To celebrate its 20th anniversary, “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” is returning to theaters on April 25th. “Revenge of the Sith” premiered May 15, 2005 at the Cannes Film Festival before releasing wide on May 19th. It was the final film in creator George Lucas’s ambitious prequel trilogy and to this day it remains one of the franchise’s very best movies.
“Revenge of the Sith” is the final chapter in the story of Anakin Skywalker’s rise and fall from a powerful young Jedi to the villainous Darth Vader. Returning Star Wars alum Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz, and Peter Mayhew fill out the spectacular ensemble.
To promote the movie’s return to theaters, Disney and LucasFilm has released a killer new poster. Check it out below and let me know what you think.
Kyle Hausmann-Stokes makes an impressive directorial debut with “My Dead Friend Zoe”, a deeply personal feature inspired by the tragic deaths of two of his platoonmates. There’s a number of powerful themes sewn into the fabric of his movie. But its chief interest is in exploring the experiences of military veterans in America. Hausmann-Stokes honors them through a poignant and honest examination of the wartime scars combat vets often return home with.
Merit (played by a brilliant Sonequa Martin-Green) is a troubled veteran who spent eight years in Afghanistan as a light-wheel mechanic for the U.S. Army. While serving she became close friends with the brash and boisterous Zoe (Natalie Morales). But Zoe’s life met a tragic end which is revealed to us over the course of the movie. Now Merit sees visions of her late friend and the two routinely carry on conversations. During their frequent tête-à-têtes, Zoe’s barbs range from darkly funny to piercingly cruel.
The idea of a deceased friend popping up to crack jokes and needle our protagonist may sound insensitive, especially considering the weight of the film’s subject matter. And this certainly isn’t the first movie to use this device in its storytelling. But kudos to Hausmann-Stokes who takes a thoughtful and schmaltz-free approach. At no point does his handling of the material feel insincere or gimmicky. Instead it adds a crucial emotional layer to the story that helps ground it in reality.
Aside from the flashbacks in Afghanistan, most of the story takes place in Oregon. Following an accident at her warehouse job, Merit is charged with criminal negligence and ordered by the court to attend group therapy meetings for former soldiers struggling with PTSD. The sessions are led by Dr. Cole (Morgan Freeman), a VA counselor who refuses to coddle Merit but also shows her a great deal of compassion.
Meanwhile Merit gets a call from her mother, Kris (Gloria Reuben) telling her to go check on her grandfather, Dale (Ed Harris) who has been taken to the hospital. The doctor diagnoses Dale with early stage Alzheimer’s leading Merit and her mother to consider some difficult choices. As they do, Merit moves in with her surly grandfather at his beloved lakeside cabin, rekindling a strained but cherished relationship that may help her finally confront her own emotionally crippling pent-up trauma.
Hausmann-Stokes does a superb job delicately balancing a post-service soldier story with an affecting domestic drama, connecting them in a way that raises awareness to a number of potent real-world issues. The performances are top-to-bottom strong led by Sonequa Martin-Green’s eye-opening leading turn. And the sturdy Ed Harris proves again why he’s such a cherished actor. Morgan Freeman is effortlessly solid in what is a small-ish role while Utkarsh Ambudkar adds some levity playing an awkward retirement home administrator and part-time cemetery caretaker.
On the surface, its concept may sound far-fetched. But nothing about “My Dead Friend Zoe” comes across as exaggerated or inauthentic. Even the measured and well-tuned injections of humor fit well with the story Hausmann-Stokes is telling. We have to maneuver through a few narrative cliches to get to the ending and it’s a bit rushed once we get there. But those things do nothing to hinder the clarity of the filmmaker’s firsthand inspiration. It pulsates all throughout this stirring and insightful slice of reality. Opening in theaters February 28th.
Osgood Perkins crafted one of 2024’s very best films with his exceptional serial killer horror thriller “Longlegs”. It was a movie that was rightly met with positive reactions from audiences and critics. But it was good enough to deserve serious awards season consideration. Sadly, the film was mostly ignored by end of the year voting members from critics associations (including my own) to major award groups.
And just like that Perkins is back with his follow-up, “The Monkey”. This warped and twisted horror blend is based on Stephen King’s 1980 short story. Perkins writes, directs, and takes countless liberties in his adaptation of King’s work. The most noticeable addition is the infusion of comedy into what is an otherwise a hyper-gory splatter film. Perkins keeps his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek as he has us chuckling one minute while spraying us with blood and guts the next.
