This Guy at the Movies

“Remembering Gene Wilder”  (American; 2023; biographical documentary; running time 1 hour, 32 minutes; directed by Ron Frank; rated TV-MA for language, smoking; made debut at Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival on May 18, 2023, available on VOD and streaming services, including Netflix) is a sweet, nostalgic, informative look at one of the most beloved actors of his time. Spanning the life and career of Jerome Silberman (who would go on to earn fame and accolades as Gene Wilder), the film is a glowing, heartfelt piece about a man who, it would seem, had no enemies and no skeletons in the closet but endured his share of tragedy. If the documentary has a fault, it’s that it is superficial and focuses more on Wilder’s films than the man himself. Insight into his personality and (especially) his motivations is scarce, and the documentary doesn’t delve into how Wilder felt about his less successful films. But the target audience – those 60 and up – likely won’t mind. “Remembering Gene Wilder” might amount to fan service, but his fans will want to be served.

Silberman was born June 11, 1933, in Milwaukee. He began his career on stage, and, as Gene Wilder, he got his big break with a brief appearance as a hostage in the 1967 hit “Bonnie and Clyde.” Filmmaker Mel Brooks had met Wilder during a theater performance and cast him as Leopold Bloom in the 1967 comedy “The Producers.” And a career was launched. In 1971, he played the title character in “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” a movie that did not do well at the box office but grew in popularity each year with network TV broadcasts. Wilder’s most iconic roles came in a pair of 1974 collaborations with Brooks: as Jim “The Waco Kid” in the Western parody “Blazing Saddles”; and as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein in the comedic Frankenstein reworking “Young Frankenstein.” Wilder’s career was spotty from there as he got into writing and directing (remember “The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother”?; neither do I), but his most successful film would come in 1980 when paired with Richard Pryor for “Stir Crazy.” He continued acting in films until 1991; his final appearances as a performer were in two episodes of the TV sitcom “Will & Grace” in 2002-03. Wilder died Aug. 29, 2016, from complications of Alzheimer’s disease.

Wilder narrates much of “Remembering Gene Wilder” via audiobook recordings from his memoir, “Kiss Me Like a Stranger” (2005), making it seem as if Wilder is talking directly to the audience, a nice personal touch. Brooks, now 97, lends entertaining tales of his collaborations with Wilder and their longtime friendship. Rain Pryor, the daughter of the late Richard Pryor, contributes important insight about Wilder’s relationship with her father (they collaborated on five films), one that was more professional than personal (Wilder says he never asked Pryor about his issues with drugs). Other interviewees include Hollywood producers, Peter Ostrum (who played Charlie in “Willy Wonka”), family members and film critic/TV host Ben Mankiewicz. No one has anything remotely bad to say about Wilder, but at least the adulation comes across as sincere, not maudlin. The most telling bit of insight about what drove Wilder comes from Wilder himself, recalling that, when he was a child, his mother suffered a heart attack, and a doctor told him, “Never argue with your mother. It could kill her.” Instead, Wilder entertained his mother and made her laugh. The film starts to feel rushed when it gets to his marriage to actor Gilda Radner, who died of ovarian cancer (Wilder’s mother died of the same disease when he was in his 20s). More time could have been spent on that instead of, say, many scenes from Wilder’s 1979 Western/comedy “The Frisco Kid.” The film reminds us many times that Wilder conveyed a sense of innocence but was also a risk-taker, but this documentary takes no risks. Though this is a loving remembrance of a beloved performer, it would have been a more fitting tribute if it had.

My score: 63 out of 100

A working knowledge of Korean culture, Koreans’ attitudes about death and the afterlife, and South Korea’s sometimes tense history with neighboring Japan isn’t required to get entertainment value out of “Exhuma”  (South Korean; 2024; supernatural horror/mystery; running time 2 hours, 14 minutes; written and directed by Jang Jae-hyun; N/R but includes violence, gore; made debut at Berlin International Film Festival on Feb. 16, 2024, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder). But it undoubtedly would help. A complex story about evil spirits and the Koreans’ delicate handling and respect for those who have passed from this world, “Exhuma” also speaks on a more guttural level in the language of horror movie gore. A liver being ripped from a living person means pretty much the same thing no matter the culture.

