My June movie recommendation “Mamma Mia!” comes from my friend Hailey. I believe it may be her favorite movie. 

Having never been a big fan of ABBA I knew this one might not be my cup of tea from the outset but trying new things is a big reason for this series I’ve been doing for a year and a half now. 

Based on the Broadway play that debuted in 1999, “Mamma Mia!” is a jukebox musical that tells the story of Donna (Meryl Streep) and her soon-to-be-married daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and Sophie’s recent realization that one of three men her mom spent a summer with on this Greek island they call home is her father. She invites all three (played by Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgård) to her wedding to find out which one. 

That’s the entire plot and the film uses 20-plus ABBA songs to move it along - even though some of the songs and scenes probably would’ve been better off on the cutting room floor. For instance, I don’t quite see the point in Christine Baranski’s “Does Your Mother Know.” Most of the songs seemed to be more seamless. There were the big songs everybody, even non-ABBA fans would know like “Dancing Queen” and the titular song and many others that are likely known only to ABBA fans.

I found Streep, Seyfried and Brosnan to be the most entertaining singers of the group – Streep and Seyfried could both hold a tune and, while Brosnan couldn’t it seemed to fit his character well.

“Mamma Mia!” is a gorgeous film to look at having filmed mostly on the island of Skopelos, Greece. Why the story chose a fictional Greek island for its setting I don’t know but it doesn’t impact the film.

Ultimately, I feel like “Mamma Mia!” is one of those particular films where it’s almost a necessity to be a fan of the group’s music it’s set upon. For instance, I'd be the first in line if they ever did a film version of the 2002 Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which told a story completely using Billy Joel songs. But ABBA and the whole disco, Europop thing was never really my interest in the realm of popular music.

Watching he film it felt like the cast seemed to enjoy every second of making it and that leads to enjoyable moments whether you’re all that interested in the songs they’re singing or not.   

Directors: Adil El Arbi & Bilall Fallah
Starring: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence & Vanessa Hudgens 
Rated: R (violence, language and some sexual references)
​Runtime: 1 hour & 55 minutes

 
It’s nothing new for a ‘Bad Boys’ movie to have an overly convoluted plot and too many side characters, but what has remained consistent is how each movie somehow manages not to let those things detract from the centerpiece chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. Four years is the shortest time between sequels in this franchise thus making the latter two films feel as equal in weight as the impressive debut and chaotic classic that’s “Bad Boys II.” Why “Bad Boys III” didn’t come out in 2009-2010 and why we converted to confounding subtitles rather than sticking with the already established roman numerals I will never understand, but here we are with two very distinct halves of the Mike Lowery and Marcus Burnett saga. 
 
In truth, it would be hard to mess one of these movies up. Fortunately, all the key ingredients are present with “Bad Boys For Life” directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah returning in full "Bayhem" mode employing (and deploying) as many drones to shoot the film as Alexander Ludwig's character does to shoot the bad guys. Screenwriter Chris Bremner returns while “Aquaman” and “Justice League” scribe Will Beall joins him to fashion a story around the next phase in Mike and Marcus' already illustrious careers after seemingly working through all the late-stage personal and professional conflicts these two would have encountered as aging lieutenants. 
 
This is where the real challenge of the film lies though, as up to this point each ‘Bad Boys’ film was capturing these characters at very different stages of their lives and careers, but as a direct sequel to ‘For Life’ this not only deals in many of the same themes but picks up certain plot lines directly and carries them through. There isn't anything wrong with this approach from a high-level perspective (though I hope they don't wear out their welcome because this is the only viable franchise both are currently clinging to) but as you get into the weeds of what matters on a story-level one can feel the straining to both find new layers for Smith and Lawrence to explore with these characters while also seemingly trying to set-up the future of this franchise in two successors who have ever met one another and whose chemistry - the necessary chemistry that allows these movies to elevate themselves above other, traditional police procedurals - is untested. 