Unfortunately his mix of horror and humor doesn’t quite gel the way he wants it to. The movie features several wild and spectacularly gory deaths that are sure to earn some audible gasps. And there are genuinely funny lines of dialogue scattered all throughout. But it’s the story that attempts to connect it all that underwhelms. Not only is it a mess, but it bungles the heavier themes it introduces. So we’re left with little more than gore and goofiness and both wear out their welcome over time.
Back in 1999, twin brothers Hal and Bill Shelburn (Christian Convery) lived with their single mother, Lois (Tatiana Maslany). The boys weren’t especially close as the punk Bill relentless bullied and belittled his more timid brother Hal. Their lives are violently turned upside down after they discover a wind-up musical monkey in a closet among their absent father’s old things.
Now to the movie’s rules. Apparently whenever someone winds the key on the monkey’s back and it plays it drum someone is killed in a gruesomely outrageous manner. Why? We never know. Who or what is behind the monkey’s ‘power’? Your guess is as good as mine. The movie has no interest in answering such questions which naturally come from such a story.
The closest we get to answers are in the film’s abject cynicism. As one character states, “Everyone dies and that’s life” – no purpose, no point, no pattern. That may make for an interesting philosophical discussion, but it doesn’t automatically equal good cinema. In “The Monkey” it feels more like a cop-out than a thought-provoking statement on the absurdity of death. It gives Perkins a reason to splash the screen with viscera in a creative array of ways.
Some 25 years later, the estranged brothers (now played by Theo James) haven’t spoken in years. Hal lives in seclusion but has a son named Petey (Colin O’Brien). In one of the film’s most underdeveloped story threads, Hal goes to pick up Petey for their once-a-year visit. While there, he’s informed by his ex-wife (Laura Mennell) that her successful new husband (Elijah Wood in a rather silly cameo) is adopting Petey. It’s a wonky domestic angle that feels thrown together rather than thought out.
But of course the monkey finds its way back into their lives. Hal and Bill thought they were rid of it and each other when they threw it down a well as kids. But it returns with another string of grisly and graphic deaths. And it brings the estranged brothers back together in a way that’s more ridiculous than convincing. It all plays out in an outrageous final act that’s either care-free to the point of incoherence or smugly poking fun at genre fans and their willingness to consume anything as long as it’s coated in blood.
“The Monkey” continues a growing trend in modern horror. It’s yet another movie that goes all-in on gore while making no real attempt at being scary. In this case, far more effort is put into being funny. But too often the horror and the humor are working against each other. At times they click, leading to some pretty good comic payoffs. But those efforts are overshadowed by the tonal chaos, its lack of tension, and the half-baked story which almost feels like an afterthought.
With a blaring title like “Everyone is Going to Die” you may think you know what you’re in for. But to writer-director Craig Tuohy’s credit, his feature film debut has more on its mind than you might expect. But having big ideas means little if you’re not able to execute them. And unfortunately some of the film’s bigger issues lie with the execution.
The trailer presents the film as a sinister mix of “The Strangers” and Michael Haneke’s “Funny Games”. But it doesn’t have the terror of “The Strangers” or the disturbing edge of “Funny Games”. Instead “Everyone is Going to Die” is a home invasion thriller that’s so intensely invested in being a patriarchal critique that it forgets such things as building suspense, story coherence, and sticking its ending.
Image Courtesy of Saban Films
But Tuohy does impress in some areas including making the most of an obviously small budget. And you can see the framework of a potentially terrifying and thematically provocative movie. But not all of its narrative pieces fit together and there are a few too many details missing from the story. And once the film’s intent becomes obvious, it clumsily tries to make its point through head-scratching sequences that amount to little more than shock value.
The film opens with a wealthy land developer, Daniel (Brad Moore) cleaning up his remote ultramodern home after a hedonistic night of partying with his latest girlfriend, Lydia (Tamsin Dean). From the outset it’s clear that Daniel is a slug and the movie goes all-in defining him as such. So much so that later attempts at revealing the depths of depravity lose their punch. He’s a self-centered jerk, a crooked businessman, and a rotten father. But nothing trumps the damage he has done to the women in his life.
