This Guy at the Movies

“Unsung Hero”

Genre: Faith-based biographical drama

Country: United States

Directed by: Richard Ramsey and Joel Smallbone

Written by: Ramsey and Smallbone, based on the real-life story of the Smallbone family and their journey to becoming Christian music stars

Starring: Daisy Betts, Joel Smallbone, Kirrilee Berger, Jonathan Jackson, Lucas Black, Candace Cameron Bure, Diesel La Torraca, JJ Pantano, Hillary Scott, Lance E. Nichols, Roslyn Gentle, Kevin Downes, Rachel Hendrix, Lily Lumpkin, Don Most, Terry O’Quinn, Libby Smallbone, Rebecca St. James, Beau Wirick

Rated: PG-13 for action and violence, drug content, some strong language

Run time: 1 hour, 52 minutes

Release date: In theaters April 26, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Classic Columbus 12 in Columbus, Ind., on a Tuesday afternoon, $7.49, nine other people in the theater

What it’s about: Set in the early 1990s, Christian music promoter David Smallbone (Joel Smallbone), his wife (Betts as Helen Smallbone) and six kids are living the good life in Australia until a poorly attended Amy Grant tour costs the family everything they have. The Smallbones move to Nashville, Tenn., but when an expected deal with a musician falls through, the Smallbones have a house but no car, no furniture and no money (and now have a seventh child to feed). But through faith, hard work and help from friends at their church, they persevere, and the Smallbones’ oldest daughter Rebecca (Berger) becomes a Christian music recording star.

What I liked about: “Unsung Hero” announces early and often its intention to deliver a faith-based message. And while that undoubtedly will be the most important aspect of the film for Evangelicals who fill theaters for these types of movies, it still can be enjoyed by non-believers. Even if you aren’t familiar with Rebecca St. James and the wildly popular Christian music duo formed by her brothers Joel and Luke, For King & Country (and I had never heard of any of the Smallbones), you will have a pretty good idea how the story is going to unfold. But it still delivers real emotion and is a mildly compelling drama from start to finish. The Smallbones’ story is remarkable (and the film version would appear to be mostly true to real life) as they cling to each other and their faith through hardship and weather numerous storms before the expected happy ending (delivered through a montage showing the real-life players and their success stories) arrives. Christian message or not, this is an underdog, feel-good movie made with sincerity. … The quality of filmmaking in these faith-based works is improving. And while little here says Scorsese or Nolan, this is a notch or two above many similar low-budget movies, which tend to be on the same plane as Lifetime network dramas. While the message matters most, Betts, as a woman whose faith will never be shaken; and Joel Smallbone, playing a version of his father in his younger days, come up big in the movie’s most dramatic moments. These scenes are suitably tense, even more so inside such a feel-good film.

What I didn’t like about it: To non-believers (including myself), “Unsung Hero” undoubtedly will come across as heavy-handed (and to believers at the theater to have their faith reaffirmed, it probably couldn’t be heavy-handed enough). You could argue that much of what the Smallbones experienced in their journey up from the bottom could be attributed to good fortune and hard work, but a movie review is not the time or place for a theological debate. … Even though this is based on real life, many of the characters fall under the heading of “stock.” That’s particularly true of Helen Smallbone, who is little more than the dutiful wife who stands by her man, has no discernable aspirations of her own other than tending to her husband’s and family’s needs, and gives birth every couple of years. But Helen fits the bill in a Christian movie whose values (nuclear family, church, frequent praying, the man as the breadwinner) are decidedly throwback. … I had no prior knowledge of Rebecca St. James and For King & Country, but I was familiar with the Christian hair metal band Stryper (a fictional version of the band performs in concert early in “Unsung Hero”) and wish I wasn’t. Pretty sure I hadn’t heard “To Hell with the Devil” since the days of MTV’s “Headbangers Ball.” Pretty sure I won’t ever hear it again.

