THE PICKUP

A waste of time and money for these big talents. 

Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson play two New Jersey armored truck drivers who are both assigned for a routine cash pickup. Murphy is the experienced Russell Pierce, who is preparing for his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with Natalie (Eva Longoria), while Davidson is the rookie Travis Stolley, who just had a one-night stand with the sexy Zoe (Keke Palmer). But what the young man learns too late is that the young lady is a criminal mastermind. 

That’s the set-up for the new Amazon Prime Video action comedy “The Pickup,” which wastes these three talents and relies on bantering, time consuming car chases, boring money games, and stupid choices for mass entertainment. I love Murphy, Davidson, and Palmer, but I hated their first movie all together. 

After a time consuming car chase where paint bombs, explosions, and flat tires emerge, Zoe holds the two men hostage for a big score. A score that regards revenge. Things get stupider when Natalie tracks down her husband like the crazy wife she is and finds out that Zoe is holding her husband and new partner at gun point. At the very least, the disbelieving wife idea doesn’t last long because of that gun. Things get even more typical when Zoe’s two goons (Jack Kesy and Ismael Cruz Cordova) are left for dead and want revenge on her. Amazingly enough like Snake falling for the conniving raven Zoom in “The Bad Guys 2,” Travis is still in love with Zoe. So, what are the odds of these two entering “Raising Arizona” territory? Pretty good. 

Murphy and Davidson are both SNL legends from different generations, and they have done better and can do better. Their first collaboration is a complete missed opportunity, as if the movie was more interested in Murphy’s deadpan disposition and Davidson’s manic energy than the honesty that has helped made their respective comedies original. As to Palmer, she started the year off brilliantly with the comedy “One of Them Days,” in which she and SZA play roommates trying to pay their rent. That was a funny and smart movie, while “The Pickup” is an unfunny and dumb movie. 

Director Tim Story is a comedy filmmaker who has his share of good and bad movies (and I think more people should have seen “The Blackening”), but his latest movie is pretty bad. What wouldn’t be a comedy without a mean boss played by a comedy star? Here in the form of Andrew Dice Clay, who has delivered the right kind of attitude in “Blue Jasmine.” What R-rated action comedy would not have someone get killed and then awkward faces are made? This movie watches too many action comedies of its kind. 

I also think these long car chases are excuses for the film to be about ninety minutes long. The most perfunctory chase sequence takes place towards the end when it involves bad CGI effects, guns, and screaming faces. 

There’s a line in “The Pickup” when Russell asks Travis how old does he think he is, and the young man responds: “You look forty,” but you could be up to ninety.” Even in his early sixties, Murphy still looks good, and it is funny because when I was a kid, I was surprised that Danny DeVito and Steve Martin were in their sixties. I thought they were in their forties at the time. Maybe it’s the make-up talking; I don’t know – or maybe their comedic styles are ageless. Now, this assumption is more interesting and surprising than anything going on in this cash grab. You would be better off with paint bombs in your cash.  

FRANKENSTEIN

Guillermo Del Toro stitches up one hell of a monster movie. 

Seeing Guillermo Del Toro’s vision of “Frankenstein” on 35mm film is almost like watching a classic film on screen. You can tell by the tiny black dots and the white circle that appears on the top right corner of the screen. I would say every twenty minutes or so, that white circle would appear twice in a row. Well, at least that is how I saw the movie, and I love being reminded of film prints. 

Yet, even if I did not see this in that format, I was mesmerized by how Del Toro tells a Frankenstein story through the perspectives of both the creator Victor Frankenstein and the monster, and how it differentiates between the meaning of being a human or monster. It is in the same realm about how someone tries to play God and how that creation can be more than that. 

He refuses to disrespect Mary Shelley’s story and presents it as a gothic movie that reminds us of other movies like “Interview with the Vampire” or “Crimson Peak” (which Del Toro also made). There are also some moments that almost feel like they were borrowed from “Beauty and the Beast” or “Edward Scissorhands.” It all depends on if you can read between the lines. 

