“Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass” - This is what they mean by a crime against film.

The concept of the celebrity sex pass was popularized on an episode of Friends. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, a celebrity sex pass is a list of celebrities you’re allowed to have sex with, should the opportunity arise, and your significant other isn’t allowed to get mad about it. It works as a two-minute joke in a television episode because it was written by people who have incredible senses of humor. It does not work as a ninety-minute gag and homage to The Wizard of Oz – end of sentence. After slogging through Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass, I’m quite certain that the writers haven’t the faintest idea what comedy is.

When I say slogging through, I mean it took me three sittings to force myself to watch the full movie. My wife quit twenty minutes into the film because she is a lot smarter than I am. And I didn’t sit through it out of a sense of duty as a film critic. Don’t be absurd. I have no issues quitting on movies that I am watching from the comfort of my own couch. I stopped watching Uncut Gems after forty-five minutes of Adam Sandler screaming his lines at me. No...I white-knuckled through Gail Daughtry for two reasons. One, to see how much worse it could get after my wife left the room. Two, to see if Gail succeeds in her quest to fuck Jon Hamm.

Oh right, I haven’t told you the actual plot of Gail Daughtry. Gail (Zoey Deutch) catches her fiance having sex with Jennifer Aniston, so she goes to Hollywood to find Jon Hamm and have sex with him. It’s possible there’s a comedy in there somewhere, but I’m fairly certain the filmmakers have no idea what funny looks or sounds like. Nothing else can explain why they decided to remake The Wizard of Oz by teabagging it.

It isn’t obvious at first that they are doing The Wizard of Oz. Gail is an obnoxiously upbeat hairdresser about to marry her high school sweetheart, Tom Soursap McNoodleman (Micheal Cassidy). That’s seriously his name and we don’t even learn it until the end of the movie, probably because it’s really, really stupid. And the film is narrated by Gail’s mailman (Fred Melamed). Maybe your mailman is hilarious, but I’m pretty sure mailmen are famously not funny.

Speaking of forcing something that isn’t funny, the setup itself is as funny as starving children. Tom’s celebrity sex pass isn’t even Jennifer Aniston, it’s Tilda Swinton. But after they attend a book signing by Aniston, Tom switches his pass to Aniston. Then, he immediately realizes he left his coat and keys in the bookstore, tells Gail he’ll be right back, goes back into the bookstore and doesn’t come back after more than an hour. It’s funny because he abandoned Gail in a parking lot and she just waits there for him. Get it?

After catching Tom and Jennifer literally mid-thrust (and standing there as they justify it during a really cringy explanation), Gail jets off to Hollywood from her little rural Kansas town, accompanied by her friend and coworker Otto (Miles Gutierrez-Riley). Yes, Kansas. And her name is Gail. And his name is an anagram of Toto. Trust me, the joke is not for us, it’s on us.

But again, the Oz thing isn’t actually that obvious in the moment. Those things I just mentioned didn’t click with me until much later in the movie or completely after it. When Gail arrives in Hollywood, she accidentally switches identical briefcases with some Italian mobsters at the airport. When the switch is discovered, wildly over-the-top mob boss Ludovica (Sabrina Impacciatore) screams at her henchmen (led by Joe Lo Truglio) to retrieve it. Since the case isn’t red, it’s tough to recognize the ruby slippers analogy. Same goes for the psychic Gail and Otto stop to see, this film’s Glinda the good witch. In fact, for at least half of the movie, it just comes off like a really dumb Nickelodeon Channel movie for teens, complete with some of the worst acting you’ve seen since Sharknado! or everything on The Hallmark Channel. And definitely less funny.

It isn’t until Gail and her band of misfits (of course she picks up a band of misfits along the way; Ben Wang, Ken Marino, John Slattery) show up at Jon Hamm’s room at the Chateau Marmont that I caught onto the Oz gag. Hamm has a doorman that refuses to let the group in, but promises to if they complete a task for Hamm. No, the task doesn’t matter in the slightest and, no, it’s not remotely funny. Just like every single cameo in the film (there are many), every single attempt at a joke, every single attempted riff on The Wizard of Oz. Everything about this movie is the opposite of humor. I don’t know what word means the opposite of humor because that part of my brain killed itself as it absorbed the final scenes of the movie.

Was it worth it for me to grit out this movie? Not even a tiny bit. My two reasons were definitely answered, but neither of the answers were satisfying. And I still haven’t figured out the reason for the mailman. Probably because my brain is dead now.

Rating: Ask for all of your money back, double if you powered through the entire film.

"Supergirl" - Short skirt, long jacket.