Who it will appeal to: Evangelicals and their families

My score: 65 out of 100

“Tarot”

Genre: Supernatural horror

Country: United States

Directed by: Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg

Written by: Cohen and Halberg

Starring: Jacob Batalon, Harriet Slater, Adain Bradley, Avantika Vandanapu, Larsen Thompson, Wolfgang Novogratz, Humberly González, Olwen Fouéré, Suncica Milanovic

Rated: PG-13 for horror violence, terror, bloody images, some strong language and drug content

Run time: 1 hour, 32 minutes

Release date: In theaters May 3, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Classic Columbus 12 in Columbus, Ind., on a Friday late afternoon, $7.49, nine other people in the theater

What it’s about: Seven young adults – Batalon as Paxton, Slater as Haley, Bradley as Grant, Vandanapu as Paige, González as Madeline, Novogratz as Lucas and Thompson as Elise – rent a mansion in the Catskills for a weekend of partying. They ignore a warning sign and go into the basement (of course), where they find an old wooden box with handmade Tarot cards in it. Haley gives the others and then herself a reading based on the cards and astrology, and her readings begin coming true, with horrific outcomes.

What I liked about: “Tarot” wasn’t as bad as I expected based on early reviews. That’s not saying much, really, but this was a serviceable low-budget horror film that is doing decent at the box office (it took in more than $10 million in its opening week and was made for a reported $8 million) but might have fared even better in January or February, when the competition isn’t exactly fierce. “Tarot” has a couple of terrifying moments and a few (predictable) jump-scares, but its strength is in the monsters depicted on the Tarot cards when they come to life. They are creepy and stealthy (that they aren’t often shown in clear view is a nod to the budget) and, in a few brief instances, terrifying. One scene in which one of the young adults becomes part of a supernatural magic act (with ghouls in the audience) that involves a shrinking wooden box and handsaw was especially squeamish to watch. And hear. The sound design plays a key role in a movie that shies away from much of the gore in the name of a PG-13 rating.

What I didn’t like about it: It was so predictable and ordinary. I didn’t fall asleep, but I wasn’t wide awake either. And I’ve written this a lot lately, it seems, but the script feels like it could have been written by an AI bot that was fed every teen horror film ever made. “Tarot” isn’t so bad that you’ll be angry about it, nor is it so bad as to be ironically fun. It’s just sort of there, doing what you would expect a low-budget horror film to do – young people making stupid decisions, young people having relationship issues, characters being picked off one by one, the appearance of a weird old expert on the topic at hand (Fouéré as Alma Astryn) to serve up the exposition, and the survivors among the group being exactly who you would have predicted. … Batalon’s brand of talky humor is an acquired taste. Batalon (who you likely know as Peter Parker’s/Spider-Man’s friend Ned Leeds in the most recent live-action Spider-Man movies) is almost solely responsible for the film’s attempts at laughs, and he seems to realize this. He takes a lot of swings but whiffs on most of them.

Who it will appeal to: Young adults who are OK with pedestrian horror films

My score: 50 out of 100

“Unfrosted” (American; 2024; comedy; running time 1 hour, 33 minutes; directed by Jerry Seinfeld, written by Seinfeld, Spike Feresten, Andy Robin and Barry Marder, loosely based on the real-life story of the creation of Pop-Tarts by Kellogg’s; rated PG-13 for some suggestive references and language; available on Netflix on May 3, 2024) begs this question: Why? What is so fascinating about the development and introduction of a breakfast pastry that would warrant a feature-length film, even one as farcical as this one, 60 years after the fact? Who decided (and I assume it was Seinfeld and collaborators) that, after watching the recent spate of product origin story movies (“Air,” “BlackBerry,” “Tetris” and “Flamin’ Hot” among them), decided that Pop-Tarts were ripe for the picking? Just as perplexing: Why does a movie that tries so hard to be funny and includes many normally reliable laugh-inducing performers in an ensemble cast never manage to rise above mildly amusing and most of the time falls far short of that. “Unfrosted” throws a lot at the viewer, including what amounts to a string of rapid-fire and largely predictable dad-type jokes that are good for more groans than chuckles. The nostalgia factor will be a pull for Boomers, but viewers not in the 60-and-up set will likely give up on the goofiness in no more time than it would take to warm a couple of Pop-Tarts (and put butter on them, the only way to eat them).

