The Godfather, Part II

Moving through the deep shadows and heavy miseries of his huge manor, Michael Corleone supervises over the destruction of his own spirit in “The Godfather, Part II,” released in 1974. The character we remember from the first movie as the best and smartest of Don Vito’s sons, the one who went to college and joined the Marines, grows into a cold and cruel man, obsessed with power. The film’s ending give us first a memory of a long-ago family dinner, and then Michael at mid-life, cruel, closed, and lonely. He’s clearly implied as a tragic character.

The Corleone story, as created by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo in two films with a runtime of nearly seven hours, has been a type of success story backwards. Roger Ebert compared in his review, “In a crazy way, “The Godfather” and its sequel belong in the same category with those other epics of immigrant achievement in America, “The Emigrants” and “The New Land.”” The Corleone family worked hard, was ambitious, remembered friends, never forgave betrayal, and started from modest beginnings to become the most powerful Mafia business in the country. If it were not that the family business was crime, these films could be an inspiration for everyone.

Coppola seems to have a certain contradiction toward his work. Don Vito Corleone as played by Marlon Brando in “The Godfather” was a man of honor and dignity, and it was difficult not to sympathize with him, playing with his grandchild in the garden, at peace after a long lifetime of murder, blackmail, and the noises. What exactly were we supposed to think about him? How did Coppola feel toward the Godfather?

“The Godfather, Part II” goes back and forth from the events in “The Godfather,” trying to tell us about the Corleones. Ebert said, “In doing so, it provides for itself a structural weakness from which the film never recovers, but it does something even more disappointing: It reveals a certain simplicity in Coppola’s notions of motivation and characterization that wasn’t there in the elegant masterpiece of his earlier film.”

First off, he gives us the beginning of Don Vito’s life. Ebert described, “His family is killed by a Mafia don in Sicily, he comes to America at the age of nine, he grows up (to be played by Robert De Niro), and edges into a career of crime, first as a penny-ante crook and then as a neighborhood arranger and power broker: a man, as the movie never tires of reminding us, of respect.”

The parts of Don Vito’s youth takes up maybe a fourth of the film’s 200-minute runtime. Coppola spends the rest on Michael Corleone, who has taken over the family’s business after his father passes, has moved out of New York, and merged business in Nevada, and wants to expand in Florida and Cuba. Michael is reprised by, and brilliantly, by Al Pacino, and among the other reprising cast are Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, the family’s lawyer, Diane Keaton as Michael’s increasingly hopeless wife Kay, and John Cazale as the weak older brother Fredo.

Coppola handles a lot of this material very well. Ebert said, “As in the earlier film, he reveals himself as a master of mood, atmosphere, and period. And his exposition is inventive and subtle. The film requires the intelligent participation of the viewer; as Michael attempts to discover who betrayed him and attempted his assassination, he tells different stories to different people, keeping his own counsel, and we have to think as he does so we can tell the truth from the lies.”

Ebert continued, “Pacino is very good at suggesting the furies and passions that lie just beneath his character’s controlled exterior. He gives us a Michael who took over the family with the intention of making it “legitimate” in five years, but who is drawn more and more deeply into a byzantine web of deceit and betrayal, all papered over with code words like respect, honor, and gratitude.”

However, what was his sin? It was not, as we might have imagined or hoped, that he controlled over an evil business of murder and destruction. No, Michael’s fault is pride. He has lost the common touch, the self-respect he should have received from his father. On top of that, because he has lost his humanity, he must suffer.

Coppola suggests this by contrast. Ebert said, “His scenes about Don Vito’s early life could almost be taken as a campaign biography, and in the most unfortunate flashbacks we’re given the young Vito intervening on behalf of a poor widow who is being evicted from her apartment. The don seems more like a precinct captain than a gangster, and we’re left with the unsettling impression that Coppola thinks things would have turned out all right for Michael if he’d had the old man’s touch.”

The flashbacks give Coppola so much difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative ability. Ebert said, “The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, a nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears.” Coppola was reportedly advised by friends to forget Vito’s story and stay with Michael, and that was good advice.

Ebert noted, “There’s also some evidence in the film that Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material in his screenplay. Some scenes seem oddly pointless (why do we get almost no sense of Michael’s actual dealings in Cuba, but lots of expensive footage about the night of Castro’s takeover?), and others seem not completely explained (I am still not quite sure who really did order that attempted garroting in the Brooklyn saloon).”