One of the posters for Supergirl features the titular character in her Supergirl suit, very stylish trench coat, and oversized sunglasses. I can't take my eyes off it and not because I want to ogle Milly Alcock, who plays Supergirl. At first glance, it's a wink at the classic image of Superman pulling his shirt apart and revealing his super-suit underneath, just before rescuing someone in need. Except, her sunglasses give off a tone that she's hedging on doing the rescue. As do her hands in her pockets, like she's in no hurry to remove the jacket and get down to business. And she's looking off to the side rather than at us, possibly considering choices. Is someone really in need of assistance or is that a fresh churro she smells? It's the kind of poster that dares you not to watch the movie.

When we left the Superman film, we got a glimpse of Superman's cousin, Kara (Supergirl), stumbling drunkenly into Superman's fortress of solitude looking for her dog Krypto. Supergirl picks up with a montage of Kara getting drunk, waking up hung-over in her spaceship, and repeating this cycle over and over again. Much to my delight, we quickly learn that Kara is not on Earth, but is barhopping from planet to planet. Each planet she visits orbits a red star, whose light renders her superpowers inert, allowing her to get absolutely sloshed. My delight is that the audience isn't stuck with another Earth-bound movie.

By the end of this prologue, Kara ends up agreeing to assist a young girl named Ruthye (Eve Ridley) on Ruthye's quest to avenge the death of her family. Ruthye wants to kill Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts), the leader of a band of space pirates called the Brigands who is responsible for orphaning Ruthye. Kara's motivation isn't one of altruism - she accepts that the universe sucks. But Krem poisoned Krypto and Kara has three days to get the antidote from Krem to save Krypto. If you're wondering why Kara doesn't just fly Krypto to a yellow star, it's because the healer looking after Krypto says if they try to move Krypto, it might speed up the poison. Don't think too hard about very obvious solutions to transporting Krypto without "moving" him (they have interstellar spaceships but not levitating gurneys?), the healer said what she said.

On top of the delight of this being essentially a space movie, it's refreshing that stakes in this film are simply saving a dog and maybe killing a space pirate. No sky beams. No cities, planets, or universes about to be destroyed. No supervillains trying to take over everything. Not even a kidnapped princess being forced to marry some evil fiend. With stakes so low and simple, the audience is free to enjoy the rest of the movie without having to absorb the weight and morality that tend to come with all those higher stakes. Instead, we get to enjoy the movie for what it is - a fun, entertaining, summer blockbuster.

Those lower stakes also leave room for a ton of character and world-building for this fledgling DC franchise. If you aren't a Superman or Supergirl nerd, you probably have no idea about the different effects of different colored stars on Kryptonians. I sure didn't. I knew from past movies that yellow stars gave them superpowers, but I had no idea that red stars made them normal or that green stars slowly killed them. Yeah, there are green stars in Kara's universe. Now I'm excited to find out what purple, pink, and silver stars do. The possibilities are endless.

We also get what is easily the best film version of the destruction of Krypton. This time, instead of just Kal-El (Superman), Kara, a dog, and a couple of criminals surviving, an entire city survives. For a while, at least. Kara is in that city, but eventually has to leave to survive and it breaks her. Suddenly, all of the drinking and shrugging off her concerned cousin's calls makes a lot more sense. As does her fierce, if not suicidal, determination to save Krypto. It's a lot like John Wick, but without a stupid car attached...and the dog is still alive.

It might sound like the story leans a little too heavily into two orphaned ladies looking for revenge, which is why they cast Jason Momoa as Lobo, an alien bounty hunter. This is a fantastic casting decision for two reasons. One - now they can't resurrect Momoa's Aquaman from the thank-you-for-putting-it-out-of-its-misery DC Extended Universe that preceded Warner Brothers hiring James Gunn to turn DC Studios around. Two - Momoa was as born to play Lobo as Ryan Reynolds was to play Deadpool. I had never heard of Lobo until seeing this movie and I am instantly a fan now. If Lobo in the comic book is a massive humanoid, dressed like a Kiss groupie, and lobbing snark with a no-fucks-to-give aura, then the movie (and Momoa) nailed it.

You're probably going to see some poo-pooing over this film being another rote Superhero movie. I will readily agree that it's not mind-blowing. But much of that has to do with The Avengers setting an impossibly high standard. Deadpool as well. More importantly, Supergirl does everything we want a summer blockbuster to do. Great special effects. Lots of action. A whole lot of laughs. Fun characters that immediately draw us in. Solid storytelling. Hints at a what's coming in future movies (without even doing mid or post credit scenes). It allows us to escape for a couple of hours into a different world and enjoy a good time. Dares us, even.