To freshen up the dynamic, “Bad Boys: Ride or Die” first does something of a role reversal in the partnership giving Marcus a new lease on life thus abandoning all the anxiety and worry he has previously brought to the relationship while for the first time in his life, Mike has something of value he has to worry about protecting and/or losing. To do this, Bremner and Beall have Mike's wedding open the film which was a nice thought and a smart touch until we realize he isn't marrying Paola Núñez's Rita from the previous film (nor did they bring back Gabrielle Union's character from part two for a nice surprise) but instead a(nother) new character in Melanie Liburd's Christine is introduced, who was Mike's (physical) therapist - solid joke. Rita and Mike's past does not go unacknowledged, but this new relationship was solely a decision based on the plot as Rita is now dating incoming Miami Mayor Lockwood (Ioan Gruffudd) in what is possibly the most telegraphed yet still held as a twist reveal in any movie ever. 
 
Further complicating the otherwise solid base of a premise (the bad boys must clear Joe Pantoliano's Captain Howard's good name) is the presence not only of Howard's daughter (Rhea Seehorn) but also his granddaughter (Quinn Hemphill). It would have been easy to rearrange characters and their objectives/purposes to get the same results without introducing so many new players into this now nearly 30-year-old game, but I have to assume Sony wants plans in place to keep this train on its current trajectory thus the reason the interrelationships play out the way they do in the film's climactic action sequence. All of that said, it does say something that we've come this far in a review of this fourth film - where Marcus has unretired and where Mike's mortality continues to slap him in the face - and have not mentioned either Reggie (Dennis McDonald) or Armando (Jacob Scipio) much less Eric Dane who plays the big bad in this installment. 

Dane is a serviceable villain yet doesn't get the arc his complex character clearly deserves due largely to the astounding number of other characters this film introduces and then must establish (have I mentioned Vanessa Hudgens is in this movie? No? That's kinda crazy, right?). Fortunately, El Arbi and Fallah understand that no matter who else is in a scene, Smith and Lawrence are the stars and are in control of the narrative and that remains true throughout ‘Ride or Die.’
 
The directing duo also understands the action is the emphasis in these movies and can pull off several sequences that manage to measure up to what we might imagine a 60-year-old Michael Bay would be doing had he continued to helm these films (Bay also makes another great cameo appearance here). Highway shootouts and alligator parks aside, two of the more exciting and intense sequences the film offers are a brutal jail yard brawl in which Armando is apprehended but not before doing some serious damage along with Reggie holding down the fort at Marcus' house as he puts his Marine Corps training to the test and dispatches an entire team of Dane's McGrath's most elite soldiers. These highlighted moments combined with the film's final scene give us a strong hint at where the ‘Bad Boys’ franchise might be going even as there's hesitation in Smith and Lawrence both giving up and going on with this series.

Director: Kelsey Mann 
Starring: Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke & Kensington Tallman 
Rated: PG 
Runtime: 1 hour & 36 minutes

​It is officially summertime at the cinema. You know what that means, right? Time for tons of sequels to hit theaters hoping to become major box office smashes like their predecessors. While some people may feel “Joy” about this, some are watching in “Fear” and “Anxiety,” hoping the sequel doesn’t ruin their beloved characters. Fans become concerned the movies were made solely for the money and not for the creative process of continuing the stories of their heroes. Fans are worried the studios just watch in “Envy” at other studios’ successes and in their “Anger,” do whatever it takes to match or best them. It can make the fans feel great “Sadness” to think these sequels could be made and be an utter “Embarrassment” to the franchise. If the script is full of “Ennui,” it can leave fans filled with “Disgust” for the studio. Movie fans are full of so many emotions about sequels and luckily, most of those are emotions of “Joy” for Disney-Pixar's “Inside Out 2.”    
 
It has been nine years since 2015’s “Inside Out” hit theaters introducing us to Riley and her emotions. The time has finally come to continue Riley’s story as she turns 13 -years-old. All the emotions we met in the first film are back: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Tony Hale), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Liza Lapira). They are all here for Riley as she goes to a weekend ice hockey camp in hopes that it will help her qualify for her school’s team, The Firehawks. Shortly before arriving, Riley learns that her best friends Bree and Grace will not be attending the same high school as her, killing her dream that they would all be on the same team together. In the two years since the events of the first film, Joy has made a new section in Riley’s mind called the “Sense of Self.” This “Sense of Self” is basically Riley’s belief system and who she is. If there are any negative thoughts, Joy pushes those to the back of Riley’s mind. Joy hopes she will mostly be positive.  
 