Ebert continued, “What we’re left with, then, are a lot of good scenes and good performances set in the midst of a mass of undisciplined material and handicapped by plot construction that prevents the story from ever really building.”

For example, there is the brilliant audacity of the first communion party for Michael’s son, where Coppola directs as contrast to the wedding scene at the beginning of “The Godfather.” There is Lee Strasberg’s (acting coach and director of the Actors Studio) double-sided performance as Hyman Roth, the boss of the Florida and Cuban business. Ebert noted, “Strasberg gives us a soft-spoken, almost kindly old man, and then reveals his steel-hard interior. There is Coppola’s use of sudden, brutal bursts of violence to punctuate the film’s brooding progress.” There is Pacino, suggesting everything, telling nothing.

However, Coppola is unable to bring everything together and make it work in a way of easy, gripping narrative. The fabulous text of “The Godfather” is replaced in “Part II” with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.

You are missing out if you haven’t seen this movie. People have said that this is better than the first, but I still prefer the first one over this. Not to say that I didn’t like this sequel, no way. This is an A+ sequel to one of the greatest movies of all time. This is currently streaming on Tubi, Pluto TV, and Paramount+, so I give it a high recommendation of seeing this sequel if you have seen the first. This film has the famous lines, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer,” “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart,” (my brother used that line on me so many times as a child, which got old really fast), and “Michael, we’re bigger than U.S. Steel.” This sequel is another one of my favorite films.

Stay tuned next week when I look at the last, and weakest, of “The Godfather Trilogy” in “Francis Ford Coppola.”

The Godfather

This month, I will be talking about the remaining Francis Ford Coppola movies that I have not reviewed. Let’s get this month started with one of, if not the best film he every directed, “The Godfather,” released in 1972.

With countless books as the trailers, Paramount’s film version of Mario Puzo extensive underworld novel, “The Godfather,” has a large fanbase. This will boost the potential for the film which has a famous performance by Al Pacino and a strong characterization by Marlon Brando as the protagonist. There’s also excellent production values, so much excitement, and a phenomenal cast. However, it does have a runtime of almost three hours (without intermission), and occasionally confusing. While never so mild as to be boring, it is never so gripping as possibly the superior drama. This should not hurt Paramount’s box office expectations in any way, though some audiences may be disappointed.

A.D. Murphy said in his review, “Francis Ford Coppola directed the Albert S. Ruddy production, largely photographed in N.Y. Dean Tavoularis was production designer and Gordon Willis cinematographer (Technicolor) for the handsome visual environment, which besides World War II and postwar styles and props, is made further intriguing by some sort of tinting effect. There are people under 40 who grew up in the period of the film and who recall such color tones as evocative of 20 years earlier, that is, the end of the Roaring Twenties and the Depression. Evidently the artistic effect here is to show some sort of antiquity which no longer exists.”

Puzo and Coppola are credited with the adaptation which gives some look into the origins and heritage of that part of the population famous off screen (but not on it) as the Mafia or Cosa Nostra. Murphy said, “Various ethnic counter-cultures are part of the past and part of the present, and the judgment of criminality is in part based on the attitudes of the outside majority. Nobody ever denied that a sense of family, cohesion and order are integral, positive aspects of such subgroups; it’s just the killing and slaughter that upsets the outsiders.”

In “The Godfather,” we have the New York/New Jersey area, ruled by five “families,” one of them ruled by Brando. This is a place where emotional ties are strong, loyalties are kind of more flexible sometimes, and tempers are small.

Murphy compared, “In makeup and physical movement instantly evocative of Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane,” Brando does an admirable job as the lord of his domain.” He is not on screen for a lot of the film, but his presence is all over it.

Murphy said, “It is Pacino, last seen (by too few) in “Panic In Needle Park,” who makes the smash impression here. Initially seen as the son whom Brando wanted to go more or less straight (while son James Caan was to become part of the organization), Pacino matures under the trauma of an assassination attempt on Brando, his own double-murder revenge for that on corrupt cop Sterling Hayden and rival gangster Al Lettieri, the counter-vengeance murder of his Sicilian bride, and a series of other personnel readjustments which at fadeout find him king of his own mob.”

Murphy continued, “In a lengthy novel filled with many characters interacting over a period of time, readers may digest the passing parade in convenient sittings.” However, in a film, the audience is forced to get everything all at once. Murphy said, “Thus it is incumbent on filmmakers to isolate, heighten and emphasize for clarity the handful of key characters; some of that has been done here, and some of it hasn’t.” The biggest achievement here is the establishment of mood and time.

