“Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” - A real groaner.

What’s the over/under on how much more money Blumhouse Productions can squeeze out of the FNaF film turd? $200 million? $300 million? For those of you who aren’t part of the cult following of FNaF games, FNaF stands for Five Nights at Freddy’s. For those of you who are part of the cult, know that I hate you all a little bit right now. Because you all spent $297 million to see the first quite bad FNaF film (which was made for a paltry $20 million), a sequel was made. And since you all will probably spend a similar amount to see the somehow-much-worse Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, there’s going to be at least one more rock-bottom-fifty-feet-of-crap-then-us sequel that I’m going to begrudgingly sit through.

Yes, Five Nights at Freddy’s was a turd of a film. I said even the fanboys should ask for seventeen dollars back and the only reason I didn’t include it as one of the worst movies of the year in 2023 was because the animatronics were at least visually interesting. Freddy’s 2 gets no such consolation, managing even to make the animatronics worse.

Freddy’s 2 begins with a scene set back in 1982, featuring a young girl named Charlotte at a birthday party at the original Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza. She witnesses a boy being snatched by someone in a Freddy suit and is disdainfully dismissed by practically every parent in the building as she frantically tries to tell them what she saw. Finding no help, she attempts to rescue the boy herself and ends up stabbed and dying in front of those same parents who still barely care that a girl bleeds to death in the arms of a marionette animatronic. Everything about this scene is executed terribly, is completely unbelievable from a storytelling perspective, and is but a small taste of the shit sandwich the audience is forced to swallow for the next ninety minutes.

Flash forward to a about a year after the events of the first film (twenty years after Charlotte’s death) where we meet back up with the three survivors of the first film, Mike (Josh Hutcherson), his younger sister Abby (Piper Rubio), and Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail). After an awkward date between Mike and Vanessa, followed by an even more awkward conversation between them at Mike’s house, interspersed with Abby constantly whining that she wants to see her dead kid friends again, I realized how much I disliked all three of them. The film seemed to go out of its way to make the audience wonder if maybe Vanessa’s serial killer father (Matthew Lillard) was right.

Meanwhile, the security guard (Freddy Carter) at the original Freddy’s invites and escorts a trio of ghost hunters in to explore the dilapidated restaurant. Led by Lisa (Mckenna Grace), the three quickly split up to check out various areas. Lisa’s partners are quickly dispatched and Lisa is possessed by Charlotte. Not even trying to hide his glee or obvious ill intentions, the security guard leaves after watching the possession happen.

This scene is nearly as bad as the opening flashback, but for different reasons. The two murders are as bloodless and sanitized as Charlotte’s murder, reinforcing how very, very PG-13 this movie is. It blows the identity of the non-supernatural villain well prior to the film’s sad and half-hearted reveal in the climax. And it completely wastes Mckenna Grace, who is de-possessed a short while later, her dead body left in a storage room.

At this point, it seemed as if the movie had abandoned the entire premise of the murder bots. That’s not to say they aren’t still in the movie, but they really don’t do much. After Charlotte escapes the restaurant, she sends the bots to kill the parents from that 1982 birthday party. In an attempt to stop them, non-evil Mike stays at Freddy’s, working on the computer to try to disconnect the bots’ network connections. Bet you weren’t expecting a major plot point being disconnecting a router.

There are far more terrible components to this movie - Wayne Knight playing an asshat science teacher, to name one. But perhaps the worst component was also the only one that elicited an actual audible reaction from the audience. At one point, Abby is possessed by Charlotte and Mike exorcises Charlotte by playing a music box at her that Charlotte’s dad (Skeet Ulrich) gave her. As Charlotte (now in marionette form for some reason) slithers away, Mike puts the music box away. The entire audience, myself included, let out a collective “why are you putting it away?!” groan. But does Charlotte coming flying back into Abby? Or into any of the humans? And shouldn’t Abby be dead like Lisa? Don’t be absurd.

That groan nicely sums up this laughably atrocious film. Like the last film, this film has no idea what it wants to be. Screenwriter Scott Cawthon and director Emma Tammi have now made two films with no entertainment value, confusing and nonsensical storytelling, bland and shallow characters, and barely any scares (and a paltry five wildly uncreative kills). And to top it off, the movie ends with an actual cliffhanger, figuratively slapping the audience in the face as if to say “you’ll eat your shit sandwich and like it.”