However, shortly after attending the camp, headquarters becomes overrun with new emotions: Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser), Ennui (Adele Exarchopoulos), and the best thing about the sequel: Anxiety (Maya Hawke). Anxiety is basically the Head Honcho of the new group and is the equivalent of Joy in leadership. Anxiety is determined to make Riley happy but her attempts prove to be misguided. Joy and the gang must race against time to help Riley through the weekend and help her to not lose who she is before it is too late.  
 
I think this film is just as good as the original. What I love about it is that it perfectly introduces four new characters and makes us fall in love with them while not sacrificing time with the already beloved characters from the original. I feel the scriptwriters (Meg LeFauve, Dave Holstein and Kelsey Mann) did an impeccable job balancing the time given to all the characters. Our love for Joy, Anger, Fear, Sadness and Disgust just grows even stronger while also allowing us to embrace new friends. The MVP of the film is Anxiety, though. Hawke’s portrayal of Anxiety is so full of energy, chaos and charisma. Audiences around the world will fall in love with Anxiety and will feel like they want more time with her, even though there is much time already given to her.  
 
One of the most magical aspects of movies is to take us somewhere we have not been before. This film’s production design is just as beautiful as the original. It is full of breathtaking visuals that make us long to go to a place like this. You can be on a river floating next to broccoli, a cave full of mystery including a “Deep Dark Secret,” or at a big pile of memories to sort through in the back of your memory. Wherever it is, if it is in this film, it’s going to be a gorgeous place to be
 
One critique I could see many having with the film is that the storyline is reminiscent of the first in trying to help Riley remember who she is and why she would not do things that she starts to do. However, that is the beauty of this sequel. We all experience this throughout our entire lives. You would think over time we would know better but we don’t. Sometimes, we learn some of the same lessons over and over again. Certainly, at Riley’s age, that could be even more true. While it may be similar, I feel the screenwriters did a fantastic job of making the story fresh, new, and exciting despite its similarities.  
 
“Inside Out 2” is such a fantastic film. It manages to entertain young kids while also giving us a great lesson about the world we live in. My only partial criticism is I feel this one doesn’t hit emotionally as well as the original. It has a moment where we reflect on joy and adulthood that was a great moment but could have gotten us in our feels a little more. That is something we have come to expect heavily from a Pixar movie.

Director: Chris Nash
Starring: Ry Barrett, Andrea Pavlovic & Cameron Love
Rated: Unrated (Gruesome violence, language & drug use) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 34 minutes

 
About 20 minutes into writer/director Chris Nash's “In A Violent Nature” we meet the group of early twentysomethings we would have typically followed from the couple amongst them's duplex to the remote cabin in the woods where the six of them now sit around a campfire airing out grievances and ghost stories. Typically, key word here, we would have more context for said grievances and a deeper understanding about who each of these people are and how they play into each other's lives allowing for any kinship or tension between them to also play into the dynamics of their impending doom given the order with which they are dispersed. Again, typically we would have a focal point, our final girl if you will, who is highlighted early and earnestly before both the film and her world descend into a madness she would have never imagined on the sunny, optimistic-filled drive she embarked on upon our introduction to her. Instead, it is not until that 20-minute mark that we meet anyone with a remotely optimistic viewpoint as Nash opens with dread rather than allowing his movie to descend into it.
​
The hook (pun intended) of “In A Violent Nature” is that it is told almost completely from the perspective of the killer. As is the case, much of what we're treated to are tracking shots of our antagonist lurking through very green, very lush, wooded areas until he comes upon his victims and then - without much forethought or hesitation - moves forward with some of the most gruesome gore you've seen at the movies. In many ways, this leads to the film being more an exercise in style and form than it does in story or theme. These are essentially iterations of scenes we've seen hundreds of times before in this genre with Nash simply looking for new ways of framing them. It's hard to imagine there was much of a script for the film, but likely more a collection of death descriptions along with the routing of our killer's journey. 