A wealthy Korean-American (Kim Jae-cheol as Park Ji-yong) living in Los Angeles and his wife are the parents of an infant boy who hasn’t stopped screaming since birth. Ji-yong, sensing there is a curse on his family (Ji-yong hears voices), hires a renowned Korean shaman (Kim Go-eun as Hwa-rim) and her protégé (Lee Do-hyun as Bong-gil) to figure out what is going on. They determine that a vengeful ancestor’s spirit, that of Ji-yong’s grandfather, is haunting them. If the grandfather’s grave is relocated, the thinking goes, that will appease him and end the curse. Hwa-rim and Bong-gil enlist the help of a geomancer (Choi Min-sik as Kim Sang-deok) and mortician (Yoo Hae-jin as Yeong-geun) to locate the grave and dig it up. Sang-deok, an older man in a perpetual state of worry, doesn’t like the eerie feeling he gets from the mountaintop burial site. But Ji-yong is paying a lot of money, so the burial vault is unearthed, many chants are performed in a ritual, and plans are made for cremation. Except … uh-oh, a worker cuts a snake in half with a shovel during the exhumation, and that brings bad vibes and a rainstorm. A cremation during a shower won’t allow the grandfather’s spirit easy transition into the afterlife, so the coffin is taken to a hospital where … a man opens it, unleashing the angry spirit. More rituals and more chanting, the spirit is recaptured and then the cremation happens, and it’s game over, right? Turns out that dead snake is haunting the worker that killed it. So Sang-deok and Yeong-geun revisit the burial site to say a prayer for the severed snake. And wouldn’t you know it? They unearth a second, much larger coffin in the same burial plot. It’s probably nothing. Except that it is. Soon a much larger, much more evil spirit is on the loose. What’s a geomancer to do? Everybody best guard their liver.

“Exhuma” takes itself seriously, though a couple of horror movie moments are unintentionally funny, like one involving that old standby, people in a horror movie making stupid decisions. When the larger coffin (which, as it turns out, includes the remains and spirit of a Japanese warlord, I think; the spirit is an anima, and I still don’t know what that means, other than the anima has a hunger for sweet fish and can turn itself into a giant fireball and fly into the sky whenever it pleases) is taken to a temple for burning, Haw-rim, sensing trouble, suggests they do it right away. And Sang-deok, usually the worrier, suggests they delay the cremation until first thing in the morning. Really bad idea because somebody’s about to lose a liver. “Exhuma” is stylishly shot, and it seems (even not understanding much of it) that much care was put into making those rituals as detailed and authentic as possible. The film overextends its stay by at least 30 minutes, and the ending comes across as a little too tidy and happy. But you’d be smiling too if you got to keep your liver.

My score: 71 out of 100

“Monster” (Japanese; 2023; psychological drama; running time 2 hours, 7 minutes; directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, written by Yuji Sakamoto; rated PG-13 for thematic material, brief suggestive material; made debut at Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2023, available on VOD and streaming services, including Mubi) is a chess match of a movie, one in which director Kore-eda always seems to be one move ahead of the audience. His moves never seem to be what might be expected as he dares the audience to think about what they are watching and then think about it again. Kore-eda plays with perspective, challenging viewers to consider what might or might not be the truth and how the truth is subjective. “Monster” explores many themes, including the ramifications of jumping to conclusions, grief, loss, morality, societal gender norms, toxic masculinity, honesty, the challenges of single motherhood and a woman’s place in Japanese culture, repressed feelings, the struggle for identity, the afterlife and the possibility of rebirth, bullying and the politics of the Japanese educational system among them. Kore-eda repeatedly asks, “Who is the monster?” without offering a clear answer. “Monster” is a gorgeous, intellectually demanding and heartbreaking work, and one that should be seen.

