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.”

S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale

Brian Orndorf started his review by crediting, “2001’s “Donnie Darko” was a bona fide movie-making miracle. An exceptional motion picture that smoothly communicated surreal imagery and brain-melting concepts of time travel, black holes, and personal demons, the apocalyptic “Donnie” suffered through an ill-timed release date (ushered into a handful of theaters soon after 9/11) and dreadful marketing (or the lack thereof), left to die like so many similar low-budget mindbenders. With the release of the DVD, “Donnie” became a titan, allowing the disaffected and the curious a chance to sit down and intimately dissect writer/director Richard Kelly’s labyrinthine cult smash.” “Donnie Darko” was elegant, invitingly shadowy, and confident all around. The last thing it needed was a weak Direct-to-Video sequel to ruin its heritage.

Escaping the mournful neglect of her parents in Virginia, Samantha Darko (Daveigh Chase) runs away on a cross-country road trip to Los Angeles with friend Corey (Briana Evigan) to fulfill her dream of professional dancing. When they have car troubles, the two pull into Conejo Springs, a small town filled with a community of bigots (including Jessie Spano from “Saved by the Bell,” Elizabeth Berkley, Matthew Davis, and John Hawkes) and young outsiders (Ed Westwick and Jackson Rathbone). Forced to interact with the locals, Corey immediately takes to the alcohol pastimes of the town, while Samantha, still mourning over the strange death of her brother, Donnie, seven years earlier, finds herself attracted to the difficulty of Iraq Jack, played by James Lafferty, a hurt Gulf War I vet who has learned through visions in her nightmares that the world will end on July 4, 1995.

Orndorf said, “There’s a fiery built-in animosity toward “S. Darko” that makes perfect sense to me. There are a million needless sequels out there acting as DVD tombstones in the video store graveyards, but the complex “Donnie Darko” is hardly an ideal candidate to build a franchise upon. Surely it’s no surprise to read that “S. Darko” is an egregiously rancid film on its own, and a complete travesty as an improbable second chapter of the “Darko” saga. It’s a spineless, careless, bizarrely unadventurous number two that would rather saddle up and rehash Kelly’s original screenplay over any clear-cut attempt to cook up some juicy oddities of its own. In essence, it’s “Donnie Darko” all over again, only instead of Jake Gyllenhaal’s pleasing performance of doe-eyed psychosis we’re stuck with Chase, who barely remains awake during her line readings.”

Orndorf continued, “Director Chris Fisher and screenwriter Nathan Atkins (who deserves nothing less than a spanking for his facepalm-inducing dialogue) are obviously under orders to reheat “Darko” iconography for another round of tangent universe tomfoolery as Corey and Samantha play a lukewarm game of dead/not dead with fate. With the reappearance of Frank the Bunny (a metallic mask employed here as Iraq Jack’s method of self-flagellation), more usage of the glowing tentacles that guide dreamers to their destiny, maneuvers with multiple Living Receiver perspectives, and a ticking clock in the form of an approaching Independence Day meteor shower, “S. Darko” is going to look and sound awfully familiar to die-hard fans who’ve studied “Donnie” with grad school precision. Fisher isn’t here to rock the boat with fresh ideas, making the sequel frustratingly timid with its unmotivated weirdness, believing familiarity will be the Wonka golden ticket to assured mass acceptance, not dramatic innovation.”

Orndorf went on, “While Chase acts as the only bridge between the two pictures (good to see Samantha still harbors feisty Sparkle Motion dreams), the character is given little impetus for her hallucinations, which only emerge because of her tainted Darko blood. She’s merely a conduit for Fisher to stage his take on unrelenting “Darko” bleakness and formidable angst, crusted with a few ‘90’s pop tunes and a young cast who act dumbfounded when requested to deliver any facial gesture than isn’t a pout (Westwick is especially vacant as the smoldering, cigarette-pack-rolled-up-in-sleeve small town Romeo). There’s no scintillating drive of otherworldly measure pinning Samantha down in the feature, she’s just a drab, disconnected pawn in a cluttered screenplay that’s eager to introduce puzzling subplots and metaphysical edges, but refuses to pay anything off, just to keep up with the first film’s elusiveness.”

Orndorf went on, “The difference between this feature’s ambiguity and Kelly’s back pocket mysteries is simple to explain: Kelly is talented. He invented his extravagant world of destiny and domestic concern and knew innately how to organize and a shoot it.” “S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale,” released in 2009, was made from money-loving producers who maybe never really understood what Kelly was doing, but they own the rights to the first film, hoping to distantly profit from an underdog cinematic event that could never be copied.