“In A Violent Nature” is a largely wordless affair, the only dialogue coming from the aforementioned group of twentysomethings whose pre-determined fate more or less negates any interest in what they're talking about. This could both serve as a warning sign for those who feel it necessary to have characters to invest in and root for, but considering the tone Nash establishes early in the film it is understood this is not the point of his slasher. Instead, any ideas or commentary audiences pull from “In A Violent Nature” would seem to be wholly their own - the film itself serves only as a prompt.
The obvious comparison for the film is Jason Voorhees and the “Friday the 13th” franchise in addition to any number of early ‘80's slasher flicks Jason gave rise to. Such inspiration is derived from both the template it follows as well as the aesthetic from which it is so lovingly borrowing. There are of course hints of other horror icons here as well - namely Michael Myers given how those films would frequently cut to Michael's perspective when he would lurk and kill - along with plenty of other homages to the horror subgenre throughout, but the most striking choice is that of chasing the intentional camp (again, pun intended). Based solely on the title and teaser trailer for this film it would seem what Nash was aiming for was something truly sinister, taking that camp born from the stilted acting, melodramatic delivery, and ostentatious logic often associated not only with the kills, but with stock slasher characters and transplanting those cues into a more grounded, realistic setting. No editing flourishes, no musical accompaniment, and most importantly - no give on the gore; this felt positioned as a peak into the genuinely deranged and not something that recognized the kind of ironic value those early slashers carried. Instead, “In A Violent Nature” very much leans into these qualities especially in regard to the stilted acting and (almost hilariously) long shots of our antagonist slowly walking after people who are running away and could have likely escaped if the movie didn't need them to die. There is certainly a way this could have been shot and cut differently that would make it a more depraved experience, but crafting a loving acknowledgement of the kinds of horror films that inspired Nash with a flipped perspective is understandable too - the campiness of the kills despite the brutality - allowing the audience to ease up on the depths of such immorality, making this more about how far the filmmaker and his practical effects team can push things rather than forcing us to think about the families of these victims in their most degrading, mortifying moments.

Of course, having a concept is one thing but executing on said premise in a fashion that doesn't feel tired and/or lose its appeal after revealing its hand is another task altogether. “In A Violent Nature” will likely either be someone's cup of tea or not and viewers will be able to identify which camp they fall into after the first five minutes. Nash is intentionally hanging on still frames for extended periods of time to the point one begins to question if they're missing something or if they're simply looking at the wrong part of the image. This is undoubtedly a play on some kind of overarching meaning the filmmaker means to pull from the project while also lulling the audience in, but it could definitely prove tiresome for some viewers. If the idea of following around this Jason-like figure, known here as Johnny (Ry Barrett), for 90 minutes in order to get a keen sense of the why and how as we stay in step with this monster sounds appealing it probably will be, but if that sounds either slow or boring or both then odds are you'll mentally check out prior to Johnny making his first real show of grisly pop art. There are long stretches of silence, no musical score is utilized with only momentary flourishes of organic soundtrack though there is some clever use of sound design throughout but especially in one of the more climactic moments that utilizes the unrelenting sounds of sharp objects hitting blunt surfaces - allowing the film to make a lasting impression in more ways than one. Nash utilizes the natural sounds of the forests, conversations between his non-Johnny characters, and the 4:3 aspect ratio to set an almost ethereal tone, but ethereal in the most demented way as it is the form within these choices that draws viewers into the nostalgia of the piece only for Nash to then reveal the function of it by delivering some of the most gruesome (and creative) on-screen violence that has ever graced the slasher genre. 

