A Minecraft Movie

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on April 17, 2025.

(PG) ★★★★

Director: Jared Hess.

Cast: Jack Black, Jason Momoa, Emma Myers, Danielle Brooks, Sebastian Hansen, Jennifer Coolidge, Rachel House.

Everyone was keen for a game of "Duck or Chicken?".

 

There are two brilliant backroom decisions that help make A Minecraft Movie the hilariously idiosyncratic joy that it is; the hirings of Jared Hess and Jack Black.

Hess was the fourth director attached to his film, which spent about a decade in development hell. But it's his distinctive sense of humour that elevates this above the mindless CG mess is could've and probably should've been. While his post-Napoleon Dynamite films have been little-seen, that droll and often abstract comedy line through his career is incredibly welcome here.

And Jack Black was certainly not the first choice to star in this video game adaptation as it bounced between writers and directors - he was initially merely a voice cameo as an animated pig. But with Jack Black at his most Jack Blackest, A Minecraft Movie becomes a very particular type of comedy. Be warned: if you have no time for Jack Black, then give this a wide berth. But if you can tolerate him and even enjoy his antics, then grab the kids and great ready for the most fun family film of the year.

Black stars as Steve, a regular dude who accidentally stumbles into the Overworld (ie. the regular Minecraft world) and makes it his home until he is captured by Malgosha (voiced by House), the evil piggish queen of the hellish Nether. Into the middle of this feud stumbles siblings Natalie (Myers) and Henry (Hansen), washed-up '80s gaming legend Garrett "The Garbage Man" Garrison (Momoa), and real estate agent/petting zoo owner Dawn (Brooks).

The plot itself is nothing special - it's essentially a MacGuffin quest. But given that Minecraft is essentially a plot-less video game, the film does a good job of finding a story to cut through yet also include the lore of this immensely popular sandpit game, ensuring the diehards will get their in-jokes and Easter eggs, and the noobs will get something they can enjoy even if they've never played the game before.

In between the insane CG action sequences (and everything in this is basically insane CG), there are some great character beats, particularly for Momoa's '80s-loving douchebag, and the siblings of Natalie and Henry. It's more than enough to flesh-out their characters and make us care, which is more than a lot of other big-budget blockbusters can manage these days. The film also does a good job of making it look like these actual humans are existing in and interacting with a cubic digital world, which is no mean feat.

But A Minecraft Movie really thrives as an ode to creativity, self-belief, and having a bonkers sense of humour. Black busts out random songs, there is an absurd love-story sideline about a vice-principal and a Minecraft villager, and a kid builds a jetpack that destroys a town icon (which happens to be a potato). There is plenty of classic Hess/Black moments wrapped together, playing out against the backdrop of either the lame town of Chuglass or the eye-melting world of Minecraft, and 90 per cent of them work.

Video game movies used to be a cursed proposition, but A Minecraft Movie shows what can be done if you lean into the game's aesthetic, dig out what makes it so popular (fun + creativity), and inject the whole thing with a self-aware sense of humour that's not a million miles away from The Lego Movie. In mining for laughs, it crafts a gem of a movie.

REWIND REVIEW: Ghostbusters (1984)

(PG) ★★★★★

Director: Ivan Reitman.

Cast: Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Walter Atherton.

The garbagemen had arrived, and they were very unhappy with the mess.

Sci-fi cinema has been a thing for as long as cinema has been a things. Since Georges Méliès' 1902 short Trip To The Moon (and actually even before then), film-makers have been fascinated by showing us the impossible and improbable place where science meets fiction.

2001: A Space Odyssey brought about a new dawn of sci-fi in 1968, but it was arguably Star Wars that really sparked a revolution. Even though 2001's special effects hold up better, Star Wars created a new level of FX artistry while simultaneously cementing the blockbuster era that began just two years earlier with Jaws. Big, incredible effects, matched with symphonic sci-fi storytelling - these are the ingredients that audiences look to today when they hit the cinemas in droves. It's rarely the auteur-driven drama or star vehicle, as it was when The Godfather or Rocky or The Graduate dominated the box office.

Between 1977 and 1984, the three original Star Wars films were the biggest box office hits of their respective years, as were the Bond-goes-sci-fi-actioner Moonraker, and Steven Spielberg's boy-meets-alien charmer E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. The only non-sci-fi chart-toppers in that time were Grease and Raiders Of The Lost Ark. This pent-up passion for sci-fi meant it was only a matter of time before someone decided to throw a big FX budget at a comedy.