Rating: Ask for everyone’s money back and remember to give the stink eye to the cult followers that don’t ask for their money back.

“Zootopia 2” - I’m a s-s-s-snake.

Here’s my biggest issue with the world in Zootopia. If all of the animals have evolved higher intelligence and become anthropomorphized, why are fish still treated like regular fish? And I don’t mean like pet fish. They are literally still food for the now enlightened other animals. We see fish being chopped up and devoured by denizens of Zootopia. At least in the first Zootopia, this could be explained by saying it was just the mammals that evolved. But the sequel specifically centers on the plight of reptiles, snakes in particular, who are decidedly not mammals. You get it now; the fish thing seems wrong. But this isn’t about the fish.

After teaming up to save the city with Judy Hopps, Nick Wilde is made an official police officer and partnered up with Judy. Eager to prove their worth, Judy and Nick go undercover to bust a corrupt customs officer. Things don’t go as planned and a high-speed chase ends with a whole lot of damage done to the city. As a consequence, Nick and Judy are ordered to go to therapy for incompatible pairings. If that last bit sounds familiar it’s because that’s what the first movie was about as well - if different species can live and work together.

On top of that, this is also a typical buddy cop movie where two very different styles of cops are partnered up. I ran through a bunch of examples of movies and TV shows in my head and the closest parallel is Amy and Jake in Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Like Amy, Judy is the straight-laced, always studying detective trying to prove her worth and Nick, like Jake, is the laid back, fast talker always relying on his instincts. When Zootopia 3 comes out featuring Judy and Nick dating or married or pregnant with a fox-rabbit mutant hybrid baby, just remember that ‘fobbit’ and ‘rabbox’ are equally funny words for that baby.

Anyway, during the botched bust, Judy finds a piece of snakeskin in one of the vehicles. She starts investigating because no reptiles have been spotted in Zootopia in one hundred years. That was when a pit viper was accused of killing a turtle/maid of the lynx (Ebenezer) that invented the weather walls and founded the modern Zootopia. You read that right - a snake killed a turtle so they banned all reptiles from Zootopia. No, it doesn’t make any sense that it’s all reptiles. Just like it doesn’t make sense that fish are just food.

At least, the reptile thing doesn’t make sense until much, much later in the movie. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Zootopia is celebrating its hundredth anniversary and the Lynxleys - the descendants of Ebenezer - are throwing a big party to celebrate, including displaying Ebenezer’s journal containing the walls’ designs. Judy suspects that a snake is going to steal the journal, so she convinces Nick to do another undercover mission, this time to protect the journal and prove to the chief (Bogo) that there is a snake in Zootopia.

Unfortunately, things go wrong again, but this time Nick and Judy are accused of helping the snake (Gary) steal the journal. The rest of the film unfolds exactly like every movie where the hero is falsely accused. They go on the run, try to redeem themself by uncovering the villain’s plot and exposing it, all while evading capture or death from the villains. Even though we’ve seen this story a thousand times, it’s still fun because Zootopia is filled with talking animals behaving in ways that satirize humans while still making fun of the animals. Look no further than Flash, the sloth. Plus, there are more Easter eggs than you can catch in a single viewing.

I also enjoyed the plethora of new characters, as well as exploring a new area of Zootopia called the Marsh Market. Fashioned as a riff on the bayou, it’s filled with a bunch of aquatic mammals living out almost every swamp people stereotype you can think of. I got a particular kick out of a quick gag featuring a touchy sea lion and another featuring the result of an underwater wake on some diners caused by a chase passing by. It’s the attention to those little details that really endear me to films like this.

As much as enjoyed the film, I was a little disappointed that it fell into the sequel trap of forcing characters to relearn a lesson they already learned in the first movie. And a little disappointed that it warmed over a couple of very tired relationship cliches (the misunderstanding that leads to a breakup, and the declaration that “I didn’t do it for myself or for them, I did it for you”). I also found it weirdly lazy that certain characters got great surnames like Hopps (for a rabbit) and Winddancer (for a horse), yet Gary’s surname is De’Snake and the lynxes are surnamed Lynxley. And don’t even get me started on the sheer number of contrivances used to further the plot.

