Following in the footsteps of the stellar “First Reformed” was never going to be easy. But filmmaker Paul Schrader’s latest “The Card Counter” is a noble effort. In fact in some ways Schrader’s new film makes for a compelling companion piece to that highly acclaimed 2018 character study.

In “First Reformed” Ethan Hawke played a tortured pastor of a small upstate New York church suffering a crisis of faith. In “The Card Counter” it’s Oscar Isaac playing a gambler haunted by his past time as an ex-military interrogator. Both characters struggle with a similar inner tension just in a different setting and with different details.

The 75-year-old Schrader writes and directs the straightforward titled “The Card Counter” which centers on a poker-faced card-sharp who goes by William Tell (Isaac). We first meet him as he’s finishing up an eight-and-a-half year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth. He liked prison. He liked the order, the routine. It’s where he honed his skills at blackjack and card counting. In some tantalizing early narration William explains how the technique works and how a good card counter can take away the house’s advantage and use it against them.

William has carved out a life for himself, making a good living by traveling to small casinos across the Midwest using his skills to make a modest profit at each stop. He hasn’t just figured out the trick to winning at blackjack, he’s also figured out how to stay under the radar. He’s learned that casinos don’t pay attention if you win by counting cards. They take notice if you win too much by counting cards. So William bounces from one gaming house to another, always quitting while he’s ahead, and then moving to the next town.

Not only does William enjoy this life, but it helps him suppress and conceal the emotional turmoil inside of him. It’s what holds him together. Isaac’s performance is top-notch and it’s hard to see through his steely solemnity. But it’s obvious there so much behind William’s eyes, namely deep-rooted PTSD from his time at Abu Ghraib and his participation in the state-sanctioned ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ under the command of the callous military contractor Major John Gordo (Willem Dafoe). A series of potent flashbacks put us into William’s head and they’re shot with an unsettling visceral style.

Things take a turn when William meets Cirk (that’s “Kirk with a C” he constantly reminds everyone), a wayward young man played by Tye Sheridan with a troubling connection to a figure from William’s military past. Sympathetic and concerned, William takes Cirk under his wing. In one sense he hopes to help the boy and steer him in a better direction. But William also discovers a new sense of purpose – something other than the blackjack table that drives him. There’s also this idea of guilt and expiation, both individually and symbolically. It’s a crucial piece to William and Cirk’s odd relationship, and it’s a theme woven throughout Schrader’s picture.

Then you have Tiffany Haddish’s La Linda, the third member of this ungainly traveling trio. She’s a go-between who connects gamblers with wealthy backers who then bankroll the players. Normally William wouldn’t be interested. But with Cirk in debt and needing a new start, maybe a few tournaments backed by some big investors could bring in the money the kid needs.

While Haddish doesn’t always seem in-tune with Schrader’s tone, this is one of her better performances. More subdued and bringing a welcomed warmth, this is nice reprieve from the louder and more in-your-face Haddish. It’s the same with Sheridan who sometimes feels a bit out of place. Still, his low-key character is a central piece of the story and it’s easy to overlook a few sluggish points especially considering how everything plays out.

In the end it’s Oscar Isaac who drives the movie and he’s just the right fit for Schrader’s stern Bresson-like minimalism (just like Hawke in “First Reformed”). As his character is slowly unpacked, Isaac maintains an icy and cryptic stoicism. But we do see cracks in his exterior which ends up taking the movie in an unexpected direction. At the same time, it plays out in the only way that seems fitting for a story that has a lot more on its mind than blackjack and poker tournaments. “The Card Counter” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Throughout the grand history of cinema there have been countless science-fiction stories about humanity seeking a new home in space. Some have been sprawling odysseys of discovery while others have been about settling and surviving in exotic and sometimes dangerous new worlds. The new Swiss-German sci-fi thriller “The Colony” does something a little different. It tackles the idea of going back to Earth after two generations away.