It would be a disservice to give away any details of the techniques Johnny uses to incapacitate his victims, but maybe more interesting is the way in which Nash chooses to capture these killings. As has been mentioned, the tone is campy to the point it's almost overcompensating to make sure we the audience know that the movie itself is in on the joke yet the filmmaking is still very much a series of steady and concentrated sequences that show not only an understanding of the genre but a flair for how to pull what is really impactful about these moments to the surface. Whether it be through a unique vantage point that keeps all the action in-camera in what appears to be a single take or conveys certain terror through minimal movement while still crafting haunting imagery, Nash understands the essence of the genre is not wholly to freak people out for a few fleeting seconds in the moment, but to remain terrifying hours or even days after when you wake up in the middle of the night to what looks like more than a shadow in the corner or when you find yourself staring into what is seemingly an empty space but you could swear you saw something move. It's more than unforgiving, more than scary - it's haunting in such an eerie, creepy way that the chills are inescapable. Even if Nash's film doesn't quite reach these heights within every attempt there is still enough here to gauge his potential trajectory. It was a gamble to invert the slasher movie given we typically find the victims as the characters worth rooting for and the shock/surprise of when the killer pops up to hold much of the stories tension and there was certainly the possibility that by taking these perspectives away that “In A Violent Nature” would feel flat and emotionless. It's true we don't care much about the victims, that Johnny's backstory is just sound enough to have us buy into his violent fits, and while the final 15 minutes or so almost completely undoes what the film has worked so hard to earn with its not-so-subtle, but precise solemnity “In A Violent Nature” remains an effective horror film if not solely for the execution of its executions, but for allowing audiences to unearth a few ideas along with its antagonist of a protagonist.

Director: George Miller
Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth & Tom Burke
Rated: R (sequences of strong violence & grisly images)
Runtime: 2 hours & 28 minutes

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. 
 
Fury being the keyword.
 
We all crave revenge though, just as Chris Hemsworth’s wicked Dementus would say, but while we may not be able to balance the scales of our suffering with such revenge - seeking after such does have the capacity to make for one hell of a story.
 
Such is the tale of the titular Furiosa in George Miller’s nine-year-later follow-up to his bombastic ‘Fury Road.’ While that film - itself a 36-year-later follow-up to Miller’s dystopian trilogy that began simply as a story of another vengeful Australian who set out to stop a violent motorcycle gang - is now something of a cultural milestone and turning point for action filmmaking in and of itself it didn't necessarily blow me out of the water in the way so many of its fans praise it for doing (more on that later). Why Miller, who will be 80 in less than a year, chose to enter this world once again through the prism of a prequel to flesh out the details of a fascinating yet not necessarily unambiguous character whose destiny we are well aware of might at first feel a little puzzling as the film unfolds the filmmaker’s justifications are made clear: re-entering this world and continuing to flesh out not only the character of Furiosa but all of the characters at play in these wasteland fortresses along with the wasteland itself is what makes it worth the trip. Such a task is an admittedly impossible line to walk in not only in having to deliver on the expectations set by ‘Fury Road,’ but also in attempting to deliver something that is inherently cut from the same cloth yet stands on its own merits. 
 
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” for all the context, history and set-up that would seem to inform its creation is ultimately still an origin story - the beginning of a saga if part of one at all - and needs none of the circumstances surrounding it to be known to flourish for what it is. Where ‘Fury Road,’ for all its audacity and inspiration, felt more like an art installation of a movie - meaning I was floored by its visual achievements but not necessarily moved by or invested in its experiment – ‘Furiosa’ is full-fledged epic where the storytelling is as front and center as the action - much to the chagrin of the majority of movie-goers, I'm sure.