But those are just minor flaws that don’t significantly impact the entertainment factor of the film. All in all, it was a solid movie with a good social message (one that is exceptionally relevant in the year 2025). While it might not hit quite as well with some (my wife and son were a little cooler on it than me), it won’t leave anybody fuming when they leave the theater. Except maybe fish lovers.

Rating: Ask for three dollars back and look forward to seeing a fobbit/rabbox in the next film.

“The Running Man (2025)” - That’s THIS year!

The Running Man is one of the most appropriately timed movies I’ve ever seen. My son is currently studying dystopian novels in his language arts class, the film’s story is about a family that can barely afford food and can’t afford medicine for their sick child, and the main villain of the film is a greedy, fascist game show producer who runs the country through mass surveillance, propaganda, fear, and violence. And here’s the crazy (and terrifying) part - Stephen King wrote the original novel in 1982 and set the story in the year...2025.

Ben Richards (Glen Powell) badly needs money. He keeps getting fired from jobs over anger issues, his wife is working double shifts at some kind of dive, and his very young daughter has the flu and needs real medical attention. In desperation, Ben decides to audition to be on any of the sadistic game shows put on to distract people by feeding their bloodlust. After tryouts, he and two others are selected for the most lethal, but lucrative game - The Running Man. At first, he refuses to be on the game, but show producer Dan Killian (Josh Brolin) convinces him to do it.

The rules of the game are simple and are described to the audience very loudly and flamboyantly by show host Bobby T (Colman Domingo). The entire country is the game area. If Ben can avoid being killed for thirty days, he wins one billion dollars. For every day he survives, he wins money for his family. For every hunter or hunter’s minion he kills, he wins money for his family. To prove he’s still alive every day, he has to film himself for ten minutes and drop the tape in a drone mailbox. Trying to kill him are a team of hunters employed by the network, as well as literally every person in the country. Because, anyone can earn rewards for snitching on Ben’s whereabouts or outright murdering him. And just about everyone tries.

Like with The Long Walk, I’ve been waiting decades for an adaptation of The Running Man. And I mean a faithful adaptation. While the 1987 version featuring Arnold Schwarzanegger was fun (I watched dozens of times as a kid), it had almost nothing in common with the novel. Plus, it was definitely a B-movie movie that was very, very 1980s action and very, very Arnold.

It’s been about thirty years since I read The Running Man, so many of the details are fuzzy. But I remember the major points and they all seemed to be present in this new film. And I definitely remember the rules, which are identical. The rules are what made the novel so intriguing and I was ecstatic that the film kept them intact. The idea of having to survive for a month and not being able to trust anyone in the country is so much more interesting than Arnold being chased around an empty few blocks of game set by a couple of ridiculously dressed muscleheads. And the inclusion of the daily tapes is vital to the underlying social commentary regarding a fascist surveillance state controlling everyone.

Besides the plot being very well executed, the acting and action is really, really good. All of the supporting cast is great. There’s a great, early scene featuring William H. Macy barking at Powell’s Richards. There’s an excellent murder/fun house scene with Michael Cera having a ton of fun as a revolutionary. Lee Pace delivers an excellent head hunter who is both menacing and clearly reveling in the joys of murder as a game. And Colman Domingo hits the perfect amount of over-the-top every time the show cuts to him in the studio.

Then there are the two unequivocal stars of this film. Brolin’s Killian embodies everything we’ve come to hate in CEOs, corrupt politicians, and manipulative salesmen, complete with the fake smile and pretending that everything is on the level. Powell is even better as Richards. Not only does he have to convince us of Richard’s pure, unadulterated anger, but that he’s also a caring and compassionate human worth rooting for. And boy does he ever convince us. I know the Oscar awards typically overlook movies like this, but Powell’s performance is definitely deserving of that level of attention.

If none of that is of particular interest to you and all you care about is the action, this movie has you covered. There are car chases, explosions, booby traps, gun fire, helicopters, drones, and Powell doing some naked repelling off a rooftop. That’s right ladies and gentlemen - there’s beefcake to go with all the death and destruction. And it all looks great.

The only complaint I have is with the end of the climax. Compared to the book’s ending, the film pulls its punch a little bit. That’s not to say the end of the film is bad. In fact, it doesn’t stray all that much from the book’s finale. It just doesn’t have the impact that the book’s end does. But it doesn’t change how good the movie is as a whole. Not only did my son and I really enjoy it, but my son even started rattling off the dystopian elements in the film. Including the 2025 part.