Rating: Don't ask for any money back, but ask if they have any churros.

"The Death of Robin Hood" - What's the opposite of hitting a bullseye?

The more I think about The Death of Robin Hood, the more I realize it's not a good movie. Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of components that will at least make film nerds gush. The cinematography is good. The sound is good. The locations in Northern Ireland they used for filming are beautiful. The costume design is fantastic. And the performances from Hugh Jackman, Jodie Comer, Bill Skarsgard, and Murray Bartlett are great. As for the single most important reason a movie exists - the story - there will be no gushing.

The premise of the movie is simple...what if all the stories about Robin Hood were lies? What if Robin Hood was just a thief and murderer who just liked robbing and killing? The plot of the movie is to just show us the final days or weeks of Robin's life. It's right there in the title. And it's also a metaphorical title. With the revelation that all the heroic stories of Robin Hood and his merry men are lies (robbing the rich to give to the poor), we're getting the death of the legend of Robin Hood as well. Maybe there's an interesting story in there somewhere, but if writer/director Michael Sarnoski was aiming for it, he missed. Missed badly.

The biggest hurdle the movie has to clear is that the entire audience knows Robin Hood as a hero. It's a tall order to convince people that Robin is actually an evil brigand and make a compelling story about that version of Robin Hood. Which is probably why the movie didn't really try. Oh, it gives a token effort every now and then. But it becomes painfully clear midway through the film that not even Sarnoski has much interest in going down that road.

That token effort is most apparent in the first act of the film. When a young, freezing lady stumbles across Robin (Jackman) in the hills and tells him that Robin protects these hills, Robin responds by telling her he knows Robin and all of the stories are lies. Then, he kills her in defense when she tries to stab him in his sleep. Turns out Robin killed her family and she wanted revenge. The next morning as he is burying her body, the camera pans out to reveal a great many graves. Turns out quite a few people have attempted the same revenge and lost.

Sometime later, Little John (Skarsgard) shows up asking for Robin's help. Stay with me on this - John killed a man named Edward, assumed Edward's identity, has been living on Edward's farm with a wife and daughter, and the family of the real Edward has come back and taken his wife and daughter hostage. I think John's wife was actually Edward's wife, maybe the daughter as well? It's really murky, but John seems to be genuinely fond of them. Anyway, this leads to two brutal and grisly action scenes and Robin nearly being killed. The point of these scenes is to establish how many people want Robin and friends dead, but also to assure the audience that Robin (and John) isn't all bad. He's just trying to help his friend get his family back. Is that so wrong?

When Robin awakes, he finds himself in a priory on a remote island, his injuries being tended to by prioress Sister Brigid (Comer). This is where the movie and Robin get really introspective. The final two acts feature zero action scenes and a heaping pile of soul-searching. Robin makes some noise about being haunted by all the killings, though not to Brigid whom he's told his name is Randolph. A local leper (Bartlett) occasionally pops up to mildly taunt Robin with wise-sounding advice as Robin rehabilitates his injuries. Little Margaret (John's daughter) ends up on the island, further softening Robin's hardened demeanor. Brigid masturbates in a cave. Robin agrees to tend to the fruit trees on the island and hunt game to help feed the local residents. What's that - repeat that one before the fruit trees? Yeah, that happened. This is an A24 movie; of course there are weird scenes like that.

That cave scene is a good example of the myriad half-baked things the plot throws at the audience without ever going back to explain them. The unexplained part isn't the self-service part, it's why in a cave? We're told that Brigid is an almost magical healer, implying something supernatural. There's an object in the cave that could be an altar and that scene made me think we were going to find out Brigid is a witch. Then again, in another scene, we find out she's widowed and her children are dead, so maybe that object is her dead husband's grave? Or her childrens'? I told you - A24 movies are weird.

There are several unanswered questions like that, but none of them lead to the audience becoming invested in the plot or the premise. We're just waiting to for the film's title to be fulfilled. You know - the death of Robin Hood. In a much smarter movie, Robin's past and lies converge in a climax that includes his mythical bow and arrow skills. That the leper plays a much more important role in the plot than faceless dispenser of proverbs and adages. That maybe John's daughter is the ultimate dispenser of justice instead of being a cheap plot device to manipulate the audience's view of Robin. That Brigid is far more than just a healer. Instead, we get an ending that isn't just unsatisfying, but an ending that undermines its own premise. If only it had just stuck with weird, we might have cared about the death of Robin Hood. Both literally and metaphorically.

Rating: Ask for twelve dollars back after you finish gushing over the film nerd stuff.