That said, the film still delivers where it will count for most just not as often as some might have hoped. Following up a film that was essentially two or three long, extended action sequences with something more akin to a mythic tale of how a warrior earned their stripes is certainly a pivot, but if you thought Miller wouldn't still delight in big rig chases featuring an array of aerial acrobatics you'd be mistaken. While one of the early action set pieces that takes place in the heart of the Citadel suffers due to the same fears this film's first trailer ignited by the time we reach the single biggest sequence in the middle of the film in which Miller is both cooking and flexing as a character named Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke) drives a decked out semi through a storm of war boys and sandstorms while Anya Taylor-Joy gives birth to the titular character as we know her to be - slickly maneuvering from one tanker to the next and into the cab of the truck while dismissing upwards of 10 adversaries along the way - all faith has been restored and all bets are off. It is in these action sequences that Miller is clearly (and oddly) most comfortable as he seemingly delights in being able to orchestrate things unfolding in-camera that less than a handful of other filmmakers could pull off, but also where he finds himself able to express the most with said visuals. What ‘Furiosa’ does have in common with ‘Fury Road’ is its lack of dialogue with an obvious emphasis on action, but even more it is about how one action leads to the next and how these measures different characters make and take build on top of one another, overlay each other, and generally move us not only further along in the story but deeper into theme as well. ‘Furiosa’ is a movie about controlling your destiny, not simply accepting the hand fate seems to have dealt you but taking that hand and fashioning it to work in favor of your objectives even as the journey perversely does the same thing to you; molding you into the type of person with the skills and personality to succeed in the face of that adversity.
 
Furiosa's main objective is returning home. The film begins in the "Green Place of Many Mothers" where a young Furiosa (Alyla Browne) is picking peaches along with her sister, Valkyrie. This "Green Place" is one of the last remaining areas in an otherwise barren desert with fresh water and agriculture. This place is also very much a safeguarded secret haven so when Furiosa and Valkyrie spot a couple of plunderers picking through their plants Furiosa attempts to sabotage their bikes but ends up captured instead. In this first, tone-setting sequence of the film Furiosa's mother (Charlee Fraser) chases said plunderers through that aforementioned barren desert only to stumble upon an outpost of desperate and dirty bikers led by Hemsworth's Dementus. Through a series of events, Dementus proves worthy of his title of "warlord" as he holds the young Furiosa captive and charges into the Citadel making demands we know the immortal Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme) will never bend to. In response to this lack of compliance Dementus invades and captures Gastown - the second fortress of the wasteland that features some really cool production design - positioning Dementus as just as critical a player in this story as Furiosa herself. 
 
Miller and co-screenwriter Nick Lathouris with whom Miller also wrote ‘Fury Road’ are certainly interested in their female lead's arc, but it is Dementus and Hemsworth's performance as the villain of the piece who is something of an unexpected focal point for the film, some might even say the narratives loudest voice. While I didn't expect too many surprises from a prequel to a sequel that took a decade to make and release, I was somewhat surprised not only by the lack of similarities between this film and its immediate predecessor but also by the structure that ultimately shapes ‘Furiosa.’ For starters, Taylor-Joy does not appear in this film for the first full hour, thus giving Hemsworth time to sink his prosthetic nose into the sand and the mind of this somewhat deranged, mostly dumb meathead who likely found himself in charge more for his physical prowess than his strategic mind. Knowing the road certain characters must take and the demise some must face for the events of ‘Fury Road’ to begin is an aspect that hangs over this more traditionally told story, but while ‘Fury Road’ as a film likely contained more ideas than it did support any kind of actual story the opposite feels true of ‘Furiosa’ as it is more of a plot-driven film with a few main ideas propping up Miller's craftmanship that is on full display - the real reason any of this exists at all. Even still, Furiosa manages to unravel a few surprises along the way despite the foregone conclusions of its script and more traditional storytelling methods; how well the film still plays and how absorbing everything happening on screen continues to be only validates further how strong of a film this is despite any hesitation toward the prequel approach and story decisions. 