Saori Mugino (Sakura Ando) is a young, widowed mother living in a mid-sized Japanese city. Her fifth-grader son Minato (Soyo Kurokawa) has started behaving strangely, cutting his own hair and coming home with just one shoe. When he goes missing one evening, Saori finds him, injured, in an abandoned train tunnel. Saori thinks that Minato’s homeroom teacher, Mr. Hori (Eita Nagayama), is abusing her son. When she questions school officials, including an oddly submissive principal (Yuko Tanaka as Makiko Fushimi), she gets vague answers and insincere apologies. She confronts Mr. Hori, who tells her that Minato has been bullying a classmate (Hinata Hiiragi as Yori Hoshikawa). Mr. Hori is fired but comes to school a few days later, and Minato falls down a stairway trying to get away from the teacher. Mr. Hori visits the Mugino’s home during a typhoon, but Minato has gone missing, and Saori and Mr. Hori go searching for him.

The first third of the movie is told from Saori’s perspective. She steadfastly defends her son. But who is telling her the truth? Is she overprotective? Why are school officials putting up such resistance? The second third hits the reset button and recounts the events from the perspective of Mr. Hori, who people seem to judge quickly, in part because he has taken a lover (Mitsuki Takahata as Hirona Suzumura) who works at a hostess bar that recently burned down. The final act is from the perspective of Minato and Yori, who are, as it turns out, close friends, though Minato keeps their friendship hidden because the other students mercilessly bully Yori, a small and sweet boy. Yori, whose mother left their family, also is physically abused by his father, who thinks he can “fix” Yori by making him more masculine. Minato and Yori escape to a fantasy land they have created in an abandoned train car, where they discover how they feel about each other.

The changing perspectives of each act prompt the audience to reconsider what they think they know about each character. Is Mr. Hori the monster the students think he is? Are Minato and Yori monster enough to have set fire to the high-rise with the hostess bar? Is the educational system a monster? Is the principal, who is hiding a secret, the monster? Is society a monster? Are the bullies the monsters? Is everyone a monster? Or is no one a monster? Pondering such weighty questions might sound challenging, and it is. But “Monster” can be savored on a less cerebral level, thanks to the breathtaking cinematography of Ryuto Kondo and the elegant music of Ryuichi Sakamoto, creating his last score before he died in March 2023. Even with all that beauty, the final moment is devastating but also, somehow, joyous. Fitting that Kore-eda keeps us guessing and pondering to the very end.

My score: 93 out of 100

“Inside Out 2”

Genres: Animated family/coming-of-age comedy

Country: United States

Directed by Kelsey Mann

Written by: Meg LeFauve and Dave Holstein

Starring: Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Tony Hale, Liza Lapira, Ayo Edebiri, Adele Exarchopoulos, Paul Walter Hauser, Kensington Tallman, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan, Lilimar, Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Grace Lu, Yvette Nicole Brown

Rated: Rated PG for some thematical elements

Run time: 1 hour, 36 minutes

Release date: In theaters June 13, 2024

Where I saw it: Yes Cinema and Café in downtown Columbus, Ind., on a Thursday afternoon, $6, about 50 other people in the theater, most of them women and young girls

What it’s about: In a sequel to 2015’s “Inside Out,” a girl Riley (Tallman), who moved to San Francisco from Minnesota with her family, has turned 13. Puberty hits just as she is invited to a hockey camp where she tries to impress the coach of her assigned high school’s hockey team. Her emotions from childhood – Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Anger (Black), Fear (Hale) and Disgust (Lapira) – have created a new section in the control room of Riley’s mind called Sense of Self. But Riley’s self-identity is about to change with the arrival of new emotions Anxiety (Hawke), Envy (Edebiri), Boredom (Exarchopoulos) and Embarrassment (Hauser).