Rating: Easily worth twice what you paid for it, even with our current inflation.

“Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” - Pick a card. No, not that card.

Prior to the screening of Now You See Me: Now You Don’t, we were treated to an in-person magic act in our theater. And by treated, I mean inflicted with. It was very, very not good. The act opened with a coin-flipping “trick” where we could clearly see the magician turning the coin in his hand post-flip to get the desired result. The act concluded with a cheap calculator trick that didn’t even have the decency to end with a punchline of ‘hello’ or ‘boobies.’ It was the kind of bad where the “highlight” was a kid yelling out six-seven-six-seven when asked for a four-digit number. It was the kind of bad that explains why this particular individual was opening for a free movie screening instead for something more prestigious, like a kid’s birthday party...or a prison event. It was the kind of bad that might trick the audience into thinking a bad movie is better than it really is. Now that I think about it, that would be a neat trick because Now You See Me: Now You Don’t is also very, very not good.

It’s been nearly a decade since 2016’s Now You See Me 2 and Now You Don’t acknowledges that span of time. The Four Horsemen have long since broken up as an illusionist group and appear to have also abandoned their membership in the secret vigilante magician society called The Eye. Filling the void left by the Horsemen is a trio of young copycats - Charlie (Justice Smith), June (Ariana Greenblatt) and Bosco (Dominic Sessa). After masquerading as the Four Horseman and robbing some crypto meme coin bros, actual Horseman Danny (Jesse Eisenberg) confronts them at their secret hideout, berates their clumsiness, then asks them to join him in a heist after revealing he received a tarot card message from The Eye.

The target of the heist is a gigantic diamond owned by Veronika Vanderberg (Rosamund Pike). Veronika is the head of a mining company that is also a front for an international crime syndicate. The plan is to steal the diamond so they can use it as collateral to take down the syndicate. But because this is a heist movie filled with witches and warlocks - and because we also saw the last two movies - we know there will be a twist where someone has a hidden agenda somehow linked to Veronika’s past.

During and after that initial diamond heist attempt, the rest of the Horsemen show up. And I do mean all of them. Merritt (Woody Harrelson), Jack (Dave Franco), Henley (Isla Fisher), and Lula (Lizzy Caplan) all return. Even Thaddeus (Morgan Freeman) returns, which made me remember how much I hated that Now You See Me 2 retconned Thaddeus to be a good guy.

This is where the movie basically turns to garbage. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still kind of entertaining in the same way that the Jurassic World movies are entertaining. It delivers the thing that is promised - more heist. And who doesn’t love a good heist? It also delivers a fairly fun action scene in a mansion that one part Winchester Mystery House and three parts state fair funhouse.

The problem is the magic element is all but gone from the heist. Even worse is that the Horsemen are practically useless because they barely use their skills for the entire film. There is almost no sleight of hand, no hypnotizing, no escape artistry, and only a few token card flings. Instead, they rely on dopey disguises, car theft, car chases, some very mediocre parkour, and another gag where they trick someone into thinking they’re somewhere they’re actually not. Oh, and lots and lots (and lots) of explaining things. At this point, they are far closer to being Ocean’s Seven than David Blaine.

What there was plenty of was actors mailing in their performances or exaggerating them to the point of maybe sabotaging the movie. Harrelson, Franco, and Fisher gave a minimum effort to their equally minimized characters (though, after watching Franco in Regretting You, he might have been giving his all). On the flipside, Pike’s performance was an over-the-top cringefest, complete with a South African accent so bad it’s best described as what if Foghorn Leghorn went apartheid.

The movie ends by very bluntly stating that there will be a fourth installment in the franchise, but it definitely doesn’t deserve one. All of the intrigue, charm, enjoyability, and yes, magic, of the initial movie was squandered in the sequel and stomped all over in this film. It’s the kind of movie that deserves to be opened by a magician struggling to reach the lofty title of dime-store magician.

Rating: Ask for all your money back and flip a coin to that magician.

“Predator: Badlands” - Kissyface.

There are a few words we would never associate with the Predator franchise. Buddy comedy. Heartfelt. Family-friendly. But that’s exactly what we get in the latest Predator movie - Predator: Badlands. Surprisingly, it’s not as bad as you think.

