It goes without saying that a quality screenplay is vital to any good movie. And it’s especially true in the crowded sphere of crime thrillers. Just look at some of the genre’s very best films. They’re all marked by truly great screenplays. I wouldn’t dare put “Vikram Vedha” up there with the likes of “Chinatown”, “Mean Streets”, or “No Country for Old Men”. But it’s a prime example of a movie elevated and driven by an exceptional screenplay.

“Vikram Vedha” is written and directed by the husband and wife filmmaking duo Pushkar–Gayathri. The movie is a Hindi-language remake of the couple’s own 2017 Tamil feature of the same name. Fans of the genre will have no trouble recognizing the many marks of a classic crime thriller: shady cops, mob bosses, dirty-dealings, and double-crosses. It’s part mystery, part action flick, part neo-noir, even a bit of a police procedural.

Clearly those are a lot of different ingredients. But Pushkar–Gayathri’s screenplay wrangles and weaves them together in a twisty, intelligent, and thoroughly compelling feature. I haven’t seen the 2017 original so there was no temptation to compare. Instead, it was a treat to go in blind and have a fresh experience with the story. Sure I was excited by the handful of exhilarating action scenes, the pulsating Sam C.S. score, and cinematographer P. S. Vinod’s dynamic camera. But it always came back to the screenplay, and its clever story structure, crisp pacing, and rich dialogue. It all makes the nearly 160-minute running time fly by.

On screen, the story is led by two remarkably strong performances. Saif Ali Khan brings a steely grit to Vikram, a dedicated cop and member of a special task force aimed at taking down organized crime. Hrithik Roshan, oozing charisma, plays Vedha, a notorious gangster who Vikram’s team has made their priority. The problem is Vedha has vanished, forced underground and completely off their radar.

We learn early on that Vikram’s hands aren’t entirely clean. During a raid on one of Vedha’s hideouts, he guns down an unarmed henchman. But rather than reporting it, Vikram plants a gun and makes up a story to avoid an inquiry. “To clean filth, someone has to get their hands dirty,” he reasons to his boss and best friend Abbas (Satyadeep Mishra).

Then things take a turn. When intelligence reports a siting of Vedha, Vikram and his team begin setting up a plan to apprehend him. But they’re stunned when their most wanted target nonchalantly strolls into the police station and surrenders. Why would he come out of hiding? Why would he turn himself in? He won’t say a word until Vikram comes to interrogate him. Suddenly Vedha is ready to talk. “Shall I tell you a story sir?” he asks with a devious grin.

This begins a brilliantly written and well-acted chess match between Vikram and Vedha that plays out for the rest of film. Chunks of the story are told through flashbacks which Pushkar–Gayathri nicely utilize to fill in key details. We learn that Vedha has had a hand in sixteen murders and worked for a powerful heroin smuggler named Parshuram Pandey (Govind Pandey). But we also see another side of Vedha – one that shows his love for his little brother, Shatak (Rohit Saraf) and his efforts to keep Shatak out of the criminal lifestyle. This interesting complexity makes Vedha as much of a mystery to us as he is the Vikram.

Of course a showdown is all but inevitable, yet Pushkar–Gayathri’s keen plotting ensure the journey there is full of unexpected twists and turns. Several good supporting characters add layers to the narrative, including Vikram’s lawyer wife Priya (a really good Radhika Apte), Vedha’s arch-rival Babloo (Sharib Hashmi), and Shatak’s childhood friend Chanda (Yogita Bihani). And of course there are the bursts of action, full of stylish flourishes and driven by two Bollywood stars with wattage to spare. Put it all together and it’s hard not to be swept away by this rousing combination of savvy storytelling and popcorn spectacle. “Vikram Vedha” is now showing in select theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

The Tamil action blockbuster “Vikram” has made its way to US streaming (Hulu) giving American audiences the chance to see their highest grossing film of the year. Written and directed by Lokesh Kanagaraj, this is the second film in his shared universe of action thrillers. It’s a movie loaded with ambition, and the craft is undeniable. But it takes some time getting into it. That’s because there are layers upon layers of plot mixed with a seemingly never-ending buildup. But once it gets its footing and all of the story threads start coming together, there’s a reasonably good crime thriller to be found.

Tops among the film’s many characters is Amar (Fahadh Faasil), the leader of an off-the-grid special unit called Black Squad. They’re an elite group who are brought in to solve crimes through methods not readily available to the more law-abiding police. Whenever they’re given a mission, Black Squad stealthily enters and melds into a city or community, connects with the locals for information, tracks down their targets, and brings them to justice by any means necessary.