My take: While this film is not quite “Inside Out” – which at the time felt like a return to form for Pixar after a bit of a slump that followed what many view as its creative peak – it’s not far off. It does most everything the best Pixar films do – dazzling imagery, a compelling and well-told story, plenty of laughs and moments that turn on the tears. Because the sequel addresses issues that come with puberty, its target audience would seem to be girls about the same age as Riley. That’s not to say that younger children won’t enjoy it, because it’s a fun, frantic ride that is likely to keep the elementary school set engaged. And that’s not to say that older viewers won’t be able to identify with what Riley is going through, as we’ve all been there. The movie’s overriding message, that the sum of all our emotions and experiences is what makes us who we are, is universal. “Inside Out 2” is a story of the tug-of-war between childhood and life that follows puberty, and director Mann and writers LeFauve and Holstein tell that story with insight and sensitivity while not allowing the film’s concepts to become too heavy. Mixed mediums (traditional, video game and paper cutouts animation) make this visually interesting. Most of the big laughs come from a pair of secondary cartoon characters, Bloofy (Ron Funches) and his pouch Pouchy (James Austin Johnson). “Inside Out 2” is busy and talky, but Mann pulls back on the reins when appropriate, including the tear-producing moments. While not its predecessor, this is a worthy sequel worth seeing.

My score: 89 out of 100

“How to Rob a Bank” (American; 2024; true crime documentary; running time 1 hour, 26 minutes; directed by Stephen Robert Morse and Seth Porges; rated TV-MA for language, brief graphic nudity; available on Netflix on June 5, 2024), intentionally or not, glorifies a guy whose primary contributions to society were as a meth maker and bank robber.

Scott Scurlock, dubbed “Hollywood” by the FBI agents trying to stop him, and his accomplices robbed nearly 20 banks in Seattle in the first half of the 1990s, taking a total haul of more than $2 million. Scurlock, as we are reminded in a documentary that is well-made, stylish and thorough in its telling of a fascinating story, was a modern-day Robin Hood, a charming, intelligent, eccentric man with many friends and female acquaintances who lived in an elaborate, multi-level treehouse in the forest outside Seattle. Scurlock enjoyed life (and enjoyed the money he took), drank and drugged, was fond of hanging out in the woods nude and was not shy about having his friends videotape him sans clothing. He was one course away from being a premed student when he was caught making methamphetamine in the lab at Evergreen State College. He left school and sold his meth until his distributor was killed in a robbery. Inspired by the 1991 movie “Point Break,” about surfers who robbed banks while disguised as former U.S. presidents, Scurlock, instead of getting a job, set about sticking it to the man. Seattle was enjoying a tech boom in the early 1990s, banks were popping up everywhere, and bank robbing was the style of the time. Scurlock was good at what he did, and he baffled investigators for four years. But, depending on your vantage point, either luck ran out, he got greedy, technology caught up or investigators figured him out. Not to give away too much, but it did not end well for him. Does it ever end well for bank robbers?

“How to Rob a Bank” utilizes the usual documentary devices, including re-enactments, news coverage from the era and interviews aplenty with Scurlock’s accomplices, friends and those trying to catch him. While the interviews provide great insight, many of those involved seem to be playing to the cameras by being overly dramatic. We don’t hear from Scurlock (for good reason), except in homemade videotape footage and through dramatic readings from his diary by a voice actor. Where the documentary shines is in its presentation, especially comic-book style sketch animation made to look like storyboards. They help keep the film lively. Brief moments remind viewers that bank robbing is not a victimless crime, but those moments account for maybe 2 percent of the movie. Scurlock gave some of his haul to environmental groups and used it to help friends, though he expected those he was generous with to support his illegal activities. Americans always have been fascinated by bank robbers (unless its their bank being robbed), and Scurlock certainly is a colorful character. But let’s not forget that robbing banks is not the stuff of sainthood.