Tim Fehlbaum directs “The Colony” which does what most good sci-fi does – it focuses on humanity as much (if not more) than aliens, deep space or futuristic tech. There are several subtle themes woven into the film’s story. But at its core the movie explores the notion of losing our humanity in our efforts to save it. How far is too far? At what point do we cross the line and lose the very thing we’re so desperately trying to preserve?

To set up the story (co-written by Fehlbaum and Mariko Minoguchi), a deteriorating climate, global pandemics and endless wars rendered the Earth uninhabitable. As a result, the ruling elites used their means to leave the planet, eventually settling on a space colony they called Kepler 209. Two generations pass and the colonists discover that something on their new home has made them infertile. Shades of “Children of Men”?

Reasonably fearing that their inability to reproduce will lead to their extinction, scientists put together The Ulysses Project, an exploratory mission to find out whether a return to Earth is possible. The first crew to attempt a landing on the blue dot was assumed lost and never heard from. Not a good sign.

“The Colony” begins with Ulysses 2 bursting through Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a jolt of an opening that’s one of the film’s few “action” moments (if you can even call it that). The pod carrying the three-person crew malfunctions during its entry and crash-lands. One crew member is dead on arrival, the mission commander (Sope Dirisu) is seriously wounded and astronaut Louise Blake (Nora Arnezeder) survives the crash unscathed.

One of the first things you’ll notice happens to be one of the movie’s biggest strengths, and that’s the harsh and barren world Fehlbaum imagines. Our once thriving planet is shown as nothing more than a dank and desolate wasteland of tidal waters and mud flats. It’s visualized through mostly practical effects that emphasize the unwelcoming bleakness and dystopian dread. To capture these early outdoor scenes, Fehlbaum took his cast and crew to the German Tidelands rather than use green screen. The shoots proved challenging, but the benefits on screen are obvious.

Arnezeder (who earlier this year shined in Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead”) makes for a compelling protagonist. As Blake, she’s essentially the lens through which we see this world unfold. After landing she immediately begins taking samples and readings. But just minutes into the movie she’s attacked and taken prison by a band of scavengers – human survivors who were left behind when the wealthy and powerful made their exodus. And there’s also this – they have children.

From there Fehlbaum tosses aside outer space and plants us in his apocalyptic hellscape where the survivors are already repeating mistakes from humanity’s past. Most notably, something akin to a class structure has taken form. The scavengers live in rickety huts able to float whenever the tide roles in. They’re frequently invaded by a more advanced and overtly oppressive colony who dwell in the belly of a massive grounded freighter fortified by walls of metal. The two factions create an interesting dynamic that has some startling parallels to our modern society.

Driven by Kepler 209’s cult-like mantra “for the many” (which Blake chants repeatedly, more to convince herself than out of some deep conviction), Blake is determined to complete her mission and get word back to her home colony. But soon she finds herself drawn into the conflict between the emerging haves and have nots. Soon she’s forced to question herself and her own motivations. It’s an intriguing angle especially with children involved. The scavengers have them; the other community wants them.

While Fehlbaum’s exploration gets points for its thoughtful human-centered interests, there’s a frustrating vagueness to both the story and the characters. With the exception of Blake, none of the people we meet are given much depth and some are little more than devices. Meanwhile the deeper we get into the story the more conventional it gets. There’s also an undercooked mystery surrounding Blake’s father (the leader of the first Ulysses mission) that could’ve used more attention.

Thankfully “The Colony” never completely derails in large part because of the stellar production design. The stark dismal environments brings thoughts of “Waterworld” and “Mad Max” but without the big studio shine. Instead Fehlbaum’s world is ugly, gritty and palpable. And while his story may lose a little of its focus, the underlying themes form a thought-provoking message that’s pretty timely for our current day. “The Colony” is now showing in select theaters and on VOD.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Sometimes you go into a movie with a sinking feeling in your stomach. You aren’t at all excited for what you’re about to see. Or at best you’re completely indifferent. Maybe the trailer left a bad impression. Maybe you just know the movie isn’t for you. Yet you see it anyway, clinging to a thin thread of hope that you’ll be surprised. Taking the chance that you may have misjudged it. Saying with all the optimism you can muster, “Maybe this isn’t the movie I thought it would be.”