Enter Ghostbusters. Based on an idea by fourth-generation paranormal enthusiast Dan Aykroyd, it was knocked into shape by director Ivan Reitman and writer/actor Harold Ramis. It was Reitman and Ramis who reined in Aykroyd's initially intergalactic/futuristic idea which "would have cost something like $200 million to make", Reitman told Premiere magazine in 2014 - those kinds of budgets wouldn't set sail until James Cameron got on board the Titanic in 1997.

In fact, Aykroyd's ability to throw out a lot of his early "darker", "scarier", "intergalactic" ideas and take on Reitman and Ramis' concepts not only made the film what it is, but says a lot about Aykroyd's creative skills as a collaborator. Reitman even praised Aykroyd's openness - lesser writers would've been less receptive, and Ghostbusters would never have been made, let alone become a classic.

Reitman and Ramis gave the film its "ghost janitors in New York" feel, but fate gave them their cast. Aykroyd had written the script with two former Saturday Night Live co-stars in mind, but Beverly Hills Cop took Eddie Murphy out of the equation and a mix of heroin and cocaine did the same for John Belushi. Instead Ramis and another ex-SNL-er Bill Murray became the stars, with Ernie Hudson taking on Murphy's significantly pared-down role.

The premise is king in Ghostbusters - it's great trick is making its paranormal subject matter normal. It's heroes are work-a-day service providers, like ratcatchers and garbagemen - they wear overalls, inhabit a fire station and drive an ambulance/hearse. It somehow helps make the whole unbelievable scenario believable.

But it's the cast that makes it work, particularly Murray. While his sleaziness has aged poorly (though it's interesting to note how his character's attitude to Sigourney Weaver's Dana changes and becomes caring when she becomes possessed, arguably showing his true colours), his motormouth improvisations are still on the money. His big personality elevates the Ghostbusting team, and thus the movie, especially alongside the goofy charm of Aykroyd's enthusiastic Ray Zantz and Ramis' nerdish Egon Spengler, who are both incredibly subdued. Hudson is unfortunately saddled with a role so underwritten, you could almost cut him from the film without it hurting the finished product - it's only that a gets off a couple of good one-liners and brings a biblical perspective that he has an impact.

Outside of Murray, the secret casting weapons are Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis. The pair play their duel roles in a brilliantly complimentary way that isn't spoken about enough. Weaver's Dana is wary, aloof and sharp - she's a grounding force in the movie - while Moranis' Louis is an annoying dweeb who's there for comic relief. Yet when both become possessed, they each take on animal qualities in their own way that work together perfectly. Dana is like a dog in heat, while Louis is a monkey, sniffing and testing things to see what they are. Each interpretation of possession works, and the film is all the better for it.

More than 40 years on from becoming the first big-budget comedy, Ghostbusters continues to sparkle because it remains funny and its premise still works. There are so many great lines - Murray's delivery of "Yes, it's true. This man has no dick" is one of the greatest pieces of comedy of the 20th century - and its laugh ratio is high, while many of its sci-fi FX hold up surprisingly well today. The stop-motion hellhounds of Zuul aren't great, but there is a composite shot with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man lurching down a New York street that is immaculate to this day.

Seriously, this shot is great.

FX-driven comedy begins here and is yet to be surpassed. The following year's Back To The Future is another sci-fi laugher that probably owes a debt to Ghostbusters, but it didn't cost as much. Back To The Future 2 pushed that envelope a few years later, but arguably it would take 13 years and Men In Black to even come close to this level of big-budget blending between comedy and science-fiction.

Snow White (2025)

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on April 3, 2025.

(PG) ★★★½

Director: Marc Webb.

Cast: Rachel Zegler, Gal Gadot, Andrew Burnap, Ansu Kabia, Patrick Page, Jeremy Swift, Tituss Burgess, Andrew Barth Feldman, Martin Klebba, Omari Bernard, Jason Kravits, Dominic Owen, George Salazar, Andy Grotelueschen.

"'Seven dwarfs', hey? And where did that nickname come from?"

I'm going to say this slowly and clearly for the idiots up the back: it's okay to remake films. It's also okay to change things in a remake. It's even okay, 99 times out of 100, to recast roles in different races or genders. 

That's because all that matters is whether the movie is any good or not. And in the case of Disney's live action remake of Snow White... guess what? It's actually good. 

And you wanna know another thing? The OG 1937 animated classic is, yes, a masterpiece of animation, but it's also a highly flawed and antiquated piece of storytelling. And this remake, which admittedly has its own problems, actually improves on some of the issues in the original, mostly by making its main characters actual characters, with depth and emotion and all the things that make them engaging and interesting.