My score: 80 out of 100

If a giant mako shark somehow adapted to fresh water and somehow made its way up the Seine River and somehow decided to reside in the catacombs “Under Paris” (French; 2024; ecological horror/drama/action; running time 1 hour, 44 minutes; directed by Xavier Gens, written by Gens, Yannick Dahan, Yaël Langmann and Maud Heywang; rated TV-MA for gore, language, violence; available on Netflix on June 5, 2024), that’d be bad, right?  And if it somehow evolved to give birth to bunches of baby sharks even before it was sexually mature and without a male shark doing his part, that’d be even worse, right? And if all this took place just as Paris was about to host an Olympic-level triathlon with hundreds of swimmers doing laps in the Seine, that’d be really bad, right? And if a young, idealistic environmentalist wanted to save the sharks because they don’t mean any harm and rounds up a bunch of young, idealistic environmentalists and their cellphones to gather on the banks of the catacombs as police are trying to exterminate the sharks, that’d be catastrophic, right? It all happens in “Under Paris,” which takes itself oh, so seriously but can’t be taken seriously (and shouldn’t be), what with its comically bad CGI and greenscreened-everything, and its comically evil mayor of Paris, and its comically clueless  young environmentalist, and its comically heavy-handed melodrama. The carnage is serious, even if it looks goofy, and this being a shark attack movie, you want all the carnage you can get. And you get a lot. 

Bérénice Bejo (who is an Oscar nominee, which begs the question, “What is she doing here?”) is Sophia, a marine biologist studying sharks in the garbage dump that is the Pacific. We meet Sophia just before her boat’s crew becomes lunch for Lilith, a mako shark that Sophia has been observing and is growing at an unbelievable rate. Bejo is the star of the movie, so she survives, though she is traumatized, which gives film an excuse for the melodrama filling the spaces between bloody shark attacks. Three years later, Lilith is swimming in the Seine. How can that be? Well, as Sophia and other nerdy biologist types explain, Lilith is adapting to the manmade mess called climate change. Lilith goes underground, and before you know it there’s hundreds of CGI sharks under Paris. A group of police led by Adil (Nassim Lyes) wants to exterminate Lilith and her offspring. But wait! You can’t have a shark attack movie with no sharks. Bring on the complications. Paris is hosting that triathlon, apparently as big a deal as the French Revolution but with far fewer beheadings (but probably more be-armings and be-leggings). Amity Mayor Larry Vaughn … I mean, the mayor of Paris (Anne Marivini) reminds everyone that billions of dollars were spent for a one-time sporting event, and it’s going to take place killer sharks or not. Her strategy: Pretend the sharks don’t exist. That’s a solid plan. Meanwhile, Greta Thunberg wannabe Mika (Léa Léviant) will stop at nothing to save Lilith. She hatches a vague plan that finds her in the water in the catacombs. The police urge her to get out. “Nope,” she says, because Lilith is a kind, misunderstood shark. Then it’s chomp, chomp, chomp, and Mika won’t have to worry about boomers screwing up her planet because, well, she’s dead. Sophia and Adill hatch a vague plan to protect the triathlon swimmers from becoming a buffet. That plan is bound to fail because “Under Paris” needs a gonzo, “Sharknado”-like finish, and a Seine full of unsuspecting swimmers turned bloody carcasses should do the trick. When the sharks are done eating them, they’ll move on to … the sequel.

“Under Paris” becomes everything it should have been all along in the final act, when it disposes of all the science and go-green messaging, and the trauma that bonds Sophia and Adil (he also has a tragic backstory), and the mayor, and the young idealists and gets down to the business of sharks devouring humans. Sure, the sharks look like they could have been CGI’d by a teenager on a laptop. As long as bloody bodies are mangled, does it matter? As the French say, bon appétit!

My score: 58 out of 100

You might find yourself unable to keep your eyes on “Speak No Evil” (in Danish, “Gaesterne,” lit. “The Guests”) (Dutch/Danish; 2022; psychological horror/drama; running time 1 hour, 38 minutes; directed by Christian Tafdrup, written by Tafdrup and his brother Mads Tafdrup; rated TV-MA for thematic material, violence against children, sex, brief graphic nudity, language; made debut at Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 22, 2022, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder). And not because it’s boring (it’s not), or because of horror movie gore (there’s a minimal amount of it in the final act). It’s just that “Speak No Evil” is situationally so uncomfortable and so unsettling that it practically demands you to squirm in your seat. The uneasiness is relentless in a cautionary tale about how niceness, politeness and rigid adherence to societal norms can be a hindrance for parents trying to protect their children from predators, especially when you are guests in the predators’ home. And you don’t want to be guests in the home of predators.