Even if I did not see it in that format, I was dazzled by the visual world that he presents. Thinking back to some of his movies like the “Hellboy” movies, “Pans Labyrinth,” “The Shape of Water,” and “Pinocchio,”, I acknowledge that the filmmaker refuses to take the easy way out and impresses us with his vision. How he sees these movies is how he makes them, and we are watching them with a sense of awe and sense of discovery. 

Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, who finds himself being pursued by his own creation (Jacob Elordi) on an expedition ship toward the North Pole, and telling the captain (Lars Mikkelsen) his story. How his strict baron father (Charles Dance) expected him to be a better doctor (Christian Convery plays the young Victor) and how his mother (Mia Goth) died giving birth to his younger brother William (Felix Kammerer). He talks of his decision to change the course of science with reanimation through the financial assistance of the arms manufacturer Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), how he met William’s fiancée Elizabeth (also played by Goth), and how his creature turned out. 

The creature starts off learning to speak almost on a “Planet of the Apes” level. He keeps saying: “Victor, Victor, Victor.” Just “Victor”, until he can say “Elizabeth”, and then learns how to read books. No help from Victor, of course. Isaac is great as Victor in the ways that he draws us into the character’s complexity, which questions his humanity. Elordi, who stands at 6’5, is disguised by make-up and plays the creature who may have to kill some people but still should not be labeled a monster. There have been many Frankenstein movies, good or bad, and they want to show different aspects of the story, doctor, and monster.

In Del Toro’s vision, he takes the time to show us how man can still be a man or transition into a monster, and how a creation can either learn to be human or still be a monster or maybe both. Add a remarkable art direction, incredible set and creature designs, Dan Lausten’s darkly radiant photography, and Alexandre Desplat’s haunting score, and you have yourself a gem of a monster movie. 

Disclaimer: I’m not praising “Frankenstein” because Del Toro said “F*** A.I.” at. a screening of this movie, although I am on his side 100%. I’m praising it as a visual wonder sewn together with his personal touch. 

WEAPONS

An original horror movie with daring and thought-provoking ambitions. 

The poster and trailer make the concept of “Weapons” quite clear. “Last Night At 2:17 AM, Every Child Out of Mrs. Gandy’s Class Woke Up, Got Out of Bed, Went Downstairs, Opened the Front Door, Walked in the Dark……And They Never Came Back.” In other words, seventeen kids have disappeared at exactly 2:17 AM. 

The people know that exact time, because there are security systems that keep the time of when the kids were running out with their arms extended like they’re pretending to fly or something. The cameras only get them in the light, but once they run in the dark, there are no leads in this case. That is when the parents are scared, angry, and confused. They also know that they are all in the same class taught by a troubled young teacher, and only one boy in that class is still here. It might sound like something out of the ending of “The Pied Piper of Hamelin”, or maybe a Stephen King, Alfred Hitchcock or M. Night Shyamalan film. I think it might be something else. 

“Weapons” is the latest movie from writer/director Zach Cregger, who has gained horror success with his last movie, “Barbarian.” Looks like he has gained another, because this is one of the most daring, shocking, wickedly funny, and original horror films I have ever seen. It’s one that is not indulged in jump scares or cliches, but rather the horrors that could take place in reality. That is if this is really a reality here. 

The Mrs. Gandy is Justine (Julia Garner), who is blamed for the disappearance of the seventeen children, and her personal problems do not make things any easier for her. In fact, she gets scolded for trying to talk to the one boy left behind, Alex, (Cary Christopher) - and even gets attacked by people. At one point, you might think it is some kind of mind game the movie is playing on the teacher, but that is not the case. 

“Weapons” is told from different perspectives. We start with Justine, and we also get to Archer (Josh Brolin), the father of one of the missing kids; Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), a local cop; Andrew (Benedict Wong), the school principal; Anthony (Austin Abrams), a homeless junkie; Alex, remember that’s the one kid left behind; and Gladys (Amy Madigan), a creepy old lady. Each side matters to this story, as each piece fits this puzzle without being predictable. I, myself, was trying to acknowledge what is actually happening here. 