In the early 1960s (and keep in mind much here is fictionalized), cereal and milk ruled American breakfast. Kellogg’s and Post were fierce breakfast cereal rivals. Post (based largely on research it allegedly pirated from Kellogg’s) was developing a fruit-filled pastry that did not need refrigeration and could be warmed in a toaster. When Kellogg’s employee Bob Cabana (Seinfeld, whose character is based loosely on William Post) discovers the rival’s plan, he and Kellogg’s chief Edsel Kellogg III (Jim Gaffigan) team up with NASA food scientist Donna Stankowski (Melissa McCarthy, who comes closest to being consistently funny) to develop a similar breakfast pastry and beat Post into the market. That race to be first forms the basis of most of the story, which flies off in many tangents, including ones about the actor cast as Tony the Tiger (Hugh Grant as Thurl Ravenscroft) and a strike by breakfast cereal mascots; a dream team of “geniuses” (James Marsden as Jack LaLanne, Jack McBrayer as Steve Schwinn, Thomas Lennon as Harold von Braunhut, Bobby Moynihan as Chef Boy Ardee and Adrian Martinez as Tom Carvel) formed by Kellogg’s to brainstorm ideas for the new pastry; romantic undertones in the rivalry between Edsel Kellogg III and the head of post, Marjorie Post (Amy Schumer); and something about a “milk syndicate” that is not happy that cereal-makers are developing a food product that doesn’t require dairy products.

As you can surmise, “Unfrosted” is busy, and unnecessarily so. If you stripped it of the side stories, the actual tale of Pop-Tarts would be reduced to a short film or even a comedic sketch. And that might not be such a bad thing. The jokes and tangents come and go quickly, often only loosely tethered together, giving a bright, loud movie an even more manic feel. The talent on hand is considerable, but it mostly goes to waste because of a scattered script that has the feel of being the product of multiple writers, which it is. A few performers have funny moments – Bill Burr as a promiscuous President John F. Kennedy; Kyle Dunnigan as Walter Cronkite and Johnny Carson; Fred Armisen as a fictional inspector tasked with approving Kellogg’s new pastry) – that are mostly funny only in comparison to the other attempts at humor. The most interesting side story (or at least the most interesting idea for a side story) is “organized milk,” with Peter Dinklage making a too brief appearance as the head of the syndicate. As with the cast list, “Unfrosted” is just too much of everything that amounts to not much of anything. About all that was accomplished by sitting through all 93 minutes of it was that it made me want to go to the store and buy Pop-Tarts.

My score: 26 out of 100

I was not in the best of moods when I watched “Penelope” (British-American; 2006; fantasy romantic comedy; running time 1 hour, 44 minutes; directed by Mark Palansky, written by Leslie Caveny; rated PG for thematic elements, some innuendo and mild language; made debut at Toronto International Film Festival on Sept. 8, 2006, in theaters Feb. 29, 2008, available on VOD and streaming services) at home on DVD. And it’s hard to say whether that or the film’s quality was the primary factor in how I felt about watching it. It’s a cute enough modern-day fable, with likeable leads and an important message about acceptance. It’s kind of quirky, in a “Edward Scissorhands” sort of way (and both offer similar lessons), but with the edges rounded off. But for two-thirds of the movie it wasn’t especially engaging, the pig jokes (more on that later) grew tired, and one of the main characters became increasingly annoying. But “Penelope” finishes strong, delivering sentiment and sweetness that, although predictable, makes up for many of its weaknesses.

In a story about British bluebloods, Penelope Wilhern (Christina Ricci), the young adult daughter of privileged couple Franklin (Richard E. Grant) and Jessica (Catherine O’Hara) Wilhern, has led a sheltered life. Because of a curse brought upon the Wilherns many generations ago, Penelope was born with a pig’s snout. Her mother has hired outside help to search for a suitable husband for her daughter because, legend has it, the curse can be broken if Penelope finds love with someone “of her own kind.” Those quote marks are a hint. The problem is that the potential suitors shriek and run away in horror when they see Penelope’s snout. A photographer (Peter Dinklage as Lemon) desperate to get a photo of Penelope convinces a gambling addict (James McAvoy as Johnny) to infiltrate the Wilhern home, pretend to be a suitor and take pictures of Penelope using a camera hidden inside his jacket. Johnny and Penelope hit it off (he doesn’t run away in terror when he sees her), but some of the usual rom-com complications arise, and Penelope runs away from home (with her face covered by a scarf) to see the world she has been denied. Will Johnny and Penelope cross paths again? Will they fall in love? Will the curse be broken? Will they live happily ever after? Yes, yes, yes and, of course, yes.