Bjorn (Morten Burian) and Louise (Sidsel Siem Koch) are a Danish couple vacationing in Italy with their young daughter Agnes (Liva Forsberg). They cross paths with a Dutch couple, Patrick (Fedja van Huet) and Karin (Karina Smulders) with a young son (Marius Damslev as Abel) who is shy and doesn’t seem to speak. They, curiously, cross paths a few times during their vacation. When Bjorn and Louise return home, they receive a postcard from Patrick and Karin inviting them to come to the countryside in Holland for a weekend vacation at their home. Bjorn and Louise find this curious since they barely know the other couple but, not wanting to be rude (and this will be a pattern), they accept. Patrick and Karin at first are gracious hosts. But there is something, well, off about them. They begin behaving inappropriately and obnoxiously, and when Bjorn, Louise and Agnes become uncomfortable, they try to get away in the early morning hours without saying goodbye. But when Agnes can’t find her pet stuffed rabbit as they are driving away, they return. Huh-oh. Patrick and Karin are livid, gaslight the Danish couple and then urge them to stay, promising the best day ever. Except it will not be the best day ever. Or even a good day. The situation escalates. That night, Bjorn and Louise share a moment of passion and ignore Agnes when she is scared and wants to get in bed with her parents. Later, Louise finds Agnes in bed with the Dutch couple, who are nude. That’s a red flag. The Danish couple attempt another escape but get stranded and call – you guessed it! – Patrick and Karin (why?!?!?), who are full-blown psychotic now. Bjorn and Louise are going to wish they hadn’t been so polite. And wish they had just bought their kid a new stuffed bunny.

You’ll probably be screaming at the screen for Bjorn and Louise to not be so stupid, or nice, or blind to their hosts’ obvious creepiness. The Tafdrup brothers clearly are making commentary on Scandinavian nice (closely related to Midwest nice in the U.S.). Bjorn and Louise, because of their desperate need to be polite, have not set personal boundaries. And any boundaries at all would have been beneficial in dealing with Patrick and Karin, predators who have chosen the Danish couple specifically because they wouldn’t put up much of a fight. When Patrick and Karin turn violent, Bjorn asks Patrick why they are doing what they are doing (including a horrific act against Agnes), and Patrick replies, “Because you let me.” That line is absolutely chilling. The filmmakers dare you to decide which couple is worse, and it sort of seems like a tie. The film builds tension even before the nasty stuff, largely through Sune “Koter” Kolster’s creepy score, but also with beautiful but unsettling imagery, including the spacious Dutch countryside. For a nice Danish couple, Holland is a place from which you can try to check out but you can never leave.

My score: 89 out of 100

There’s more “mall” than “chopping” in “Chopping Mall” (American; 1986; indie horror/sci-fi; running time 1 hour, 16 minutes; directed by Jim Wynorski, written by Wynorski and Steve Mitchell; rated R for violence, gore, nudity, language; made debut at Venice International Film Festival on Sept. 5, 2023, in limited theaters March 14, 1986), a cheesy low-budget work that is way more fun (intentional or not) than scary. Although, a teenage girl’s head being blown apart by lasers fired from a robotic Paul Blart wannabe qualifies as momentarily scary, I suppose. And fun. No one among the cast of terrible actors seems to have taken this seriously, and good thing. What’s to be taken seriously about a trio of rogue robots going on a murderous rampage in a closed mall occupied by dumb and horny poofy-haired teenagers anyway?

