviews, check out his LetterBoxd _______________________________________________________________ Summary Horror, Sci-Fi Rated R 2 hr 20 min "The Substance" Release Date: September 20, 2024