Among the famous performances are Robert Duvall as Hagen, the non-Italian second-hand man finally removed from authority after years of service, Richard Castellano as a loyal follower, John Marley as a Hollywood film tycoon forced into giving a comeback film role in a war film to Al Martino, a growing teenage idol, Richard Conte as one of Brando’s nasty rivals, Diane Keaton as Pacino’s childhood lover, later second wife, Abe Vigoda as an eventual enemy to Pacino, Talia Shire as Brando’s daughter, married to a weak and abusive husband Gianni Russo, John Cazale, another son who move to Las Vegas when that area was filled with the mob, including Alex Rocco as another recognizable character, Morgana King as Brando’s wife, and Lenny Montana as a mobster.

Murphy said, “Nino Rota’s fine score, plus several familiar poptunes of the period, further enhance the mood, and all the numerous technical production credits are excellent.” Bottom line: the film has a lot of terrific mood, one great performance by Pacino, an excellent character transition by Brando, and a strong supporting cast. That will be enough for some, only half the job for others.

If you haven’t seen this film, why are you reading this review? This is one of the top films of AFI’s Greatest Films List, and rightfully so. Everything about this film makes it deserve the title of one of the greatest films ever made. With a great cast, great writing, great acting, great drama, and the mafia action scenes are top notch. You can see this film either on Tubi, Pluto TV, or Paramount+. This film is famous for the line, “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.” See this if you haven’t, I give it a high recommendation as it is one of my all time favorite films.

Sorry for the late posting. I fell asleep after coming back from work. Stay tuned next week when we look at the second in “The Godfather Trilogy” in “Francis Ford Coppola Month.”

Predator: Killer of Killers

“Predator: Killer of Killers,” released on Hulu in June, is the new animated film that continues the resurrection of the fan favorite sci-fi franchise following the critical and fan praise of “Prey.” This anthology has three of the most challenging warriors throughout Earth’s history, a Viking, a ninja, and a WWII fighter pilot, as they become targeted by the star race of alien big game hunters. Great animation and a nice storytelling approach give easily one of the best installments of the entire series, setting up a possibly interesting new direction that could be explored in further animated films or even a big budget live-action film.

Directed by Dan Trachtenberg, the film begins in 841 A.D., with the introduction of the dangerous, gray-haired Viking Ursa (Lindsay LaVanchy) and her son (Damien Haas) as they find revenge during a violent war. Kyle Wilson said in his review, “This segment alone could’ve been an entire film unto itself, brimming with epic scale battle sequences and no shortage of bloody carnage. But since each individual section has limited screen time, the segments flyby at entertaining speed with no fat on the story to trim. Each story also has their own unique new Predator with imaginative unseen designs and skills.”

Next, we are introduced to a brothers argument in feudal Japan between ninja Kenji (Louis Ozawa) and his Samurai brother (also Ozawa). Wilson credited, “The gorgeous animation style stays consistent for the entire film and evokes animated projects like Netflix’s Arcane, but the setting changes make for eye-popping color palette changes and virtual set designs with Japan being a standout.” Lastly, we go to WWII and the hasty, but talented mechanic turned fighter pilot Torres (Rick Gonzalez) who is joined by sci-fi legend Michael Biehn as Commander Vandy. Since each story introduces a new style of Predator combat because of the setting and weaponry, Torres’ fights in the air showing an incredibly great dogfight with a Predator ship.

Just when you think the film is about to end, we find out the film isn’t completely an anthology. The final act sees all three characters brought together on what appears to be the Predator home world. Wilson said, “There they are forced into gladiator battle against each other by an “apex” Predator running the show for legions of the hunt obsessed creatures in attendance to watch.” The events bring the entire film together nicely and our main cast have enjoyable interactions because of their obviously different historical times and language barriers.

Wilson said, “Predator fans will eat up the homages and easter eggs to the franchise history, but things never get too heavy handed with the nostalgia.” Trachtenberg, who is also directing “Predator Badlands,” set to be released next month, seems to have found the creativity and boasting the franchise has been missing. “Predator: Killer of Killers” builds off of the favor created in “Prey” and seems to be building towards a bigger, better “Predator” cinematic universe and that’s what we’re looking for.

If you haven’t seen this film yet, check it out if you have a Hulu account. You will love this animated film, especially with how the stories connect afterwards. The animation is great, the violence is on par with the rest of the franchise, and you will be sitting on the edge of your seat the entire time.