Remember chopping … er, I mean shopping malls? You know, buildings where people hung out and maybe (or maybe not) bought stuff in a time well before an Amazon driver threw packages on your porch. If you were an ‘80s kid, you put on a jean jacket with the collar turned up or emptied a can of Aqua Net into teased-up hair and went to the mall, where you would get an Orange Julius and browse Casio watches. The teenagers (and there’s a bunch of them) in “Chopping Mall” are looking to party and have sex, which was the style of the time. Their mall just so happens to have brought in some nameless corporation that is going to clean up the place with three security robots that are armed to the teeth (if they had teeth). Flash a barcoded badge in front of them, and you’re safe. Supposedly. When the corporation guy conducting the demonstration says, “nothing can go wrong,” you know plenty is going to go wrong. The robots malfunction (you don’t need to know why) and start killing everyone. That includes the teenagers having an overnight party in a department store. Once the killing begins, what is left of the group proves to be surprisingly resourceful for horror movie teenagers, utilizing various products available to them in the mall’s stores. But then they (and you knew this was coming) split up. Huh-oh. Can the “final girl” (Kelli Maroney as Alison Parks) and her nerdy new love interest (Tony O’Dell as Ferdy Meisel) save the day?

“Chopping Mall” was made for less than $1 million, so there’s nothing particularly fancy or impressive about the robots, which are basically junior RoboCops. That movie would come along a year later, the ‘80s apparently being a time of robot paranoia. Who knew that our focus should have been on A.I. bots duping us instead of the possibility of being gunned down by talking hunks of metal? “Chopping Mall” was originally test-screened as “Killbots,” tested poorly (really?) and was renamed and had 19 minutes chopped from it, leaving it as a mercifully lean 76 minutes. As you might have guessed, the script is, well, a script, sort of, including such memorable lines as “I guess I’m just not used to being chased around a mall in the middle of the night by killer robots” and “They remind me of your mother; it’s the laser eyes.” Why would your average suburban shopping mall need security robots with metal claws and lasers anyway? This isn’t a Shyamalan movie, so there ain’t nobody gonna come along and exposition anything. This is empty-headed 1980s-style teenagers being chased around their domain by murderous robots. Do you need that explained?

My score: 70 out of 100

“Hit Man” (American; 2023; black comedy/neo-noir/crime drama/romance; running time 1 hour, 55 minutes; directed by Richard Linklater, written by Linklater and Glen Powell, based on the 2001 “Texas Monthly” magazine article of the same name by Skip Hollandsworth; rated R for language throughout, sexual content, some violence; made debut at Venice International Film Festival on Sept. 5, 2023, in limited release in theaters May 24, 2024, streaming on Netflix on June 7, 2024) is a  wildly entertaining, clever, sexy, often hilarious showcase for the charisma of leading man Powell, who also co-wrote and co-produced. Powell is on the screen almost the entire time and narrates throughout, and he delivers a performance that oozes star power. He and Linklater also gave him much to work with in a story based on a real-life, almost too-interesting-to-be-true situation. “Hit Man” hits all the right neo-noir notes, sticking to the genre blueprint (a regular guy in over his head, murder for hire, a femme fatale, a hefty life insurance policy) while also making it feel extraordinarily fresh. This is modern noir done right.

Set in New Orleans, Powell plays Gary Johnson, a drab man who teaches a college philosophy course, enjoys birdwatching, goes home to his cats and wears knee-high jeans shorts. He also dabbles in electronics, which lands him a part-time gig helping the New Orleans Police Department in undercover sting operations. As so often happens in noir, a turn of events involving a murder-for-hire scheme forever shakes up Johnson’s existence. Because a bad-cop co-worker (a hilarious Austin Amelio as Jasper) has been suspended, Johnson is pressed into service, pretending to be a hit man while wired to incriminate a suspect. He proves to be successful by being adept at being someone he is not. All is going well until Maddy (a steamy Adria Arjona) walks into his life. She says she is trapped in a loveless marriage to a controlling man and wants him killed. Mostly because she is charming and attractive, Johnson, posing as a suave hitman, convinces her to keep her money and start a new life. She does, and she and Johnson embark on a torrid physical relationship, and all manner of complications set in. Not the least of them is when Maddy’s ex-husband, who had tried to hire Johnson’s pretend hitman to kill Maddy, turns up dead. Did Maddy do it for the money? Is Johnson an accomplice? Can he manage the situation? Or does Jasper know too much?