Like most of the franchise, Badlands is a standalone film featuring all new characters. But it also brings back plenty of elements from previous films to make sure fans are serviced. That includes more crossover with the Alien franchise, this time with a focus on the Weyland-Yutani corporation (and no xenomorphs). As usual, the corporation is trying to get its hands on a bioweapon, this time in the form of a very large, literally unkillable creature called a Kalisk. The Kalisk lives on a planet called Gemma that is filled with a myriad of other deadly creatures. And this time, the Weyland-Yutani crew is comprised entirely of synthetic beings, including their leader Tessa (Elle Fanning), so when they die horrible deaths, the movie gets to maintain its PG-13 rating.

Also hunting the Kalisk is a predator (Yuatja, as the species is called in this film) named Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi). Yes, they have names now and it definitely makes them less scary. Dek arrived on Gemma after watching his father kill his brother Kwei (Mike Homik), because Kwei didn’t want his father to kill Dek, because Dek is kind of small for a Yautja. Dek wants to bag the Kalisk to prove to his father that he is strong, but Dek also wants to avenge Kwei’s death. If you didn’t follow that, good. It’s stupid.

Think about it for a moment. Why would a culture revolving around proving worthiness through hunting deem it necessary to kill undersized members of their society before giving them a chance to actually hunt something? And in a society with cloaking technology, faster-than-light travel, and energy weapons - why does dick size, I mean...physical size, matter? If all this sounds a little Klingon-y, wait until you see the Predators’ hair style and bat’leth-esque sword.

Once you’re done thinking about it, please enjoy the real reason for watching a Predator movie. Lots and lots of action. If this film got one thing right, it’s in the creation of formidable foes for the galaxy’s most feared hunter. Say goodbye to predators punching down to fight grizzly bears, evil doctors, 18th century Comanche, and Danny Glover. Say hello to Dek trying to survive fields of motion-sensing pods that explode out paralyzing thorns while dragons fling boulders into the fields. Watch as hordes of massive sentient vines steal Dek’s weapons and try to dismember him. Enjoy giant, tentacled monsters that live in the trees and try to eat Dek. And relish Dek befriending the torso of a synthetic being and an adorable, young, little Kalisk. Wait, what?

The predator has travelling companions?! Gross. Companion number one is the head and torso of the synthetic Thia (also Elle Fanning). And she is delightful. She smiles, she quips, she navigates, and she occasionally rips the heads off of dragons. In all seriousness, Thia absolutely steals this movie; Fanning understood her assignment.

Companion number two is dubbed Bud (by Thia). Despite knowing what a Kalisk looks like, Thia doesn’t recognize Bud as a Kalisk (remember, Thia is essentially a talking computer whose mission on the planet was to capture a Kalisk). And Bud is adorable. He’s got big puppy dog eyes, occasionally rips the tentacles off of tree monsters, and literally swaps spit with Dek. I’m not kidding - they spit on each other to mark the other as part of their clan. I promise you this is a Predator movie, not a Marvel movie (though, both are owned by Disney, so...).

If you think this movie has taken the franchise to a goofy level, it gets sillier; cartoonish elements abound. Thia’s detached legs are apparently sentient (they are pivotal in the climax). Dek uses an acid-spitting eel as his replacement shoulder blaster in the climax. Dek runs through a field of those exploding, poisoned-thorn plants, yet only gets hit by a single thorn. Bud exists at all. In one scene, Thia springs (still legless) from far offscreen to save Dek from being eaten by a dragon (and she kills the dragon) yet can barely drag herself across the ground for the rest of the film. And despite watching Tessa’s lightning-fast reflexes early in the film, she fights Dek in the climax using a slow-moving, Hulkbuster-sized cargo loader (a very unsubtle homage to Aliens).

Disappointingly, many of the things that make the predator cool are gone. Cloaking device? Gone. Bracer with retractable blades? Gone. Shoulder mounted blaster? Gone. The cool mask that lets predators see multiple spectrums of light? Gone. But now he has a big glowy sword, so it’s all good. I promise you this is a Predator movie, not a Star Wars movie (though, both are owned by Disney, so...).

The best way to describe this movie is what my friend said, “it didn’t feel like a Predator movie.” Exactly. As much as I appreciate the action, creature effects, and Fanning owning this film, being asked to accept the predator as a kind-hearted, family-oriented softie just felt wrong. Though it does explain why a tiny Comanche girl with a rope and a hatchet, not to mention Danny Glover, were able to defeat their predators.