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is both more of what one might expect Miller to deliver, more of the same as ‘Fury Road,’ yet simultaneously something completely different. Though not a ‘Mad Max’ completist, mega fan, or Miller enthusiast necessarily - I still found myself taken with the oddities of this counter-culture Miller and co. created while admiring the wittiness of what dialogue does pop up to the extent that my limited familiarity with Miller's filmography made this quite possibly my favorite thing I've seen him do. Whether it be in small touches like Immortan Joe's right-hand man and his gas mask crotch guard, the hole he purposefully cut in his shirt for easier access to his nipples, or better yet - the design of the chariot of motorcycles Dementus conducts, the breadth with which this world has been sketched out and filled in is impressive solely on its own terms. Complaints of pacing and imperativeness of the material in general will arise and the third act especially could have been condensed as the film stretches toward the two-and-a-half hour mark, but as an audience member completely immersed in not only the aesthetics of Miller's playground but the plight of Furiosa - I didn't mind. Taylor-Joy's performance honors the Charlize Theron energy of the character while still communicating her controlled rage and mechanical competencies through what is largely a wordless performance. Sure, Hemsworth steals the show when he's on-screen as this scoundrel that would have you believe he's smarter than he is, and Burke is notably effective in his role but none of it distracts from the frenetic energy surrounding the titular character. There are a lot of opinions on what prequels and sequels and prequels to sequels should be or should embody and it depends on the franchise what route said types of films in the lineage will take. ‘Furiosa’ could have seen Miller spending more time in "The Green Place" or more time deepening and enhancing aspects of this character we already know and instead - for better or worse (but to the great amusement of this movie fan) - Miller chooses to balance the character study with more vehicular mayhem and war boys that, together, somehow manages to still pull a fair amount of substance from its familiar elements.        

Director: Wes Ball 
Starring: Owen Teague, Freya Allan & Kevin Durand
Rated: PG-13 (intense sequences of sci-fi violence/action)
Runtime: 2 hours & 25 minutes 

 
In what is essentially the fourth new beginning in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ franchise and the tenth film overall, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” has the difficult task of not only following up the critically acclaimed and well-liked Caesar trilogy but establishing a new cast of characters for audiences to care about and maybe more critically - to root for. The fascinating thing about this franchise in particular is that it has no one anchor, no single selling point, but it relies on each film’s ideas and themes to be the main attraction. These are blockbusters built on allegory, delivering spectacle to fulfill the experiential aspect of movie-going, but largely crafted for the conversations that will take place afterward. In director Wes Ball's (“The Maze Runner” trilogy) re-boot each of these factors is in place to meet the aforementioned requirements of both entertainment value and parable-like storytelling, but much like with the previous two Matt Reeves films (my hot take regarding the Caesar trilogy is that Rupert Wyatt's film is the best of them) these frameworks for what these films intend to do and be end up mostly being only that: a structure. In ‘Kingdom’ specifically, the themes themselves are such repeats of ideas and concepts this franchise has touched upon before that it almost feels the series is becoming that of which it is analyzing a la the cyclical nature of society - the triumphs and failures destined to collide with the systems put in place to try and form some type of order no matter the dominant species.