In this specific case, Black Squad is called in to hunt down a masked killer who has been targeting and brutally slaying cops. Among his victims was a police inspector named Prabhanjan (Kalidas Jayaram). But what made his murder stand out from the others was that the masked man also killed Prabhanjan’s adopted father, Karnan (Kamal Haasan) who has no connection to the police department. Amar and his team latch onto this inconsistency in the killer’s pattern and make it the centerpiece of their investigation.

Through a heavy dose of flashbacks we begin learning more about Prabhanjan and especially Karnan, who becomes a raging alcoholic after his son was killed. As the mystery unfolds, Karnan’s story takes some unexpected turns. Meanwhile separate links to police corruption emerge. And a notorious drug lord Sandhanam (Vijay Sethupathi), the leader of the violent Vetti Vagaiyara gang, becomes a key player and one the main antagonists for the rest of the movie.

Layers continue to be peeled back like onions, and even more characters are introduced as the mystery at the heart of story gets less and less murkier. While the first half will test your endurance, the second half finally gets to a decent enough payoff – one that both (kinda) finishes this story while teases an inevitable sequel. And of course we get the style-heavy action scenes that offer a healthy dose of fight sequences and shootouts. They range from tense yet wildly fun to utterly preposterous.

Yet despite its more attractive pieces, “Vikram” never quite comes together as a whole. That’s because too much of its hefty 174-minute running time is spent weaving together a story that’s more complicated than it needs to be. We spend too much time waiting for the movie to kick into gear and deliver the big action beats we know are coming. These are nagging issues that the film’s star power and impressive style can’t quite make up for. “Vikram” is now streaming on Hulu.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

(CHECK OUT my full review in today’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

Culture clash comedies can be hit-or-miss, but writer, director and star B.J. Novak gives us a good one with his new film “Vengeance”. What makes this surprisingly rich and textured movie stand out is its blend of influences. It’s a black comedy. It’s a murder mystery. Parts of it has a Western flavor while other parts feel like a neo-noir. It has a can’t-miss satirical bite and offers some timely commentary on the Red State/Blue State divide that’s not-so-silently ripping our country apart. The movie isn’t overtly political. Instead, it’s interested in how we as Americans burrow into our own groups and are quick to judge anyone who doesn’t fit within them.

Novak (“The Office”) plays Ben Manalowitz, a newly hired writer for The New Yorker and an aspiring podcaster. We first meet him at a Brooklyn rooftop party where he and his equally flakey buddy (John Mayer) tout their skewed views on monogamy while questioning what constitutes a “meaningful relationship”. To these guys, hook-up culture allows them to satisfy their self-absorbed needs without putting in the effort of viewing people as more than fixtures. They’re a rather insufferable pair who seem to revel in their big city smugness yet are oblivious when it comes to the shallowness and real-world detachment in their worldview.

You would think that writing for The New Yorker would make a guy like Ben happy. But his complacency is only outdone by his ambition. He’s enamored with the idea of having something profound to say and a podcast would give him that platform. He has the support of his friend and producer Eloise (Issa Rae) who runs a podcast company. But he needs a theme and a story that people want to follow. He finds one in the most unexpected of places.

Ben gets a phone call in the middle of the night from a stranger named Ty Shaw (Boyd Holbrook). He’s the older brother of a young woman named Abilene (played briefly in recordings by Lio Tipton). Turns out Ben and Abby hooked up a couple of times when she visited New York. While he didn’t bother to get her last name, she went back home to West Texas telling her family they were a couple. A heartbroken Ty informs Ben that Abby is dead from an alleged opioid overdose. In one of the more far-fetched bits, Ben is guilted into flying to Texas for Abby’s funeral despite not knowing her nearly as well as the family believes.

When Ben arrives he’s picked Ty, a well-meaning yokel who firmly believes his sister was murdered. “She never touched so much as an Advil,” he attests. Of course he doesn’t have any evidence nor has he taken his suspicions to the local authorities. But he’s determined that Ben join him after the funeral to help “avenge” her death. Now to Ben, Abilene is just a name in his phone; nothing more than a wannabe singer who overdosed in a Texas oilfield. But she’s also a potential story and she could be Ben’s much desired ticket to fame.

So with as much faux compassion and sincerity as he can muster, Ben convinces Ty and the rest of grieving family that he’ll get to the bottom of what happened to Abilene. What he’s really doing is shaping his podcast by recording conversations with family members and other locals and sending them to Eloise in New York. But (of course) the more he gets to know Abilene’s family and gets acquainted with dusty rural living, the more he begins questioning his own motivations.