Rating: Ask for at least half of your money back, depending on how you feel about a mostly neutered predator.

“Regretting You” - Took the words right out of my mouth.

Regretting You is now the second Colleen Hoover novel adaptation I’ve seen, after last year’s It Ends With Us. I hope there isn’t a third adaptation because neither of these movies were what one might describe as “good” or “entertaining” or “worth it.” And like with It Ends With Us, I did not take anyone with me to Regretting You because it’s far funnier to be one of four men in a theater packed with women, watching a movie best described as what if the Lifetime Channel got drunk and fell down the stairs?

By the way, I knew what I was getting into when I RSVP’d for the screening of Regretting You. Not the story itself - I don’t hate myself enough to read a Hoover novel on purpose. But I read the synopsis blurb and saw the movie poster and figured I apparently do hate myself enough to spend two hours in a theater watching another Hoover adaptation.

Hey, all you Hoover fans - are all of her books as depressing as It Ends With Us and Regretting You? Do all of her books include a lost teenage romance, domestic abuse, infidelity, melodramatic happy endings that are only possible after worst-case scenarios, or all of the above? Is this why you drink so much wine in your book clubs?

If it sounds like my cynicism meter is in the red, you are correct. It’s been in the red since roughly five minutes into watching Regretting You. The film starts with high-school aged Morgan (Allison Williams), Jonah (Dave Franco), Chris (Scott Eastwood), and Jenny (Willa Fitzgerald) at a party. Morgan and Chris are a couple, Jonah and Jenny are a couple, Morgan and Jenny are sisters, and all of them are friends. This party scene only lasts a couple of minutes, but it’s painfully obvious that Morgan and Jonah love each other (but do nothing about it) and Chris and Jenny are definitely cheating on Morgan and Jonah with each other. And the scene ends with Morgan telling Jonah she’s pregnant.

Seventeen years later, Morgan and Chris are married with their now seventeen-year-old daughter Clara (Mckenna Grace). Jonah and Jenny have recently reunited and have a new baby themselves. While celebrating Morgan’s birthday, Morgan casually remarks how the baby looks exactly like Clara when Clara was a baby. Got it...the baby is the result of Chris still cheating on Morgan with Jenny (Jonah and Morgan don’t figure this out until much later in the film). That sound you hear is the Lifetime Channel doing a keg stand.

The next day, Morgan and Jonah are independently summoned to the hospital, surprised to find each other there, then told that Chris and Jenny were killed in a car accident. Jonah quickly realizes Chris and Jenny were having an affair and Morgan demands Jonah keep it a secret from Clara. To add to the drama, Clara blames herself for the accident because she thinks Jenny was texting and driving while texting with Clara. Oh, and their conversation revolved around Clara liking a boy named Miller (Mason Thames) and Jenny warning Clara not to be the other woman. That sound you hear is the Lifetime Channel hitting the banister at the bottom of the stairs.

Now that Jenny and Chris are out of the picture, it’s only a matter of time before Morgan and Jonah confess their lost love for each other. And it’s only a matter of time before Clara finds out about Chris and Jenny’s affair. And it’s only a matter of time before Clara and Miller bone because they’re seventeen. Nothing in this movie is the least bit surprising and now the Lifetime Channel is now lying unconscious in a pool of its own vomit.

The story isn’t the only thing that made this movie a terrible watch. The acting ranges from a solid Grace, to a very uneven and uncommitted Williams, to mostly literal jaw-clenching from Thames, to a wildly miscast deer-in-headlights Franco. And shoutouts to Eastwood, Fitzgerald, the criminally underutilized Clancy Brown (as Miller’s grandpa), and the criminally overused Sam Morelos (as Clara’s friend) for collecting a paycheck by appearing in this dreck.

On top of that, the tone of the film is all over the place. There’s practically zero consideration of the affair beyond it being a convenient excuse for Morgan and Jenny to barely care that their significant others are dead. Just kick a car a few times, throw a few eggs at an ugly painting, abandon a baby for a couple days, and kick a hole in an annoying door and everything will be right as rain. Even Clara barely grieves for her dead relatives before moving on to a bunch of AMC branded movie dates with Miller. It’s like the movie knows emotions are a thing that exists but has never actually felt any of them.