Happy Halloween everyone. I hope everyone enjoyed the films I reviewed this month. Those who are planning on going trick-or-treating tonight, enjoy, have fun, but be safe when getting all those candies. Too much is not good for you. Stay tuned next month for some real good excitement because I will be looking at a famous trilogy by one of the best directors that are considered one of the best that I have been thinking about reviewing for a long time now.

How to Train Your Dragon (2025)

Last night, I finished watching “How to Train Your Dragon” on Peacock, which was released theatrically in June but on Peacock earlier this month. Critics and audiences are praising this movie, but I didn’t know if this would be good seeing how it is a remake of one of my favorite DreamWorks Animation movies. How is this compared to the Disney live-action remakes?

Leo Brady started his review by saying, “Pushing back against Hollywood’s reliance on sequels and remakes has become a tedious task, especially when the summer slate of 2025 is dominated by them.” In just a few weeks, there was the live-action “Lilo & Stitch” remake, and now came “How to Train Your Dragon.” While there’s always the possibility for a new interpretation to justify its release, even one of the better animated-to-live-action adaptations, like this, has difficulty to make a good reason for itself. In the end, “How to Train Your Dragon” tries to be good – and manages only a little bit.

Director Dean DeBlois returns to make the live-action version, which makes sense seeing how he directed the amazing 2010 original. The story begins on the rocky cliffs of Berk, a Viking Island where dragons are considered dangerous enemies. Our narrator and protagonist is Hiccup (Mason Thames), the tall, misunderstood son of Stoick (Gerard Butler reprising the role), the island’s grand chieftain. Hiccup is nothing like his father – until one of his eccentric inventions helps him trap Toothless, a rare and fearsome Night Fury. Their bond becomes the film’s emotional piece, even as the villagers see dragon-friendship as a betrayal.

What works here are the dragons, particularly the special effects, which give some really exciting moments. Brady noted, “The approach recalls Jurassic Park in its awe and scale; seeing these creatures soar on a giant screen is worth the ticket. Butler brings a grounded intensity to Stoick, and the flight sequences are truly spectacular. There’s a kinetic energy that many remakes lack, and to DeBlois’s credit, the screenplay remains largely faithful to the original. The familiar jokes and story beats suggest a “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” mindset.”

However, that is the problem. The film’s biggest weakness is the repetition. This remake gives little new for those who know and love the animated version. Brady admitted, “That said, my son had the time of his life. He was on the edge of his seat—frightened one moment, laughing the next. The bond between Hiccup and Toothless remains undeniably charming, like a classic boy-and-his-dog tale—only the dog has wings and blazing breath.”

Supporting cast like Nico Parker (Astrid) and Nick Frost (the ever-reliable Gobber) add a bit of depth, and the sets and score do a fine job bringing Berk to life, even if, as Brady said, “the film’s color palette is more muted than its animated predecessor.”

Yes, “How to Train Your Dragon” is a little entertaining and far from a waste of time. However, it never surpasses the original – or even equals it. The animated film remains superior in color, heart, and humor. The live-action version is perfectly serviceable. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for. After all, it’s hard to teach a dragon new tricks.

This is nice to see a live-action version, and it does look good, but it is another one of those examples of some films are better in animation and not live-action. I don’t think it will hurt to see this, as it is nowhere near as bad as the live-action Disney remakes, but still, I hope DreamWorks doesn’t decide to make more live-action remakes to their films, even though it is already confirmed that they are remaking the second film. If you want to watch it on Peacock, go ahead, but it won’t be as good as the original, I promise you that.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Halloween Month 2025.”

It: Chapter Two

At two hours and 49 minutes, “It: Chapter Two,” released in 2019, is among the longest Hollywood horror movies in history. (JeffreyM. Anderson said in his review, “Ari Aster’s director’s cut of “Midsommar” is two minutes longer.”)

The length is both a strength and weakness, as it allows plenty of time for the audience to get to know more about the characters.

You have to watch the first part of “It” from 2017 before seeing the sequel, though prior knowledge of Stephen King’s 1986 novel or the 1990 TV movie might be acceptable.

“It” is about seven main characters as kids, dealing with the threat of Pennywise the Dancing Clown, reprised by Bill Skarsgard, during a scary summertime expedition in Derry, Maine in 1989.

Pennywise is said to reappear every 27 years. At the end of “It,” the middle-schoolers make a deal that they will return, should he come out again. It does.