“Vengeance” is full of laugh-out-loud exchanges as Ben makes his best efforts to fit in. Whether Novak is poking fun at small-town Southern quirks or picking away at his own character’s big city sensibilities, the movie finds a lot to laugh at from both cultural camps. That said, it’s clearly country-fried Texas that takes most of the ribbing. It doesn’t reach the point of full mockery, but the movie does have its share of broad Southern characterizations. But many of them are genuinely funny, and the movie never lets Ben and his city-boy condescension off the hook.

While comedy runs throughout “Vengeance”, the second half sees Novak veering away from formula and carving out a few trails of his own. He takes many of the stereotypes he leans on early and shatters them, using the pieces to pose some compelling questions. But it’s the character twists that surprise the most. Holbrook’s Ty is a fascinating character – a striking balance of hayseed caricature and clear-eyed revelation. But the most intriguing character comes from a scene-stealing Ashton Kutcher. He plays record producer/small town philosopher Quinten Sellers. He has the look of a snake-oil selling goof. But once he begins speaking, you can’t turn away.

While I’m still not sure if I fully buy the final ten minutes, I do buy B.J. Novak as a feature filmmaker. “Vengeance” is a movie made with confidence and even the few bits that don’t entirely work show a willingness to bend the rules and take some big swings. Overall, “Vengeance” is a film that entertains us, engages us, and indicts us all at the same time. It’s hard not to be impressed with Novak who turns his nerd-out-of-water comedy into something weightier and with more punch. “Vengeance” opens in theaters today (July 29th).

VERDICT – 4 STARS

I admit to being a little hesitant about jumping into the horror anthology feature “V/H/S/94”. This new Shudder Original Film is actually the fourth movie in the “V/H/S” series. I had heard of the modestly budgeted horror franchise but have never actually sat down and watched one of the films. But good reviews can do wonders and Shudder’s announcement that “V/H/S/94” is the biggest movie premiere in the streaming platform’s six year history was enough for me to give it a go.

Called a reboot by those who know, “V/H/S/94” basically follows the same structure of its predecessors. It takes four distinct found-footage shorts films, each written and directed by different creatives, and sets them within a wraparound story that holds them all together. It’s a framing device that seemingly has worked in the past. But here the frame story (titled “Holy Hell” from Jennifer Reeder) turns out to be the film’s biggest weakness. It has an interesting enough premise, but it’s far too messy and confusing in its execution.

The film opens with an Ohio SWAT team storming a gated warehouse. But instead of drug runners they find a labyrinthine network of hallways leading to an assortment of rooms decorated in the macabre and grotesque. In each room they find dead bodies with their eyes gouged out and a different VHS tape playing on a screen. And on those tapes are the four video nasties that make up the bulk of the anthology. They’re also what end up saving the movie. Of course some are better than others, but all four have their own twisted flavor.

The first short “Storm Drain” is by Chloe Okuno and follows an ambitious local TV news reporter (Anna Hopkins) and her cameraman (Christian Potenza) as they investigate rumors of a “Rat Man” living in the sewers. It’s the weakest of the four but it ends with a gruesome splash. The second is “The Empty Wake” by Simon Barrett, part haunted house and part zombie horror. It follows a young woman (Kyal Legend) sitting up during an evening wake at a small funeral home. Needless to say, it isn’t a quiet night.

From there the shorts get a little longer and crazier. The third is easily the most batty and unabashedly gory of the bunch. It’s titled “The Subject” and it comes from Indonesian director Timo Tjahjanto. It’s a mad scientist story about a brilliant yet unquestionably unhinged doctor (Budi Ross) who kidnaps unwilling subjects for his gruesome experiments. Things get even bloodier when a military squad invades the lab and makes some grisly discoveries.

The fourth and final short “Terror” comes from Ryan Prows. It’s a rough-around-the-edges yet entertaining swirl of creature horror and dark comedy that follows a radical militia group called the First Patriots Movement Militia. Set mostly within their remote compound on the outskirts of Detroit, the story sees the group planning to “redeem the soul of the USA” by bombing a federal building. Their weapon? – the blood of a vampire-like creature they keep caged in a barn. Things really get nuts in the final ten minutes as the dimwitted hicks blow their plan to oblivion.