“Cinderella” is exactly the movie I thought it would be.

“Pitch Perfect” scribe Kay Cannon writes and directs yet another version of the Charles Perrault classic, this one originally under the Sony umbrella but sold to Amazon to be released this weekend on Prime streaming. While they share the same name, “Cinderella” 2021 has little in common with the other versions outside of the basic details. Instead what we get here is an aggressively modernized reimagining with what seems like a poorly veiled distaste for the fairytale that inspired it.

While I’m not sure anyone was clamoring for a new “Cinderella” movie, Cannon’s musical version had some promise. But it’s too preoccupied with highlighting its own forward-thinking and wedging in every policy from the progressive playbook. There’s no nuance, subtlety or cleverness to be found anywhere in this laughably heavy-handed reinvention. We see the politics everywhere, but where’s the magic?

To clarify, Cannon has a tale that’s ready-made for a fun and enlightened update. The story of female empowerment and following one’s dreams should inspire any young girl. And its critique of a backwards male-dominated society speaks to issues that still have relevance today. But do we really go to a “Cinderella” movie for what it has to say about the coal industry or military spending?

Some of this would be easier to digest if the story itself wasn’t so flat. We get a few flashes of originality, but the movie ends up backing itself into a corner and routinely falls into traps that it itself set. Meanwhile characters are nothing but a swirl of bland caricatures. In fairness, some of this is due to classic story which most of us know by heart. But it’s still reasonable to expect the characters to be interesting, especially in a movie that makes such a big deal out of distancing itself from the other adaptations. They aren’t.

And the music isn’t much better. Weird covers of songs by Janet Jackson, Queen, Madonna, Salt-N-Pepa, Ed Sheeran and others too often sounds like group karaoke rather than movie musical numbers. And even the songs by pop-star Camil Cabello (the film’s lone burst of genuine energy) quickly begin sounding exactly the same.

The film’s on-the-nose introduction gives you a good sense of where its head is at – “Once upon a time there was an old-fashioned kingdom bound by tradition.” From there we’re introduced to Ella (Cabello), an aspiring fashion designer who’s far more interested in owning her own dress shop than finding her Prince Charming. Unfortunately she’s stuck under the same roof as her wicked stepmother Vivian (Idina Menzel in a thankless role). While Ella is full of her own dreams, Vivian submits whole-heartedly to the kingdom’s patriarchy. And she’s determined to make sure her girls do too.

Meanwhile in the lavish castle on the hill lives the cartoonishly thickheaded King Rowan (Pierce Brosnan), his remarkably dull wife Queen Beatrice (Minnie Driver), his hyper-leftist daughter Gwen (Tallulah Greive) and of course his son Prince Robert (Nicholas Galitzine), who is (reluctantly) next in line for the crown. The King, who’s more worried about his power and perception than his son’s wishes, insists that Robert find him a wife. So what does any good house of royalty do? You throw a ball!

You know where it goes from there. With the help of a little magic (and I mean very little) Ella goes to the ball where the nobleman and the commoner fall for each other. But Ella is no stay-at-castle kind of girl. She has her own aspirations and enough girl-power to see them come true. It’s the only real twist to the classic story that’s remotely interesting. Unfortunately it too is glaringly predictable and ends with a rather underwhelming thud.

The film takes several big swings at comedy and pretty much misses every time. The biggest whiff comes with Billy Porter’s loud and garish performance as the Fabulous Fairy Godmother. It’s essentially Billy Porter playing Billy Porter and mercifully it’s only one (albeit long) scene. Speaking of distractions, producer James Corden sticks himself into the movie playing a talking mouse turned human footman. If you thought the viral video of him dancing in a mouse costume was bad, wait till you see this.