I do not want to spoil anything for you here, because I want you to see “Weapons,” and see where it’s going. Its view on society reminds me on Andy Muschetti’s take on “It,” and the characters seem to be worthy of being in a Stephen King story. In fact, there are some nightmares that feel like something out of “The Shining.” I think we can agree that Cregger has a voice in horror cinema. The title is not as simple as it sounds if nobody sees the poster or trailer. There is a bigger meaning inside, and even a memorable shot which looks like something out of “Nope.” 

The performances from Garner (also currently seen in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps”), Brolin, Madigan, Christopher, and Abrams are universally excellent. The cinematography by Larkin Seiple (“Everything Everywhere All At Once”) beautifully captures the horrors. The surprise humor could not be more surprising and honest, and the premise is ingenious. “Weapons” is a movie that speaks to the right crowd, and this year, we are getting fresh horror movies to do so, like “Sinners” and “28 Years Later.” 

I also think it is a nice touch that the first showings on Thursday would be at 2:17 PM. Although now that previews are thirty minutes long, it is sure to start at 4:47 PM. I am surprised my special screening was not at 2:17. 

TV REVIEW - MONSTER: THE ED GEIN STORY

This review was done by the Founder, Cindy Mich.

As to Hunnam’s portrayal in this, I will admit that watching him made me appreciate his range and rawness as an actor. He can make the audience go from smiling to a sincere cringe, and he truly does keep your attention in almost every single scene of this production. Is this award-winning acting? If you were to completely ignore the script and setup of this series, and focused solely on how he performed, then yes. Should he be given an award on the production side - two thousand percent NO for the reasons I am about to render.

I have heard many say that this is an interpretation of Gein's mindset and motives. If that is the case, then you have no reason to title this The Ed Gein Story. This is an automatic implication that you are telling HIS story - not the one you want everyone to believe. Murphy takes a number of myths and tries to make them facts, and some of these are of course, based on his personal beliefs as a person.

The storyline is constantly going in a plethora of directions without any real set course. It navigates from Gein's life, and then we are at a party run by Nazis. We are learning about Ed's crimes in one shot, and then we are taking an overblown twist onto the Psycho and Leatherface movie sets to learn about the actors and directors, which has what to do with this? That entire segment on Anthony Perkins added nothing to this story. Was there a need for the "Bitch of Buchenwald" to be an ongoing presence throughout this project - NO. There is no consistency to the tale. It starts going somewhere, then hits a dull stop, and repeats for the whole series.

The number of exaggerations and fabrications in this is astounding to me. Gein's voice, crossdressing, cooking his victims and serving them to others, transsexuality, having sex with corpses, and the obsession with women's clothing are all predominantly featured within these eight episodes. According to research, absolutely none of this was real. So, why would you deliberately paint Gein as worse than he was? How does this make the Ed Gein story stronger or more believable? Assumptions do not equate to accuracy.

Metcalf as the mother was likely one of the best casting choices I saw here besides Charlie. Honestly, 3/4 of the cast was average, but not acclaimed.

The one thing I do give Murphy credit for is reminding the audience that it is them that craves seeing monsters and learning more about their methodical motives. If people did not thrive on this genre, it would not generate so much money and projects such as his would not be produced.

The conclusion was absolutely absurd. The creator wants us to believe that a mother would finally find pride in her son after becoming a recognized murderer. That entire montage of murderers in awe of him was nothing short of absurdity. I am not the only person who had stated that the ending could not come fast enough.

As Charlie is an Executive Producer on this project, he played a crucial role in guiding the project through the development and production phase. This also includes having a portion of creative control. I would have hoped that he would have used this role to create a story arc that was sound and solid, along with less fabrication and more fact. Interpretation into a murderer without prudent insight made this project into a long, lethargic and excessively expensive expression of free speech.