On their own merits, each of the four shorts have things worth applauding. But unfortunately after each, we’re forced to come back to the framing story. And aside from some gnarly imagery, nothing in it comes close to the quality of the shorts. It’s use of the found-footage style seems mostly contrived, the actors are abrasive and over-the-top, and the ending packs no punch whatsoever. So we’re left thinking back on the four individual tales and wishing there was something better to connect them all together. “V/H/S/94” is now streaming on Shudder.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Us 1980s kids will always remember teen star Justine Bateman as Mallory Keaton on NBC’s hit sitcom “Family Ties”. Since then she’s done a lot of television and has starred in a handful of big screen movies. But her role as the snarky yet kind-hearted younger sister to Michael J. Fox’s Alex P. Keaton is the one she’ll forever be affectionately attached to.

Now Bateman is making her feature film debut behind the camera with “Violet”, an audacious indie drama that she directs, writes, and produces. The film stars Olivia Munn, a talented and underrated actress who has been needing a role like this to sink her teeth into in order to open more eyes. Here she plays Violet, a film executive emotionally tormented by a cruel internal voice filling her with anxiety, insecurity and self-doubt. Bateman’s vision is a tricky one to pull off, but she manages it thanks to her uniquely clever approach.

On the surface, Violet seems to have everything a thirty-something professional woman could want. She’s smart, talented and attractive. She’s a successful movie producer with a good reputation who makes a comfortable living working in an industry she loves. But any chance of happiness and self-fulfillment is stymied by the bullying voice in her head. It keeps her constantly second guessing herself. It keeps her from going through with a long-time passion project despite the encouragement of colleagues. It dissuades her from pursuing a deeper relationship with her childhood friend Red (Luke Bracey).

To convey the struggle in Violet’s head Bateman uses a handful of stylish flourishes. The Voice (who she refers to as “the committee”) is…well…voiced by Justin Theroux. He’s mercilessly demeaning, calling her an idiot, a pig, and a baby. He tells her she’s inferior, unworthy, and a disappointment. Even worse, he suppresses any ambition or sense of accomplishment and urges her to accept the abuse both from her jealous boss Tom (Dennis Boutsikaris) and with her estranged family. The Voice tells her that she’ll never be a success if she follows her dreams and passions.

As a counter to the voice, Bateman also shows us Violet’s true feelings through handwritten thoughts that appear across the screen as she’s thinking them. Sometimes they’re questions like “Why can’t I just be happy?” Other times it’s a painful longing – “I want to be free.” There are several other visual touches Bateman uses to capture Violet’s mindset. They don’t always work and they sometimes inadvertently draw too much attention away from Violet. But once you get in sync with what Bateman is going for, it makes the occasional overreaches easier to look past.

Back to Munn, she truly is the most essential piece of the film. She brings the perfect measure of restraint to her character and relays so much through her sensitive expressions and body language. It’s a well-calibrated performance that deftly captures the various sides of Violet in a way that makes her feel genuine and relatable. And when Violet begins to question the Voice in her head, Munn gives us a good sense of the tension and conflict that comes with it.

One of my favorite scenes involves a poignant moment where Violet is reflecting back on her childhood. Her younger self is riding her bike on a idyllic afternoon. The wind is blowing through her hair, the warm sun beaming down on her face. “You’ll never find your way back to that kind of freedom,” the crippling Voice chides. It’s a picture of the bitter back-and-forths Bateman creates and Munn realizes.

To go along with those moments Bateman sprinkles in scenes that touch on the producing process – meeting with directors, sorting out casting, scheduling film festivals, etc. (I’m a sucker for that stuff). It all makes for an assured feature film debut that tackles its subject matter from a unique and fresh perspective. It doesn’t always come together as intended, but I love that Bateman took chances and “Violet” should open some exciting doors for both her and Olivia Munn. “Violet” gets a limited theater release October 29th before coming out on VOD November 9th.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

It wasn’t much of a surprise to see 2018’s “Venom” rake in over $850 million at the box office. The carnivorous amorphous antihero has been a popular Marvel character since his proper inception into the comic book world back in 1988. And while not considered a part of the lucrative Marvel Cinematic Universe, Venom’s connections to Marvel (and more specifically Spider-Man) certainly didn’t hurt the movie’s chances of success.

Equally to no one’s surprise was the inevitability of a sequel. In today’s Hollywood you don’t make $850 million against a $100 million budget and not have a sequel, especially in the superhero genre. So after a one-year delay thanks to COVID-19, “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” is finally here.