“Cinderella” ends up being a movie that’s so enamored with giving the classic fairytale a makeover that it forgets everything else. It’s a musical without good songs. It’s a comedy that isn’t funny. It’s a romance that lacks spark. The biggest casualty is Cabello who has some noticeable charm and even a little swagger which I liked. But material like this doesn’t highlight any of her acting or musical strengths. In fact it doesn’t highlight much of anything other than the fact that we really didn’t need another Cinderella movie. “Cinderella” premieres tomorrow (September 3rd) in theaters and on Amazon Prime streaming.

VERDICT – 1 STAR

The original 1992 “Candyman” came out as the VHS era was booming. DVDs were still four years away so VHS cassettes were the way millions of people consumed their movies. When “Candyman” came out it wasn’t some genre-changing masterpiece, yet critics recognized not only its gory violence but its surprisingly rich social commentary. But for many, “Candyman” was just another VHS tape stuck in the horror section at their local video store.

As prep for my review of the new “Candyman” sequel, I rewatched Bernard Rose’s ‘92 original for the first time in decades. It turns out the critics’ favorable appraisal still holds up. I only wish I felt as strong about Nia DaCosta’s fascinating yet frustrating 2021 follow-up.

“Candyman” the 2021 edition is an entertaining mess; a film that grabs your attention and keeps it till the very end. At the same it’s a movie that teases far more than it delivers. It’s one that alludes to thought-provoking issues rather than exploring them in a challenging way. Even worse, its shaky storytelling skips over too many details leaving us with too many questions. Oh, and it wraps up with a hilariously on-the-nose ending that undercuts any suspense the film had mustered so far.

Written by DaCosta, Jordan Peele and Win Rosenfeld, the film follows Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), a hot-shot visual artist who’s struggling to find inspiration. He lives rent-free with his girlfriend Brianna (Teyonah Parris) in her swanky new Chicago apartment. She’s a well-connected art gallery director who has always encouraged Anthony. But he’s in a funk and needs something to spark his creativity.

Anthony finds that elusive inspiration while researching the local urban legend of Candyman. See the 1992 movie for more details, but Candyman is said to be a supernatural killer in a trench-coat and with a meat-hook for a hand. Legend has it if you say his name five times in the mirror Candyman will appear in the reflection and kill whoever summoned him. (I’ve never fully understood those rules, but that’s fine).

Anthony visits the abandoned Cabrini Green projects which was terrorized by Candyman decades earlier. He runs into a neighborhood old-timer named William (the always good Colman Domingo) who shares his first-hand account with Candyman. Before you know it an obsessed Anthony is chanting Candyman’s name in the mirror, a fresh bee sting on his hand is festering, and gruesome deaths start popping up across the city.

From the film’s earliest scenes DaCosta shows off her knack for framing shots. She does some unique and clever things with the camera that does more to add tension than anything written into the story itself. At the same time, she seems to have an aversion to blood and gore. I mean we do get a chopped hand, there’s a particularly gnarly slit throat, and Anthony’s infected hand gets pretty nasty. But far too often DaCosta cuts away or zooms out from the action, even relying solely on sound in a couple of scenes. It will be a welcomed choice for weak stomachs and a disappointment for some genre fans.

Meanwhile the mostly fright-free story zips along, infusing the lore of first film with its own current-day perspective. It’s a great idea on the surface, but the story ends up needlessly convoluted and with gaping holes in its logic. And while it seems interested in meaningful topics such as race and gentrification, just referencing them isn’t the same as dealing with them. It’s one of several areas where “Candyman” shows promise but fails to deliver. “Candyman” opens in theaters Friday, August 27th.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

One of the most talked about movies from this year’s Sundance Film Festival was Sian Heder’s “CODA”. The heartwarming coming-of-age story follows 17-year-old Ruby, the lone hearing member of her culturally deaf family. Both written and directed by Heder, “CODA” is an English-language remake of a 2014 French dramedy “La Famille Bélier”. It had its premiere at Sundance and was quickly gobbled up by Apple for a record setting $25 million.