Ricci and McAvoy are convincing and make for a likeable couple once they get around to being a couple. Though Ricci’s snout takes some getting used to, it’s not nearly as hideous as her suitors, who hurl themselves through second-floor windows, seem to think it is. McAvoy’s character is from the wrong side of the tracks and in the running for Penelope’s heart only because of mistaken identity (there’s a lot of that in rom-coms). While O’Hara really leans into her character and is good at it (and is often funny), her Jessica is an awful mother, manipulative and unable to accept her daughter for who she is. Jessica’s abrasiveness takes some of the sweetness out of the movie, though she gets a moment of redemption (but also comeuppance) at the end. Dinklage is a big plus, and Reese Witherspoon, who co-produced, has a nice turn as an edgy young woman that Penelope befriends. Much of the comedy leans on jokes about pigs, and it’s mostly mildly funny at first and not so much later. Not to give too much away (especially since you have probably figured this out), but Penelope learns that loving and accepting yourself is better than hoping others love and accept you. But, hey, if you find a hunky and sensitive guy to love and accept you, that certainly makes for a much better rom-com with the prerequisite happily ever after.

My score: 70 out of 100

“The Fall Guy”

Genre: Romantic comedy/action thriller

Country: United States

Directed by: David Leitch

Written by: Drew Pearce, loosely based on the ABC TV series that ran from 1981-86

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emily Blunt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Winston Duke, Hannah Waddingham, Teresa Palmer, Stephanie Hsu

Rated: PG-13 for action and violence, drug content, some strong language

Run time: 2 hours, 6 minutes

Release date: In theaters May 2, 2024

Where I saw it: Yes Cinema in downtown Columbus, Ind., on a Thursday early evening, $5, about 12 other people in the theater

What it’s about: Colt Seavers (Gosling), an in-demand Hollywood stuntman, drops out of filmmaking and life for a year after being injured. He returns to work on a movie being directed by Jody Moreno (Blunt), with whom Seavers had a fling when she was a camerawoman. When the star of Moreno’s movie (Taylor-Johnson as Tom Ryder) goes missing, Seavers, trying to rekindle his relationship with Moreno, sets out to find Ryder and save the movie but instead is drawn into a sinister plot.

What I liked about: You couldn’t much go wrong with Gosling and Blunt as  your leads in a romantic comedy, and their charm, chemistry and comedic chops are on full display in a story wedged inside an action flick that also serves as a homage to those who risk life and limb and garner little acclaim as Hollywood stuntpeople (director Leitch started his career as a stunt double). Gosling and Blunt make everything look so effortless, which is important in a movie that is otherwise throwing every kind of thrilling action movie stunt imaginable at viewers for much of the 126-minute running time. This is the stuff of popcorn movies and will have broad appeal because it tells an engaging story of a fling/estrangement/rekindling while also crashing and blowing up all things. You won’t want to think about this one too much because that might take away from the wildly entertaining ride, one that delivers laughs, and many of them big ones, from start to finish. … Gosling, arguably Hollywood’s biggest male star, is so convincing that the outtakes that accompany the credits were a reminder that he was just PLAYING a stunt man and indeed had his own real-life stunt doubles (though Gosling did some of his own stunts). … Much of this qualifies as meta, in the best of ways, because a movie is being made inside a movie while referencing the romance that is happening in what would be the real world while a movie is being made. Or something like that. It’s also a loving inside look at just how much teamwork goes into moviemaking. “The Fall Guy” also makes many nods to existing movies, most of them in the form of quotes from Dan Tucker (Duke), who uses them as a form of communication. … The frequent action scenes were in danger of becoming white noise until the finale arrives and delivers a worthy crescendo for a movie huge on entertainment value.  

What I didn’t like about it: Leitch’s resume includes “Deadpool 2” (2018), “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” (2019) and “Bullet Train” (2022). So it’s no surprise that his movie was busy and loud. And without the assured performances of Gosling and Blunt, this movie might have been too much of nothing. There’s not much substance here, but it matters little because it makes up for it by being joyful entertainment. … Taylor-Johnson is a hoot as an egotistical and idiotic movie star, but the main plot is almost inconsequential other than providing excuses for fighting, jumping from high places, car chases and setting fire to stuff. …  I’m not sure I needed multiple versions of Kiss’ 1979 disco-tinged hit “I Was Made for Lovin’ You.” Or even one version of it.