“Venom” was an entertaining but flawed movie that stayed afloat in large part thanks to its star Tom Hardy. The shaky origin story, the dull villain, the hit-or-miss digital effects all contributed to the movie’s issues. But Hardy made for a solid Eddie Brock, an independent investigative reporter who finds himself the host of a super-powered alien symbiote. Hardy did a good job melding terror with humor and he clearly has a deep affection for the character.

While the first movie didn’t exactly leave me hungry for a sequel, my appetite changed dramatically thanks to one single word – Carnage. As many comic fans know, the Carnage symbiote is a terrifying villain especially when attached to the sociopathic sadist Cletus Kasady, a serial killer with tendencies towards extreme violence. Bringing Carnage to the big screen is an idea ripe with potential. The question became, would Sony and director Andy Serkis give Carnage the dark and savage treatment the character deserves or would they mimic the MCU blueprint and give us something too lighthearted for such a gruesome villain? All the pieces are there for something memorable, but would the absolute need for a hit movie leave us with a more conventional superhero flick?

Well, it has been several hours since I watched the film, and I’m still not sure how to define what I saw. I don’t think I can put it any more succinctly than this – “Venom 2” is a disappointing mess. It doesn’t do enough to feel fresh, and it skips past too much to be called formulaic. It ends up being this surprisingly bland and shockingly shallow exercise that never seems sure of its story or of how to tell it.

You have to feel for Tom Hardy. Once again he gives 110% and he is easily among the best things about the movie. Unfortunately he’s hitched to a truly bad script (penned by returning screenwriter Kelly Marcel) that plays like a barebones outline for a story that never had the details filled in. It’s astonishing how little it does with its characters and how many questions go unanswered in the paper-thin plotting.

Storywise, Hardy’s Eddie lands an exclusive interview with imprisoned serial killer Cletus Kasady (played by a satisfyingly deranged Woody Harrelson). Eddie needs the scoop to jumpstart his lagging career. A local police detective (Stephen Graham) wants Eddie to use his meetings with Kasady to discover where the killer hid the bodies of his completely nameless victims. Why Kasady wanted the interview is still a mystery to me (there is one weird line at the end that might explain it but who knows).

In an early scene, Eddie and Venom discover the location of the bodies (in the most absurd way imaginable) which upsets Kasady. During their last interview Cletus bites Eddie’s hand, contracting (is that how it works) the alien symbiote. Soon after he morphs into the feral and vicious Carnage. From there Kasady/Carnage breaks out of San Quintin and goes looking for his mutant-powered old flame Shriek (Naomi Harris) so the two can get married in a creepy old cathedral. Seriously. That’s the gist of Carnage’s story.

Ok, so maybe there’s a little more to it. The prison break is easily the film’s best scene with Carnage unleashing a barrage of eye-popping PG-13 violence. There’s also a pretty good action scene at an abandoned orphanage and (of course) there’s the final showdown at the cathedral which the movie rushes towards at a breakneck pace. It too looks really good in spots, but there are parts of the battle that Serkis cuts to pieces and (once again) he’s clearly handcuffed by the rating. And that’s really it for Carnage’s angle. No wrecking havoc across the city. No terrorizing the citizens. Just a psychopath with an alien parasite wanting to marry his girl. I admit, I was hoping for more.

So if the movie isn’t spending its time building its villain and unleashing him as a real threat, what is it doing with its time? Well, a lot it is spent on the Odd Couple relationship between Eddie and Venom. The pair’s banter is lightly amusing at first but grows exhausting over time. So much so that I was happy when the two actually separated following a particularly numbing spat. Unfortunately that sets up a mind-boggling nightclub scene that defies everything both movies have told us about Venom. It’s weird, out of tune, and an instance of silliness not only clashing with the film’s darker elements but undermining them as well. It’s one of several miscalculations where the movie’s desire to be funny comes at the wrong time or is presented the wrong way.

I could go on, but the more I think about what this movie could have been the more frustrated I get. Hardy makes it watchable with an all-out effort; doing what he can with what he’s given. The rest of the cast has a harder time. Harrelson gets a meaty character but no meaty material. Meanwhile Michelle Williams is wasted and seems understandably bored out of her mind.

Some may be able to coast through the 93 minutes ignoring the movie’s glaring flaws. I wish I could. Instead I kept seeing glimpses of the movie I wish this had been. Admittedly, the CGI Carnage looks amazing and the anticipated bursts of violence upped my heart rate a bit. Just not enough for me to get onboard with this head-scratching misfire. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” is out today in theaters.

VERDICT – 2 STARS