While “La Famille Bélier” was set on a dairy farm in rural France, “CODA” (short for ‘child of deaf adults’) is about a family of fishermen in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Emilia Jones plays Ruby who we first meet on her family’s boat reeling in nets and separating flounder, crab, and the occasional leather boot. She works the tub with her salty and grizzled father Frank (Troy Kotsur) and her ambitious old brother Leo (Daniel Durant), both deaf. Back home the fourth member of the Rossi clan is Ruby’s mom Jackie (Marlee Matlin), also deaf. Together they make for a feisty but loving group.

One of the great accomplishments of “CODA” is its ability to enlighten while also expelling myths about the deaf community. Heder puts a ton of effort into portraying the Rossi clan as a normal everyday family who in many ways aren’t too different than anyone else. They laugh, they squabble, they get on each others nerves. And like so many other families working the North Shore, they feel the financial strain of the struggling fishing market. Most importantly, Heder gives plenty of attention to each individual family member, fully fleshing out their unique personalities and trusting the cast to bring them to life.

At the same time Heder doesn’t shy away from the real-life day-to-day challenges that comes with being deaf. In many ways Ruby is our conduit to a better understanding of the struggles at home and out in the community. Sometimes it’s small things like the inability to gauge volume – the loud rattling of dishes, the noisy lovemaking coming from her parents’ bedroom, or the blaring music (Frank likes hip-hop, not for the music itself but for the vibration he feels from the speakers). Other hurdles have more serious implications especially when a local commission starts putting the squeeze on area fisherman. Frank fights to keep their business afloat, but without Ruby present, communicating with the all-hearing public is next to impossible.

This makes it especially tough for Ruby who is counted on to be her family’s interpreter and general go-between. Ruby loves her family deeply, but she’s carried this obligation since she was a child and it’s wearing her down. “I’ve been interpreting my whole life,” an exasperated Ruby laments. “It’s exhausting.” To make it worse, it doesn’t allow Ruby to pursue her real passion – singing. She has the voice but doesn’t have the nerves to sing in front of people nor does she have a family she can share it with.

Enter quirky choir director Bernardo Villalobos (a delightful Eugenio Derbez). He sees something in Ruby and pushes her to trust her voice and believe in herself. It’s a trope we’ve seen countless times – the inspirational teacher breaking through to the insecure pupil. But as with many things in “CODA”, underneath the familiar exterior is a warmth and authenticity that’s hard to resist. And as Mr. V. predictably encourages Ruby to pursue her passion, even pushing her to audition for Boston’s Berklee College of Music, we’re with her every step of the way.

That aforementioned authenticity can be found all through “CODA”, from the rich blue-collar setting (filmed on location in Gloucester) to the way it normalizes the deaf community’s experience (I would guess 50% of the film is in American Sign Language). Mostly it’s in the characters who feel rooted in the world we see and driven by organic emotions. This is partly due to how well they’re written, but also because of the performances. Casting three incredibly talented deaf actors (including one Oscar winner) made all the difference and together with Jones the four share a remarkable chemistry.

And I also have to say that “CODA” is legitimately funny. The laughs come natural and frequently while also being honest and reverent. The humor makes for a great compliment to the coming-of-age drama which follows a pretty conventional blueprint but enhances it with a uniquely fresh perspective. And even though you get a good sense for where the movie is heading, the story is so joyously earnest and deeply affecting that you won’t care. There’s a magic to that and the folks behind “CODA” have it. “CODA” opens August 13th on Apple TV+.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Two of my very favorite horror movies of the last decade were James Wan’s “The Conjuring” (2013) and “The Conjuring 2” (2016). Based on the supposed real-life case files of paranormal investigators and Vatican certified demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren, the Conjuring films were breaths of fresh air in a genre that had become pretty bland and stale. Both films were big box office successes which Warner Brothers used to launch several spin-off movies. None of them came close to the quality of Wan’s centerpieces, but they made money and ensured franchise fans of future movies.

