Movies

You walk into The Meg half ready to sneer, armed with all your righteous cineaste skepticism: here comes Jason Statham wrestling a dinosaur fish, and if that’s not enough to send you running for Bergman, nothing is. I wanted to hate it. Honestly, I did. And so, the first surprise: it’s possible, in this perverse landscape where studios toss millions at shark movies, to actually enjoy yourself despite yourself. The shame isn’t the ludicrous premise or the overblown CGI — it’s how you’re grinning by the time the third aquatic monstrosity explodes out of the Pacific, Statham bracing himself for another winking one-liner.

Is it possible, even now, for an old master to turn the American epic inside out and force us, blinking, into the full view of our own historical obscenities? With “Killers of the Flower Moon,” Martin Scorsese—half a century after Mean Streets, still careening down the byways of national guilt—gives us a film that arrives not like a gift, but as a reckoning. Even coming in at a prodigious three-and-a-half hours, the movie—anchored by Scorsese’s sure hand, thrilling, raw-silk visuals, and a cast so fine-tuned they seem to bleed right off the screen—never feels like indulgence. It’s a sustained, merciless symphony of American sin.

When George Clooney and Brad Pitt show up together in a movie these days, it’s like old royalty strutting through Times Square in sunglasses: you don’t care why they’re there, you just want to watch them soak up every inch of spotlight. That’s Wolfs—Jon Watts’s breezy, over-familiar caper where the plot is more a rumor than a skeleton, but the charm is thick enough to swim in. Was I enthralled? Not exactly. But did I have a hell of a time? Absolutely. This is the sort of picture that glides on charisma and the friction of two megawatt stars shoulder-bumping through a city that knows how to keep its secrets tucked behind neon and hotel doors.

Scott Adkins, God bless him, is the sort of one-man genre rescue mission only the British could produce—a demolition expert for busted action franchises and the patron saint of straight-to-streaming also-rans. In Prisoner of War, he’s parachuted (or rather crash-landed, with his jaw set to “unbreakable”) into the kind of pseudo-epic, sun-bleached World War II slog that once would have starred John Wayne—in a century when the “Great Escape” meant climbing out of Malibu traffic, not a bamboo stockade.

What kind of mad, magnificent nerve does it take to thread blues, Jim Crow, juke joints, and bloody fanged vampires into a single, haunted hymn, then have the whole thing vibrate with a weary, unvarnished soul? In “Sinners,” Ryan Coogler’s blood-spattered Delta opera, the answer is: more nerve than most directors have in their little fingers. For a movie that starts off with the horror bag’s oldest two-bit trick, jump cuts and sulfurous flashbacks, as if auditioning to be the next entry in The Conjuring Industrial Complex, this one slinks out of its corner, trades its fangs for a microphone, and spins its story so slow and deep you could fall into it and drown in its music. Ten minutes in, I nearly scoffed. Ninety minutes later, I was reeling, what fuckery is this?

Is there a particular word in the English language for when you watch a movie with the quiet hope that this time, the star you once admired will drag herself out of direct-to-video purgatory and surprise you? If there is, “Stolen Girl” killed it dead. It’s the sort of film that leaves you looking at the title and wishing it applied to your ticket money.

There’s a moment in Abel Ferrara’s “King of New York” when Christopher Walken strolls through a gloomy, blue-lit hallway, hair slicked, cheekbones gleaming, eyes burning with the privilege of a man who’s read the end of the story and knows he’s the only one left standing. Walken gives a performance so electrically odd you half expect the camera to tilt, or for the rest of the movie to collapse into a pile of glittering dust. And at times it almost does, but not for the reasons Ferrara might have intended.

Sequels, by design, are inheritances, too often, like any suspect will, they squander the family fortune on wasted violence and reheated melodrama. For a while, Inside Furioza looks set to repeat the pattern: the first act unspools with the weight and momentum of last year’s pierogi, and you fear it’ll languish in the shadow of its predecessor’s best moments. But then, almost as if the movie itself sobers up, the violence starts to matter, the betrayals burn, and the familiar bruised psychology of this franchise kicks in hard.

There’s a certain kind of movie poster, bald head gleaming, tattoos crawling across the chest, a scowl carved with care, like granite beneath floodlights that comes on like a challenge. It dares you not to take it seriously, to file it away with the endless parade of hooligan pulp, football thugs, or East End bruisers with the personality of a discarded can. And so Furioza, by all appearances, looked ready to step right into that gutter. But what a joy, what a rare, mean-spirited joy to be proven so gloriously wrong.

There’s a certain peculiar whiff that rises from this new “Toxic Avenger”, a reek of imitation, the sort of knockoff funk you get if you leave a Troma movie out in the sun and hope the radioactive stink will pass for flavor. Instead, it sours. Maybe that’s what you get when you take a perfectly naive cultural artifact, dip it in two decades of “ironic” reboot culture, and serve it up with a garnish of prosthetic gore and Peter Dinklage’s self-satisfied squint.