As you may have guessed, this sequel should never be seen. If you loved the first film, don’t see this one. You will regret ever watching it, especially with the way they screw around in the film. You will be constantly asking what they were thinking, and you’ll never know. Just avoid this one.

Next week, I will be looking at another remake, but one that is not so bad, in “Halloween Month 2025.”

Donnie Darko

Welcome everyone to this year’s “Halloween Month,” where I will only be reviewing movies on Fridays. Let’s get started with the 2001 cult classic, “Donnie Darko.”

There’s a lot of talent, both in front and behind the camera, in Richard Kelly’s visionary directorial debut. Emanuel Levy said in his review, “Defying easy categorization, the film is part sci-fi, part fantasy-horror, part drama, and part satire of life in a typical American burb circa 1988. A strong central turn by Jake Gyllenhaal is a major plus, not only in unifying the fractured narrative but also in providing an emotional hook for viewers’ engagement in what’s an admittedly demanding movie. An entrepreneurial company should release this unusually original indie that holds special appeal not so much for teenagers as for the twentysomething and thirtysomething crowds who’re willing to go down memory lane and revisit their tumultuous highschool days.”

The story is based on an apocalyptic saying – “the world is coming to an end” – personified in the film by Frank, a six-foot horror rabbit (James Duval) that can only be seen by Donnie, (Jake Gyllenhaal) a perfect, all-American teenager, who is very smart, bored wisdom, and vivid imagination. Levy said, “Like Jeffrey, the young protagonist of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, Donnie is about to discover a macabre underworld of dark secrets lurking behind the veneer of placid suburbia where he lives with his parents (Holmes Osborne and Mary McDonnell) and two younger sisters (Maggie Gyllenhaal and Daveigh Chase).”

An interesting beginning shows the fall of a huge jet engine on the roof of Donnie’s house, where Donnie is told by Frank that he’s destined for a unique reason in his life. Offering only a few prophetic clues, Frank promises a future relationship and, indeed, begins to make calls on Donnie and haunt him not only at night but also during the day.

Much easier and more available is the principal, classic American coming-of-age story that includes all the genre’s usual suspects: Levy mentioned, “an open-minded English teacher (Drew Barrymore) whose liberal reading list is attacked by conservative and caricaturistic teachers, a wise physics teacher (Noah Wyle) through whom Donnie discovers that none of the bizarre incidents happens randomly, a colorful gallery of classmates, and so on.” Like most youth movies, there’s also romantic desire, here between Donnie and a new student named Gretchen, played by Jena Malone, who, like him, is an outsider with a family problem. High school scenes, a genuine catalogue of all the awkward rituals of passage, are often hilarious, and is the appearance of New Age guru Jim Cunningham, played by Patrick Swayze, who’s hired to heal the children’s self-esteem, but predictably turns out to be a fake and a pervert.

Levy pointed out, “Audiences at Sundance were confused by the narrative structure, and felt disoriented as a result of the rapid changes in tone, from the real to the surreal and from one time-frame to another. Part of the puzzlement derived from the fact that, unlike most school flicks, Donnie Darko is not just about getting laid. In its metaphysical concerns with the inner workings of the universe, and challenging notions about time-travel, the film aims higher than most pictures of its kind.”

Levy continued, “Indeed, while the film’s arduous scope and helmer’s imagination are commendable, the execution and ultimate result are not.” With all the admiration for the elaborate special effects, they’re often excessive, distractive attention from what’s already a complicated story line, and the different subplots don’t always add up to a clear whole. Even so, whatever faults critics may find with unfolding of the plot and its ending, there’s no doubt that beginner director Kelly (a USC grad) shows command of film’s technical properties (lensing and production design are accomplished) and is also wonderful with his huge ensemble. Levy ended his review by saying, “Holding the entire picture together is an enormously appealing performance by Gyllenhaal, whose physique and acting recall the young Tobey Maguire. The other roles are small but succinctly drawn, from Barrymore to McDonnell to Wyle to Katharine Ross, who plays Donnie’s shrink.”

This is a movie that has to be seen to be believed. It is a very good movie and I recommend everyone to see it. Yes, this is very much a confusing film that goes back and forth with things, but that’s what makes it so engaging. Very much like “Inception.” This is currently streaming on a lot of places (Tubi, Pluto TV, Roku, Amazon, Hulu, Disney+, Netflix, PLEX, Peacock, Philo, CW) so you have your options of where you want to watch it.

Next week, we will be looking at the superfluous sequel that is so bad in “Halloween Month 2025.”