Mike, played by Isaih Mustafa, the only one who stayed in Derry, calls the others, one by one, and they answer.

Bill (James McAvoy) is a screenwriter in Hollywood, Bev (Jessica Chastain) is in an abusive relationship, Richi (Bill Hader) is a stand-up comedian, Eddie (James Ransone) is a risk-assessment insurance guy, and Ben (Jay Ryan) lost his childhood weight to become a fashioned architect. Stanley, played by Andy Bean, doesn’t appear.

Anderson said, “Besides its length, the movie’s other flaw is that it doesn’t immediately draw a clear line between the kid and adult versions of the characters.” It takes awhile to figure out who’s who, despite Richie and Eddie being obvious, because of spot-on casting, and Bev is the only female. The issue could be fixed with a few well-placed flashbacks.

Anderson criticized, “McAvoy, even though he’s a terrific actor, doesn’t quite seem like Jaeden Martell’s Bill from the first movie; the equally terrific Chastain doesn’t quite capture Sophia Lillis’ playfully puckish Bev.” Just like they did with Disney’s “The Kid,” Lillis is left-handed and Chastain is right-handed.

After an inebriated reunion at a Chinese restaurant, the plot requires each character to find a personal object that connects to the summer 27 years ago, to perform a ritual. The searches are shown one at a time, each with a flashback and scary Pennywise encounter, which takes up a large middle part. Anderson noted, “The showdown also occupies a huge amount of celluloid real estate, though, of course, the less said, the better.”

“It” was only 135 minutes and it kept its characters mostly together, concentrating on really affecting scares. Anderson noted, “After all, the movie wasn’t simply about ghosts or monsters, but things that haunt the deepest, darkest corners in all humans.”

“It: Chapter Two” is less scary. Like the early “Evil Dead” films and other 1980s horrors, its crazy creatures inspire surprised laughter more than scares.

I’ll be honest, I was entertained. The last 40 minutes drag and I can’t say this is a good movie, but it did give a lot of laughs, a lot of awkward, confusing, maybe accidental laughs. I don’t know whether or not this was meant to be funny the whole way. It doesn’t seem like the first one was supposed to be. However, the sequel has the insane silliness of the TV movie mixed with the budget of the first part, which comes off as a strange hybrid that’s beyond stupid, but also beyond fun. I don’t know what this film was going for, but I can tell you that I was enjoying this for how ridiculous it was. If that’s what it was hoping to accomplish, then I definitely got a lot of laughs. However, if it was meant to be scary or subtle, that’s definitely not what we got.

If you want to see this, you can on Max, as I think there might be some scares in here for viewers, but I leave the decision to you.

Next week, I will be finishing “Halloween Month 2025” with an animated movie that came out earlier this year.

It (2017)

Matt Brunson started his review by saying, “In its original hardcover incarnation, Stephen King’s It ran 1,138 pages, second only to The Stand’s 1,153 pages in terms of finding the prolific author at his wordiest. Given that generous length, it’s not surprising that It (and The Stand, for that matter) found itself being fitted for a television miniseries slot rather than a motion picture release, resulting in a 192-minute two-parter on ABC back in 1990.” Of course, in this time where many popular books are broken into two or three movies (“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 & 2” and “The Hobbit” trilogy, for example), it’s not surprising to find a studio willing to allow King’s book a chance to have its story stretched across two films.

Brunson said, “In its original hardcover incarnation, Stephen King’s It ran 1,138 pages, second only to The Stand’s 1,153 pages in terms of finding the prolific author at his wordiest. Given that generous length, it’s not surprising that It (and The Stand, for that matter) found itself being fitted for a television miniseries slot rather than a motion picture release, resulting in a 192-minute two-parter on ABC back in 1990.” This is the right way to split the story, and what’s offered in this first part, released in 2017, is mostly good stuff.

Obviously, the main attraction is Pennywise the Dancing Clown, the evil being that’s kidnapping and killing the children of a small Maine town in 1989. Brunson noted, “Bill Skarsgård needs some help from the CGI gods to make his Pennywise as memorable as Tim Curry’s superb interpretation from the miniseries, but he nevertheless does a fine job of bringing this monster to life.”

The seven kids cast as the members of the self- rubbed Losers Club, reluctantly ready to fight Pennywise, are perfectly cast, with Sophia Lillis as Bev, Jack Dylan Grazer as Eddie, and Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben particularly memorable (the other members include Jaeden Lieberher as Bill, Finn Wolfhard as Richie, Chosen Jacobs as Mike, and Wyatt Oleff as Stanley).