Who it will appeal to: The union of rom-com lovers and action flick fans. 

My score: 87 out of 100

“Challengers”

Genre: Romance/relationship drama/sports

Country: United States

Directed by: Luca Guadagnino

Written by: Justin Kuritzkes

Starring: Zendaya, Mike Faist, Josh O’Connor

Rated: R for language throughout, some sexual content, brief graphic nudity

Run time: 2 hours, 11 minutes

Release date: In theaters April 26, 2024

Where I saw it: Studio 10 Cinemas in Shelbyville, Ind., on a Tuesday night, $5 (Tuesday special), one other person in the theater

What it’s about: A former teen phenom tennis player turned coach (Zendaya as Tashi Ducan) tries to help her highly ranked tennis player husband (Faist as Art Donaldson) get back on the winning track by entering him in an ATP Challenger Tour event, where he will face opposition from struggling tennis pro Patrick Zweig (O’Connor), Art’s estranged best friend and Tashi’s former lover.

What I liked about: This is a big, throwback Hollywood relationship drama with big, star-power performances combined with tense, action-packed, aggressively shot and edited tennis sequences, and Guadagnino (“Call Me by Your Name,” the “Suspiria” remake) masterfully weaves the elements together. Guadagnino tells Kuritzkes’ story by bouncing back and forth in time to great effect (save for a couple of jolting transitions), flashing back to give context to a showdown between the former friends Art and Patrick as the woman they have in common, Tashi, watches from front row center court. More than a mere tennis championship is at stake. This is a complex story about complex and flawed people, but Guadagnino keeps it on track by putting the focus squarely on the love/lust triangle and not encumbering the movie with prominent supporting players or story tangents. I was fully immersed in this movie – one that is smart, sexy (without graphic sex), flirty, ambitious and surprisingly funny – from start to finish. … Zendaya, Faist and O’Connor deliver the type of performances that match the depth of their characters. Zendaya’s Tashi has never known anything other than hitting a tennis ball with a racquet, and she, even after her playing career ends at an early age, clearly is the most driven and focused of the three. Faist’s Art is the nice guy, and Tashi has helped him overcome his niceness to become a player who needs only to win the U.S. Open to complete a career Grand Slam. The relationship between Tashi and Art, though they are husband and wife, seems more professional and convenient than loving. O’Connor’s Patrick is the wild card, a player who turned pro at an early age but is, now that he’s in his early 30s, ranked in the 200s. Patrick is immensely talented but lacks focus and has sunk so low that he is sleeping in his car before tournaments. The story deftly balances all three sides of the triangle, and while the characters are rich in depth, there’s enough ambiguousness to keep the audience guessing. Who among the three is controlling and manipulating the others? Whose love (?) is strongest – Tashi’s and Art’s, Tashi’s and Patrick’s, or Art’s and Patrick’s? What’s the end game for all three? Trying to figure them out is like trying to figure out people you know in real life. Just when you think you understand, you don’t. That’s what makes people interesting, and it’s what makes this movie interesting. And entertaining. And great.

What I didn’t like about it: The ambitious filmmaking crosses all sorts of lines in the final act. It’s as if Guadagnino and his crew had a few tricks left up their sleeves and felt compelled to cram them all in  (including shots from underneath a glass tennis court). … The ending is bound to be divisive. Best to leave it at that.

Who it will appeal to: General audiences but largely young adults, tennis buffs 

My score: 92 out of 100

“Boy Kills World”

Genre: Action/comedy/thriller

Countries: Germany, South Africa, United States

Directed by: Moritz Mohr

Written by: Tyler Burton Smith and Arend Remmers

Starring: Bill Skarsgård, Jessica Rothe, Michelle Dockery, Brett Gelman, Isaiah Mustafa, Andrew Koji, Famke Janssen, Sharlto Copley, Yayan Ruhian, Quinn Copeland, Nicholas Crovetti, Cameron Crovetti, H. John Benjamin (voice)

Rated: R for strong violence, language

Run time: 1 hour,  51 minutes

Release date: Made debut at Toronto International Film Festival on Sept. 9, 2023; in theaters April 26, 2024

Where I saw it: Studio 10 Cinemas in Shelbyville, Ind., on a Sunday afternoon/early evening, $7, four other people in the theater

What it’s about: After his family is murdered by the evil Van Der Koy family, which conducts an annual exercise called “The Culling” to rid society of those it deems a threat by killing them on live TV, Boy (Skarsgård as adult) is trained by a shaman (Ruhian) to seek revenge by killing the head of the Van Der Koys, Hilda (Janssen).