Daniel finishes cleaning up just in time for the arrival of his troubled 16-year-old daughter Imogen (Gledisa Arthur) who has reluctantly agreed to spend the weekend with her father to celebrate her birthday. Daniel attempts to reconnect with Imogen but it’s obvious he has no clue what she likes or dislikes. He’s even more oblivious to the deeper emotional issues she’s struggling with.
Their not-so-enjoyable father-daughter reunion is suddenly interrupted when their home is invaded by two women sporting hideous masks and a shotgun. The women, listed as Comedy (Jaime Winstone) and Tragedy (Chiara D’Anna), take Daniel and Imogen hostage but aren’t immediately upfront with their reasons. At first it comes across as a straight robbery. But it’s quickly made evident that the women have serious man issues, and specifically with Daniel.
Image Courtesy of Saban Films
The entire movie plays out inside the house which (as in so many other current movies in the horror and thriller genre) is yet another posh estate sitting in the middle of nowhere, conveniently away from any neighbors or law enforcement. It features the two mysterious women humiliating the aggressively vile Daniel in front his daughter by exposing his many vices. But not all of their tactics make sense. And the movie’s opinion of them is cloudy at best, with the script constantly undercutting any feelings we’re supposed to have for them.
One area where the movie excels is in the performances. Moore is too restricted by his character to offer much for us to latch onto. But Arthur, Winstone, and D’Anna each offer compelling takes on the women they play. But even they have a tough time adding substance to this barely 80-minute story. Again, its problems all come down to the diluted script which wants to say something profound but that has a really hard time saying it. Releases in select theaters and on VOD February 21st.
Director Martin Campbell has had a rocky go of it following his extraordinary 2006 James Bond gem “Casino Royale”. Since then he has helmed one notoriously bad superhero movie and five mostly forgettable action thrillers. His latest film is called “Cleaner” and unfortunately it’s yet another action thriller that doesn’t do much to change course.
It wouldn’t be a stretch to categorize “Cleaner” as another “Die Hard” knock-off. In fact it fits the description closer than many. It has a skyscraper, terrorists, hostages, and an out-of-place protagonist who is forced to take action. Of course we know as Oscar Wilde first uttered, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. But a movie needs to add some flavor of its own to make it stand out. And that’s something “Cleaner” struggles mightily to do.
Image Courtesy of Quiver Distribution
In a somewhat strange bit of casting, Daisy Ridley plays Joey Locke, a dishonorably discharged former soldier who now works cleaning and servicing windows on a state-of-the-art London skyscraper. While on her way to work, Joey gets a call that her autistic brother Michael (Matthew Tuck) is being kicked out of his ninth care facility, this time for hacking into their computers.
With nowhere to leave Michael, Joey takes him with her to work at the ultramodern Agnian Tower, home of Agnian Energy which is ran by two egotistical and corrupt brothers, Geoffrey Milton (Rufus Jones) and Gerald Milton (Lee Boardman). Unfortunately for Joey and Michael, she picked a really bad day to take her brother to work.
As the Milton brothers host a swanky gala on one of the building’s top floors, the party is interrupted by armed radical ecoterrorists calling themselves Earth Revolution. The group’s leader, Marcus Blake (Clive Owen) is an idealist intent on exposing Agnian’s host of crimes including killing ecosystems with illegal dumping and permanently silencing opposing voices. Among Marcus’ squad is the unhinged Noah (Taz Skylar) who believes violence is a much better way of making their point. It doesn’t take long before the tension between the two reaches its boiling point.
To no surprise violence erupts, hostages are taken, threats are issued, and the police gather at the scene under the lead of Superintendent Claire Hume (Ruth Gemmell). Meanwhile trapped high above on a window cleaning cradle is Joey, desperately trying to make her way inside to save the wandering Michael. In true John McClane fashion, Joey becomes a thorn in the terrorists side although not an especially convincing one.
Image Courtesy of Quiver Distribution
Written by the trio of Simon Uttley, Paul Andrew Williams, and Matthew Orton, the not-so-original story plays out to a chorus of clichés and rehashed plot points. It’s also riddled with hilariously hokey dialogue and some unintentionally outrageous scenes (my favorite may be Joey hanging by her fingertips onto the exterior of a skyscraper some 1,000 feet in the sky while casually carrying on a phone conversation about her past).