Further, the center of this new series of films will seem to hang on the leadership and development spurned by Noa (Owen Teague) as well as the actions and perseverance of Mae AKA Nova (Freya Allan). While the film opens with the funeral of Caesar from the previous trilogy, we are quickly ushered many generations down the road where apes have dispersed into different clans while humans are sparse and have seemingly been reduced to our Neanderthal beginnings. Noa's tribe appears to mirror that of the culture of many Native American tribes, emphasizing harmony with nature and fellow apes, instilling a social structure with rites of passage, and protocols for nurturing and developing individual roles while showing immense respect for the elders of the clan. In the opening sequence, Noa along with friends Soona (Lydia Peckham) and Anaya (Travis Jeffery) are preparing for a coming-of-age ceremony by each collecting an eagle egg. The point being, Noa's very tribalistic clan is inherently different than the gorillas he encounters later after realizing a human who turns out to be Allan's Mae has followed him and his friends back to their village. These gorillas upon horseback looking for this human carry weapons that expel electricity and wear masks to conceal who they are (always a clear sign of some deep-seeded humiliation). Upon locating Noa's village, this band of gorillas burn it to the ground in hopes of forcing Mae out of hiding, but all Noa sees is the devastation to his livelihood and the great loss he suffers. It is fundamental to the story that we learn Noa's father, Koro (Neil Sandilands), is a "master of birds" which is something Noa's tribe deeply cherishes and both a title and skill that he has not inherited. Ball's film and Josh Friedman's (“Avatar: The Way of Water”) screenplay provide this framework (there's that word again) for Noa's progression from simply proving himself to finding his purpose, which would appear to be the plight of the film, the main character's arc even - quickly becomes the least interesting thing about it.
​
This more focused, almost character study-like approach is a refreshing starting point considering the majority of the ‘Apes’ films tend to center their attention around the vast, world and/or civilization-ending stakes at the heart of each one. And ‘Kingdom’ is different considering we know this is not the beginning of the end but the beginning of thousands of more years of evolution for these ape civilizations. Of course, a story needs conflict of some kind and Noa's internal struggle to live up to his father's expectations is not going to be enough for a $160 million major studio summer tentpole and thus the bigger dissension comes into play as do the bigger themes around religion, race, corruption, and of course ... war. “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” quickly transitions into a man (or ape) on-the-run style thriller as Noa along with his newly found Orangutan friend Raka (Peter Macon) - a true stand-out bound to be an audience favorite - and Mae must stay ahead of the raiders on horseback who are after them because of their belief Mae is the key to unlocking an old human vault at the site where they have settled where they have also taken the surviving members of Noa's clan. The seeds of the film’s biggest themes are planted through Raka's dedication to the philosophies of Caesar and his disdain for how this growing band of chimpanzees and gorillas are beginning to twist said teachings and values for their purposes and justifications ... you see where this is going. And though we've visited such themes not only in this franchise before, but countless times throughout our history and within the history of the arts it is fascinating how the examination of behavioral patterns always is. As Noa and Mae are ultimately captured and taken to this settlement led by the self-proclaimed king, Proximus Caesar (Kevin Durand), the distinction between the noble and the egotistical becomes less and less evident with both sides' objectives becoming less and less defined by the never so clear parameters of good and bad.

The ‘Planet of the Apes’ films are a movie series of very notable "moments" whether it’s in the early film's twist endings or when Andy Serkis' Caesar spoke for the first time, it is in these small moments that we find indicators of massive shifts in how the world could/will change moving forward. ‘Kingdom’ features a nice kind of inverse on hearing Caesar speak for the first time and these moments featuring Allan's character both assessing and coming to better understand the extent of what the world around her has become are extremely layered in hindsight - no doubt adding even more depth on repeat viewings, but it is the reaction and comprehension of the apes in ‘Kingdom’ that signal the bigger understandings of perception and cultural shifts that are most impactful. Whether this is in Noa's combined emotions of astoundment and depression upon realizing a certain character's deception or when Noa, Soona and Anaya come to understand just how advanced humans once were after breaking into the aforementioned vault only to realize the humans wanted the same for different reasons is something else; truly the filmmaking, performance, and storytelling pinnacle of this particular odyssey. 

What the execution of these scenes is working in service of is admirable, especially considering that execution includes gorillas riding horses and electrocuting enemies in sweeping action scenes within a movie heavy on political allegory, but while these films seemingly purport to have the best of both worlds the allegory and allusions never feel - at least in the Reeves films and this one - as if they reach a level high enough to transcend the action/genre elements into something akin to genuine enlightenment. One might say the quality and merging of the ape animation with that of the natural settings at this stage of the game is enough to serve as true enlightenment and I wouldn't necessarily argue the point - it's breathtaking on the big screen - but while this depiction of Proximus as a character who yearns for knowledge from the past to conduct the future, who takes lessons and warnings from a human in William H. Macy's Trevathan, and who is positioned as the ultimate antagonist but is more complicated than Noa gives him credit for the screenplay itself doesn't give these facets their due diligence despite closing in on the two and a half hour mark. The fact Proximus doesn't appear until nearly an hour and a half into the film is an inherent flaw, but that this character then becomes the axis on which the majority of the film's themes turn only makes said flaw more obvious. Yes, the concluding, triumphant moment featuring Noa is just that and the final minutes with the humans intrigue viewers with where the franchise might go from here, but as far as continuing to carve out the details of the ancient stories between Caesar's birth and George Taylor's arrival ‘Kingdom’ could certainly be more mythic and memorable.