What I liked about: This won’t take long. “Boy Kills World” overflows with style and energy and not much else. Skarsgård is solid in a non-speaking role (Boy was rendered a deaf mute during his family’s killing), though we hear his inner thoughts (and I mean ALL of his inner thoughts) in voice-over (by Benjamin). Copley is his usual gonzo self as Glen Van Der Koy, who married into the family and is host of the deadly TV show; and Gelman is his usual weird, occasionally funny self as Gideon Van Der Koy, who doesn’t get along with his family. I chuckled a couple of times; my buddy, who liked this movie only slightly more than I did, laughed more than I did, but not much more.

What I didn’t like about it: Everything else. Probably because it was like watching a video fighting game, it became boring to the point that I dozed off briefly. It feels every second of its 111-minute running time. The fighting scenes are nothing spectacular, and like everything else in this movie, they are filmed “Matrix” style, meaning there’s a lot of stop-action/slow-motion and a camera that seems to be swinging around wildly on a rope. It gives the film a busy feel although not much is happening that you haven’t seen before in your average revenge action movie. … This movie should have been funnier than it was. Poor souls picked for “The Culling” doing battle with breakfast cereal characters (including a guy called Captain Frostington) sounds more entertaining than it turned out to be. The script leans a lot on Mustafa’s character (Benny, a member of the “resistance”) for “laughs.” Boy can read lips, but Benny speaks with some sort of African dialect, and Boy misunderstands him. It’s good for a giggle the first time but not the fifth time. … This movie has a jolting “Luke, I am your father” moment that I did not see coming. Nor would I want to see it coming. Or see it. Or see the rest of the movie again.

Who it will appeal to: The trio of young men wearing sleeveless shirts (and one a backward ballcap) who sat at the top of the theater we were in loved this. I’d say that’s this film’s target audience.

My score: 22 out of 100

“Miller’s Girl” (American; 2024; “erotic” “thriller”/“drama”/comedy?; running time 1 hour, 33 minutes; written and directed by Jade Halley Bartlett; rated R for sexual content, language throughout, some teen smoking and drinking; made debut at Palm Springs Film Festival on Jan. 11, 2024, in theaters Jan. 26, 2024, streaming on Netflix and available on VOD services on April 26, 2024) defies description, and not in a good way. As you can tell by the quotes of sarcasm, it’s hard to say exactly what genre category it fits in. It’s also hard to say what tone Bartlett, in her feature film directorial debut, was aiming for, or even what the point of the movie is supposed to be. As far as I can tell, the message (for lack of a better term) is “hell hath no fury like a petulant and privileged 18-year-girl scorned.” Most of the characters are wholly unlikeable; the dialogue in no way resembles how normal people talk (unless by normal people you mean wannabe literary snobs stuck in a small Tennessee town); it’s going for Southern gothic (I think) but is inhabited by actors with hilarious “Southern” accents; and the story centers on forbidden student-teacher sex and the naughty writings of Henry Miller but is about as sexy as watching paint dry. And I don’t mean some exciting DayGlo color, but beige. Or eggshell white.