Ridley deserves credit for putting every ounce of herself into her role. And it’s great seeing Clive Owen back on the big screen for the first time in years. Sadly she can’t shake the sense of being miscast and he doesn’t get near enough screen time. But in reality the movie’s issues run deeper and they’re considerably harder to overlook. It’s silly, short on much-needed thrills, and a rehash of other movies that simply did it better. “Cleaner” releases in theaters February 21st.
It doesn’t seem possible, but Norman Jewison’s “Rollerball” turns 50 this year. The movie doesn’t quite blend with the filmmaker’s more lauded movies such as “In the Heat of the Night”, “Fiddler on the Roof”, “The Thomas Crown Affair”, and “Moonstruck”. But this dystopian science-fiction sports film from 1975 remains a favorite of mine out of Jewison’s rich catalog – a sentiment that was reinforced after a recent rewatch.
At the center of the movie is a futuristic sport called Rollerball – a violent fusion of roller derby, football, and motorcycles. Bizarrely, audiences at the time were so wild about the “sport” that several potential promoters and investors contacted Jewison in hopes of acquiring its rights. But considering the themes of the movie, it understandably never happened as the idea of an actual Rollerball league was repellent to the director.
The screenplay was penned by William Harrison who was adapting his own Esquire magazine short story titled “Roller Ball Murder”. It’s set in the ‘not too distant future’ of 2018 (which is both amusing and sobering for us in 2025) where our world is ruled by a multi-corporate dictatorship. The earth has been broken up into sectors, each controlled by a powerful global corporation. Together they run society by setting policy, enforcing the laws, and governing the working class in ways that protect their own self-interests.
Image Courtesy of United Artists
Though released in 1975, the movie’s insightful vision has proven surprisingly prophetic. Jewison and Harrison coat their story with a futuristic veneer. But its thematic core speaks to issues that some could argue are coming true right before our eyes. The corporate usurpation of democratic rule, the unwitting surrender of freedoms, and the suppression and control of information – all have a striking relevance today.
One of their biggest means of control is Rollerball, a corporately funded and globally sanctioned sport with a strict social purpose but that’s packaged as mainstream entertainment. Every sector has their own Rollerball team and a fiercely loyal fanbase. The executive board attributes Rollerball with putting an end to wars and curing society’s many ills. In reality the game was designed to “demonstrate the futility of individual effort” and it has had its desired effect
Jonathan E. (a terrific James Caan) is the very best in the sport and has become a star who is beloved all over the world. So much so that even fans of other teams chant his name. But Jonathan’s popularity and celebrity has certain executives concerned. They see his individual stardom as a threat to their control. The corporations believe Jonathan’s fame has made him bigger than the very game they use to keep the world’s population in line.
Jonathan is called to a meeting with Mr. Bartholomew (John Houseman), the chief executive of the Energy Corporation which oversees his sector and his Rollerball team. Bartholomew informs Jonathan that the executive board wants him to retire and they’re willing to give him a lavish retirement package that will set him up for life as well as a big public sendoff in his honor. But Jonathan doesn’t want to abandon his teammates and he doesn’t like the idea of being pushed out with no real explanation.
Image Courtesy of United Artists
The majority of the movie follows Jonathan’s bitter resistance to retirement and the executive board’s growing impatience with his lack of cooperation. We learn that Jonathan hasn’t trusted the corporations since a high-ranking official took his wife Ella (Maud Adams) as his own spouse. And he grows even more disillusioned after discovering how the corporations keeps their tight grip on society.
The film’s thematic depth is often overshadowed by the Rollerball matches themselves. Jewison, along with acclaimed cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and editor Antony Gibbs, film the Rollerball matches with indomitable fury and panache. They take this wild and violent sport and clearly define it for us, not through exposition but through their camera. And it gets more barbaric with each game, especially once the executives start changing the rules in an effort to target Jonathan.
“Rollerball” released as a thrilling future shock yet to this day it maintains a sharp contemporary bite. It’s highlighted with slick production values and brimming with astute social commentary. And its all accented by a touch of violent 70s exploitation. As with any 50-year-old movie, you can pick at things that haven’t aged particularly well. But “Rollerball” remains a fascinating sci-fi opus with the brawn of a pulse-pounding action thriller and the brains of a razor-sharp social critique.
Keith & the Movies 