Powell lights up the screen in what amounts to two roles, though his identities become blurred as the Maddy situation intensifies. And it certainly intensifies. Powell has a certain magnetism, and it seems to come naturally to him. He is at ease carrying the load of the film. He and Arjona have more chemistry than any two actors should have. Their sex scenes (though nothing is graphic) sizzle. Amelio makes for a great antagonist, a man so awful that it’s laugh-out-loud funny. Retta, as Claudette, and Sanjay Rao as Phil, two police officers Johnson works for, deliver some of the film’s most humorous moments, including when both are talking in an office and don’t know Johnson can hear them on his phone, and they go on and on about how hot Johnson’s new persona is. Linklater (“Dazed and Confused,” the “Before” trilogy, “Boyhood”) is an assured and inventive filmmaker who knows how to keep a story lively. And this film is lively from start to finish. The real-life Johnson, who produced 70 arrests while working undercover for the Houston Police Department, sounds like he was a fascinating character (Johnson died in 2022). Linklater and Powell have taken his already interesting story and infused it with a big Hollywood star performance, noir narrative twistiness, witty dark humor and sultry attitude. The result is one of the year’s most entertaining movies. And one of its best.

My score: 91 out of 100

“The Watchers”

Genres: Fantasy/supernatural horror

Country: United States

Written and directed by: Ishana Night Shyamalan, based on the 2022 novel of the same name by A.M. Shine

Starring: Dakota Fanning, Georgina Campbell, Olwen Fouéré, Oliver Finnegan, Alistair Brammer

Rated: Rated PG-13 for violence, terror, some thematic elements

Run time: 1 hour, 42 minutes

Release date: In theaters June 7, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Classic Columbus 12 theater in Columbus, Ind., on a Thursday evening, $6.49 with senior discount, six other people in the theater

What it’s about: A woman (Fanning as Mina) is stranded in a forest in Ireland in which many have gone missing. She is invited into a shelter by an older woman (Fouéré as Madeline) who has been staying there with two younger people (Campbell as Ciara and Finnegan as Daniel). The inhabitants of “the coop” don’t go into the forest at night but instead play to an audience of “watchers” who view them through a two-way mirror.

My take: The writer/director’s name should sound familiar, as she is the daughter of M. Night Shyamalan (“The Sixth Sense,” “Signs,” “Split”), who is a producer on his daughter’s feature-film debut. The younger Shyamalan certainly has learned a thing or two from observing her father, as this has the feel of one of his works in the way it is shot and how the story is told (and, you guessed it, a late twist or two). But like with many of the elder Shyamalan’s middling works, “The Watchers” is an uneven film that begins with an intriguing concept and great promise and then proceeds to unravel until it is in danger of falling apart altogether. “The Watchers” is at its best and most tense during the mysterious setup, before the audience comes to know exactly what the “watchers” are. The watchers stay in underground tunnels by day, and because the forest they inhabit is so massive, the four inhabitants of the coop don’t have enough time to escape. So they keep the watchers entertained at night, which seems to keep the forest creatures satisfied. At first. Ishana Night Shyamalan’s script doesn’t show its hand early and then shows its hand too much, delivering lengthy scenes of exposition (especially from Fouéré’s character) about its fairy tale origins and flashbacks (another of her father’s moves) as the reveals and twists arrive, each stretching the bounds of believability until the film is borderline cheesy. That’s not to say that “The Watchers” isn’t entertaining (it is) or doesn’t have its strengths (it does). Fanning is terrific as a woman too afraid to face her past. The watchers are scary, especially when we see only quick and blurry glimpses of them. Abel Korzeniowski’s unnerving score is a highlight. M. Night Shyamalan’s rookie effort was “The Sixth Sense,” and this is no “The Sixth Sense.” But it’s also no “Lady in the Water,” “The Happening” or “After Earth.” And that’s a good thing.

My score: 65 out of 100