Jenna Ortega is Cairo Sweet (yep), and she is (and I’m already exhausted just thinking about describing these wretched characters) a trust-fund 18-year-old who lives in a supposedly haunted old mansion in a Tennessee forest within walking distance of her high school. Her famous lawyer parents left her alone in the mansion, so she spends her days reading only the coolest literature and looking cool by smoking cigarettes while she reads. She signs up for a creative writing class taught by Jonathan Miller (Martin Freeman), who we are told via Cairo’s incessant voiceovers is special, but clearly he is not. About 50, he is a published author, barely, who has not written anything since his first book went ignored (except by Cairo, who has a copy!). His wife (Dagmara Dominczyk as Beatrice), a boozy, busty alleged writer who is flirty with her husband’s fellow teacher and best friend (Bashir Salahuddin as Boris, about the only decent person to be found here), never misses a chance to tell Mr. Miller what a loser he is. One day, Mr. Miller, sensing Cairo is a gifted literary giant in waiting and liking her schoolgirl outfits and pouty lips, gives her a head start on a mid-term assignment, picking a writer and then composing a short story in that writer’s style. She, of course, picks Henry Miller, then proceeds to write porno that Mr. Miller really seems to enjoy by himself, if you catch my drift. While Mr. Miller and the horny Cairo never have sex, he crosses all sorts of lines. And when he rejects Cairo’s advances, well, you can guess the rest. Looks like Mr. Miller better get busy writing because his career in education is a past tense.

I am guessing that closeups of Ortega’s Cairo taking slow drags on a cigarette were intended to be sexy, but, uh, no thanks. We also see her seductively (?) chewing on a biscuit, for what that’s worth. Ortega’s performance and that of Freeman would be decent enough (minus the accents) were they not in such a terrible movie. Freeman’s Mr. Miller thinks he is playing the situation cool, but he is totally unaware that Cairo holds all the cards. One wonders how he resisted having sex with Cairo (who is of age) seeing how his wife is so verbally abusive and frequently teases her husband sexually before going back to her writing and the next drunken tirade. Mr. Miller, his wife and Cairo use huge words under the guise that brainy is sexy, and maybe it would have been had any of these characters been at all tolerable. Most of the laughs are of the unintentional variety. I was hoping Mr. Miller would stab Beatrice, and then Cairo would stab Mr. Miller, and then maybe stab herself, and the whole thing ended in the type of tragedy befitting of a novel that literary snobs salivate over. But no such luck. It just sort of ends.

My score: 18 out of 100

I made the mistake of taking “Battle Royale” (Japanese; 2000; dystopian action thriller/horror; running time 1 hour, 54 minutes; directed by Kinji Fukasaku, written by Kenta Fukasaku, based on the 1999 novel of the same name by Koushun Takami; N/R but includes pervasive violence, disturbing imagery and themes; released in Japan on Dec. 16, 2000, available on VOD and streaming services) too seriously. And that should be understandable given that this film, one of the most controversial works in cinematic history, is relentlessly violent and disturbing not only in its execution but its concept. And yet one would have to have a sense of humor to make such a film, which Kinji Fukasaku did when he was the ripe old age of 70. Because to make this and ask that it be taken wholly seriously would be even more unsettling than the finished product. “Battle Royale” is occasionally funny, sometimes unintentionally so (I think), if you can convince yourself to move past the fact that it depicts 14- and 15-year-old kids forced to kill each other by any means necessary. Sounds like a laugh riot, right? Regardless of how you approach it, “Battle Royale” is a brilliant film, a parable about adolescence, the generation gap in Japan and an overreacting, overreaching government.

Here’s the concept: It’s the turn of the millennium, and Japanese society is in disarray. Teen delinquency is out of control. To address the issue, the government enacts the “BR Act,” which states that each year a group of ninth-graders will be rounded up and (without their consent or that of their parents) bussed to an island the government has evacuated to play a “game.” There, they will be fitted with collars that explode when the government decides a participant has broken a rule. As you can guess, a collar that blows up a young person’s neck is not pleasant to watch. Forty ninth-graders and two “transfer students” (obvious young adults) are given maps, food and random weapons and have three days to kill each other until one “winner” is left standing. If they don’t, everyone will be killed anyway. Some won’t make it out of the game’s introduction, led by the festivities’ host,  Kitano (Beat Takeshi), a former teacher who had some of the participants as students in junior high. Once out on the island, participants must avoid danger zones, areas in which bad things (as if the rest of it isn’t bad) happen at scheduled times. The situation proves to be distressing to the young people. Duh. Some take their own lives. Others form uneasy allegiances with other participants. Some of those working together will turn on each other. Title graphics count down the kills. Who will survive? Can you call that survival? Is there another way to “win”?