The third film sees Wan producing and conceiving the story but stepping away from the director’s chair. It also sees the series dropping the number in its title and going with a case-referencing subtitle. Even more, unlike its predecessors, this isn’t a haunted house movie. Instead it’s based on the 1981 trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson which became known as the “Devil Made Me Do It” case (hence the film’s funny sounding yet appropriate title). This one very much plays like a supernatural mystery; one that isn’t confined to a single location. Its differences from the previous two movies are obvious, but that’s part of what makes it such a nice addition to the series.

Though helmed by a new director (Michael Chaves), “The Devil Made Me Do It” does see the return of its most essential ingredients. The reliable Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson reprise their roles as Loraine and Ed, possessing that same stellar chemistry that has made the Warrens the heart of the “Conjuring” films. Their loving, devoted relationship has always played a crucial part to these stories, but never more than in the third film. In fact you could call this a thoughtful love story, albeit one wrapped from top to bottom in eerie supernatural terror.

The film opens with a chilling prologue that would feel right at home in first films. The Warrens have been summoned to Brookfield, Connecticut where they’re documenting the exorcism of 8-year-old David Glatzel (Julian Hilliard). In an obvious but satisfying toast to “The Exorcist”, the priest (Steve Coulter) arrives at the family home, standing in the soft glow of a street lamp with his bag by his side. Inside a malevolent demon fully takes hold of young David and a spiritual battle ensues. During the encounter Ed is attacked by the sinister spirit and suffers a heart attack. Then, unbeknownst by everyone other than the now unconscious Ed, the demon jumps from David to Arne Johnson (Ruairi O’Connor), the amiable boyfriend of David’s older sister Debbie (Sarah Catherine Hook).

By the time Ed wakes up in the hospital it’s too late to stop the demon from resurfacing in Arne. One gruesome murder later and Arne is in court pleading guilty by reason of demonic possession. Loraine and a recovering Ed get back on the case, setting out to prove Arne was possessed by uncovering the evil at the heart of it all. Screenwriter David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick pulls the Warrens out of the confines of a single-setting and sends them on a paranormal whodunnit that sees them tracking down a hermit ex-priest with knowledge of the occult, helping police with a cold case in a nearby town, and revisiting the home where the demon first possessed young David. And of course there is plenty of demonic pushback along the way.

By venturing outside of the haunted house box the third movie loses some of the nail-biting tension that kept fans perpetually on the edges of their seats. The first two films did a masterful job immersing their audiences in the suffocating terror of their settings – confining them within the walls of a creepy house with a devilish entity. There are tastes of that throughout part three, but this one leans more into a sustained level of dread. It’s not always cranked up to 10 nor does it need to be. But there is an ominous cloud that hangs over practically every scene. There are parts of the story that I wish were given more attention (such as the courtroom stuff), but the filmmakers know people aren’t coming to a “Conjuring” movie to see witness testimonies and cross-examinations.

“The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It” finds itself in an tough spot. It makes an effort to actually do something different within the series rather than follow the blueprint of the two earlier movies. It seeks to show that the “Conjuring” films don’t have to be the same thing over and over again. Some people will appreciate that ambition while others wishing for ‘more of the same’ could get lost in comparing it to its predecessors. That would be a shame because this is a solid entry that may lack some of the chills but yet maintains the spirit of the two earlier installments. And it does so by avoiding the copy-and-paste approach where the names have changed but not much else has. “The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It” is now showing in theaters and streaming on HBO Max.

VERDICT – 4 STARS