The moral of the story - mine, not the movie’s - is don’t take a date to see this movie. Or any Hoover film adaptation. And probably don’t read another Hoover book. But do please help the Lifetime Channel get home. They don’t look good.

Rating: Ask for all of your money back and another glass of wine.

“Good Fortune” - How do angels get their wings?

Good Fortune, a movie featuring Aziz Ansari and Seth Rogen - and Keanu Reeves as an inept angel - seemed like exactly the kind of movie I was craving. Something light-hearted and goofy because I just wanted to laugh for a couple hours. To forget about real life for a while. Definitely not to be depressed and pissed off at society at the conclusion of the film. You had ONE job, funny guys.

Arj (Ansari) is a gig worker living in his car. His gigs include being paid to stand in line for hours to buy a bagel, sorting crap in someone’s garage, and doing somebody’s laundry. This isn’t some new career invented in the last decade, by the way. People like Arj used to be referred to as assistants, maids, servants, or butlers. The difference is those people were typically employed full-time by whomever they were serving, sometimes being housed by those same employers. Think Downton Abbey or The Help or The Devil Wears Prada, but way, way more depressing.

After completing a gig for rich, tech-bro, venture capitalist Jeff (Rogen), Arj convinces Jeff to hire him as a full-time assistant. Everything starts to look up for Arj and by up I mean barely making enough money to live in a disgusting motel instead of his car. Unfortunately, Arj gets fired for using Jeff’s corporate credit card to pay for a dinner date one night, despite promising Jeff he would pay back the money. Arj soon finds there’s an even deeper rock bottom when his car/house gets towed. Hilarious, right?

Observing all this is an angel named Gabriel (Reeves). Not to be confused with the archangel from the Bible who serves as God’s messenger, Reeves’ Gabriel is entrusted with the responsibility of subtly alerting texting-while-driving humans into avoiding imminent accidents. Gabriel took an interest in Arj when he noticed Arj texting about having nothing to live for and believes Arj is a lost soul that needs to be saved. Despite Gabriel’s boss Martha (Sandra Oh) telling Gabriel not to stray from his assigned duties, Gabriel decides to Trading Places (or Freaky Friday for the gig generation) Jeff and Arj.

Gabriel thinks that if Arj spends a few days in the shoes of a rich person, Arj will realize his old, destitute life was worth living. Clearly, Gabriel is woefully naive, if not a complete moron. As Arj puts it a few days later “being rich solved all my problems.” Yeah, of course it did. That’s why rich people never give away all their money. The problem Gabriel now has is that he can’t restore Jeff and Arj to their former lives until Arj wants to go back. And, of course Arj doesn’t want to go back. And Jeff definitely wants his life back after trying and failing to live in Arj’s shoes for a few days.

Instead of using all of this setup to steer us to ha-ha land, writer/producer/director Ansari decided steer us in the opposite direction by focusing film on a bunch of social issues. Which for the record, is very admirable; our society is pretty messed up and getting worse much faster since the 2024 election. On top of the overt commentary regarding the plight of gig workers and the gig economy in general (including the desperation for good ratings in the apps used to hire gig workers), Ansari dives into unionization efforts, privileges certain people are born into, people working three jobs just to survive (living wages), and the callousness and ignorance of people who say idiotic things like “they can just get better jobs if they don’t like it.”

The messages do get across, but they are softened, if not altogether blunted, by the inclusion of the clueless Gabriel. After Gabriel’s colossal screw up, Martha fires him and makes him human (though says she will reconsider if Arj chooses to go back to his former life). Many of the messages Ansari wants to get across come via Gabriel, which makes the poor versions of Jeff and Arj redundant. And Gabriel steals the show every time he reacts in surprise to a first human experience. Eating a hamburger, sweating, or expressing disappointment when he sees how much of his first paycheck isn’t going into his pocket are all given the same weight in the screenplay. It’s funny unless it’s tragic.

Good Fortune isn’t a bad movie, but it is very confused about what it’s supposed to be. The entire cast, including Keke Palmer as Arj’s love interest Elena, do what they can to lift the film, but the screenplay can’t get of its or their way. There are occasional moments of comedy, but they are dwarfed by the serious issues in the film. And all muddled by the inclusion of angels doing menial tasks. Which might be an even sadder existence than the life of a gig worker.

Rating: Ask for twelve dollars back and remember to give me a good review.