If this sounds like the “Hunger Games” movies, it is, except “Battle Royale” wasn’t as YA audience friendly. Fukasaku’s movie preceded the first “Hunger Games” film by a dozen years – though it didn’t reach American audiences for nearly 10 years because it was deemed too controversial — and spawned a battle royale genre of films, graphic novels, video games, etc. Few of the works it has inspired have been able to match its balance of shocking violence, dark humor and biting social commentary. Takeshi is brilliant in the central adult role, and the students (though the actors clearly are older than 14 or 15) convey the absolute terror of being placed in such a situation while also dishing out young teen relationship melodrama. For me, those were the funniest moments. For example, while he is about to die in front of a girl, a boy makes a point of telling her how she is “the cutest girl in the world.” These are, after all, kids, which can be easy to forget since they are being asked to act savagely in the name of possible survival and re-entry into a decaying society. That “Battle Royale” is set against a backdrop of classic orchestral movie score music makes it that much more uncomfortable. And funny. Or at least as funny as a teen’s exploding neck can be.

My score: 90 out of 100

“Abigail”

Genre: Horror/thriller/comedy

Country: United States

Directed by: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Written by: Stephen Shields and Guy Busick, based on a reimagining of 1936 film “Dracula’s Daughter”

Starring: Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Alisha Weir, Will Catlett, Kathryn Newton, Kevin Durand, Angus Cloud, Giancarlo Esposito, Matthew Goode

Rated: R for violence, gore, drug use, pervasive language

Run time: 1 hour, 49 minutes

Release date: Made debut at Overlook Film Festival on April 7, 2024; in wide release in theaters April 19, 2024

Where I saw it: Studio 10 Cinemas in Shelbyville, Ind., on a Thursday late afternoon, $6, four other people in the theater

What it’s about: A group of kidnappers (and they are assigned names taken from the group of entertainers known as the “Rat Pack” to protect their true identities from each other) – Barrera as Joey, Stevens as Frank, Catlett as Rickles, Newton as Sammy, Durand as Peter and Cloud as Dean – gets more than it bargained for when it takes a young ballerina (Weir in the title role) who is the daughter of a notorious underworld figure to a secluded mansion.

What I liked about: “Abigail,” at least until about the three-quarters mark, is loads of fun, delivering consistent laughs, buckets of blood and a child vampire who knows how to dance on her toes and rip the heads off adults. These same filmmakers brought us 2019’s “Ready or Not,” and “Abigail,” though it is not quite up to that level, does produce a familiar vibe using a similar concept (a deadly game of survival in a spacious old mansion) but on a larger scale and with a larger budget (“Ready or Not” cost a reported $6 million to make; the budget for “Abigail” was a reported $28 million). Like in “Ready or Not,” the setting is a key player, an old residence with seemingly infinite space in which to hide. Or be found. And you don’t want to be found. … Though their characters are little more than clichés (see below), the ensemble cast runs with the concept and the movie’s attitude. Barrera’s Joey is the key character. She is a woman with a tragic backstory and with a child she doesn’t have a relationship with, giving the film at least a little sentiment. The foul-mouthed Frank is in many ways Joey’s rival even though they are on the same team. Stevens goes all out all the time (and says the f-bomb a lot) in a showy performance. The stupidity of Catlett’s Rickles provides many of the laughs. The star of the movie, though, is the 14-year-old Weir, who is up to the task of a physical role that requires dancing and mauling in equal parts, delivering during the dramatic moments and nailing the film’s hip sense of humor. Weir’s Abigail is as terrifying as you would hope a ballerina vampire would be.

What I didn’t like about it: Like with a lot of movies that are this frantic, it all starts to feel like a little too much by the final act. And what felt zippy and fun in the first half of the movie wears thin. The filmmakers go to the well one too many times with the movie’s most shocking and bloody visual horror, and it’s not nearly as jolting (or as fun) the third time around. … This might have been intentional (given the characters are supposed to be anonymous), but the ensemble cast is little more than stock characters. One is the dumb muscle; another is a rich girl and technology whiz turned hacker; another is a former cop who was dirty. And when the group of kidnappers reaches the mansion with the ballerina/vampire, it’s too obvious who is going to die first and who is going to be the last one standing.

Who it will appeal to: Young adult audiences

My score: 75 out of 100