Brunson compared, “Indeed, the sequences in which the kids merely relate to one another are among the film’s strongest, stirring memories of the exquisite Stand By Me (another adaptation of a King property). These scenes never wear out their stay, which can’t be said of a couple of the extended horror set-pieces that verge on overkill.”

Interestingly, the 1990 miniseries was at its best when it focused on the adolescent protagonists – despite solid performances by Richard Thomas, John Ritter, and others, the adult parts weren’t quite as persuasive, ultimately halting by a completely disappointing finale. The 2017 “It” is a respectable addition to the King novel adaptation, but it will be the adults-only second part that similarly will make or break the overall attempt.

I can’t say this is bad as there are a lot of scares, fun ideas, decent enough characters, and, in many ways, it is better than the original. I do recommend this if you want to see a scary movie. However, there is one thing the original had, which was silly and awkward, but it kind of enjoyed it. From the awkward effects, the artificial acting, the odd writing, and Tim Curry giving it his all. It wasn’t scary, but it wasn’t an over-the-top, campy TV movie. This new one is trying to be a lot of things, and you can tell it’s just all over the place, which is why the original had personality. However, if you want to see it on Max, I do think you should because I did enjoy it.

Next week, I will talk about the second part in “Halloween Month 2025.”

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina

Today, while exercising, I finished watching, “From the World of John Wick: Ballerina,” which was theatrically released in June, but on Starz last month. How is this spin-off of the “John Wick” franchise?

Sean Means started his review by criticizing, “The main problem with the “John Wick” franchise is its mythology — a problem that started when the filmmakers decided it needed to have one. Why can’t we just have an anti-hero who shoots, stabs, slices and punches his way through hundreds of hired killers and leave it at that?”

Means continued, “That problem, the mythology, threatens to choke the life out of the first “John Wick” spinoff movie, “Ballerina” — but, thankfully, the mayhem is entertaining enough, in a movie that gets a fair share of mileage out of the charms of star Ana de Armas.”

The mythology here starts with a prologue. Ana de Armas’ character, Eve, is introduced as a little girl (Victoria Comte), living in a beachside mansion with her father, Javier (David Castañeda). Then assassins break into the house, at the request of a crime boss, The Chancellor, played by David Byrne, who wants to punish Javier for trying to escape his cult-like community. Javier fights off the villains but dies in the process, making Eve an orphan.

One person decides to take in Eve: Mr. Winston, played by Ian McShane, who fans of the franchise know as Wick’s protector and the manager of the New York branch of The Continental, the sinister chain of luxury hotels that is a safe place for criminals around the world. Winston offers young Eve his help, whenever she should ask.

Eve is enrolled in a training school for future murderers. She practices her ballet until her feet bleed, learns martial arts, weapons, and other deadly skills. The school’s leader, called The Director, played by Anjelica Huston, gives Eve her first contact – which is how she runs into some of the murderers associated with The Chancellor’s men.

(Means said, “For those paying attention to the details of the franchise, Huston’s presence sets this story within the timeline of the third “John Wick” movie, “Parabellum.” This means that Keanu Reeves’ Wick is still alive — he wasn’t looking to good by the end of the fourth movie — and available for an appearance here somewhere.”)

Eve wants to chase after The Chancellor’s men, but The Director won’t allow it. If someone from her army tried to kill The Chancellor’s men, the weak peace between both sides would be destroyed. However, Eve is determined, so she asks Winston for information – which sets up the last half of the movie.

Means noted, “Director Len Wiseman manages not to gum up the action too much — which means he’s improving from when he directed “Underworld” and the “Total Recall” remake. The real credit should go to the stunt team, a factor that has put the “Wick” movies ahead of the pack, and to de Armas, who throws herself into the fight scenes with an admirable recklessness.”

De Armas’ efforts make their mark in the movie’s extended climax, which is on a mountainside village where apparently every citizen – all the way to the local barista – has deadly abilities and is happy to show them. Means ended his review by saying, “If moviegoers have to endure some mythology to get to a scene with dueling flamethrowers, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

As a spin-off to the franchise, I think this movie is definitely worth checking out. If you have been a fan of the franchise up to this point, then you should see this on Starz when you have the chance. You will love this movie because it keeps the action engaging and the story is very good. Eve having the same abilities that John Wick has is just amazing. Check it out and have an edge-of-your-seat enjoyable time.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Halloween Month 2025.”