When all is said and done, this version of Snow White achieves what it sets out to achieve. It's true to the spirit, tone and look of the original, and is exactly as "Disney" as it could and should be. Walt himself wouldn't be rolling in his grave - he'd be lining up for a ticket, and beaming at the smiling faces of the young children who are going to delight in this film's magic.

The film is the story of Snow White (Zegler), the princess born into a loving royal family, but orphaned and left in the "care" of a jealous stepmother (Gadot), whose reign as the new Queen brings sadness and poverty to the land. Not content to treat Snow White as a servant, the Queen decides things would be better if Snow White was killed, and has her taken into the woods so the deed can be done. 

Whatever "Disney" is, this is Disney. It positively swims in its warm and syrupy Disney-ness. It's twee and cute and charming and bashful and dopey and all the other dwarves. Cute animals abound amid the uplifting melodies that help the medicine go down. There's a hissable villain with a classic Disney villain song, undone not through violence but their own hubris. Webb nails the brief, capturing the summery magic hour look of the dwarfs world as beautifully as he does the Queen's dark transformation.

Where this version surpasses the original is in its characterisations and relationships. The 1937 original is a technical triumph and a stunning display of animation, but Snow White and her charming prince are plot devices, not people. The remake gives them depth and personality, though it doesn't go as far as giving Snow White flaws - she remains an untouchable, immaculate Disney princess.

The performances are also wonderfully Disney-ish. Zegler is perfect as the optimistic and virtuous princess, while Gadot is great as the evil Queen. Her presence is suitably chilling and vainglorious, and Gadot sinks her teeth into her big musical number with aplomb.

Sadly it's not perfect, and the biggest problem is its littlest characters. Disney was forced into a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation with the dwarfs - there was no right answer in the choice between CG and real-life dwarfs - but they stand-out so much that you have to make a conscious decision to ignore how they look in order to enjoy the movie. The dwarfs appear to do their mining in Uncanny Valley, and look unnerving as a result. Also, Dopey appears to have been modelled on Mad magazine's Alfred E Neuman for some reason. And, much like in the original, some of the dwarf sequences feel like padding.

The film also falls a little short in its attempt to give the film a strong thematic base. Is this a secret political parable? It tells of kindness being vanquished from the land by vanity and cruelty and the hoarding of wealth, and of generosity and the sharing of wealth being seen as a weakness, while the poor are left to scrabble for potatoes and live in the forest, It would be great if this hit a little harder, but  we never get a real sense of life in the kingdom under the evil Queen, something also lacking from the 1937 version. 

It could be funnier, it could be less kidsy, and its dwarfs could be less weird-looking, but this is Disney to its core. Relax into the Disney-ness and go with the hi-ho flow. 

The Electric State

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on March 20, 2025.

(M) ★★★

Director: Anthony & Joe Russo.

Cast: Millie Bobby Brown, Chris Pratt, Stanley Tucci, Ke Huy Quan, Woody Norman, Giancarlo Esposito, Jason Alexander, Martin Klebba, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Jenny Slate, Alan Tudyk, Brian Cox.

Chris Pratt didn't know it, but he was about to get yeeted.

What do you get for US$320m these days? In filmic terms, the answer is The Electric State. Or, in more general terms, a shit-ton of CG and Chris Pratt being Chris Pratt.

It's always baffling that an imperfect script attracts this amount of money. But what's even more baffling is when a streaming service pays this amount of money for a movie. Leaving out ad revenue and lower level sign-ups, Netflix needs 12.8 million new or ongoing premium subscriptions to pay for The Electric State alone. Is anyone signing up to Netflix just for The Electric State? This is exactly the kind of film that a never-ending stream of new email addresses and seven-day trials are for.

Leaving aside the question of whether it's worth $320m (it's not), The Electric State is an "almost" film. It's almost funny, it's almost emotional, it's almost clever, it's almost exciting. In places, it's almost great. But instead, it's a big-budget mess that's also happens to be a sporadically enjoyable slice of alt-history stuffed full of cool robots and baffling plotholes. 

Based very loosely on a highly praised picture book, the film takes place in a version of 1994 where humanity has fought and won a global war against robots, thanks to billionaire tech genius Ethan Skate (Tucci). The remaining sentient machines have been sent to a walled-in exclusion zone in Texas, and the victorious humans now enjoy predominantly living in a virtual reality network, also provided by Skate. 

But when troubled teen Michelle (Brown) finds a rogue robot wandering around in her yard, it sparks a journey that will send her in search of the brother she thought was dead, and up-end the whole of society as she knows it.

The Electric State, as is common with so many blockbusters, is either two rewrites short of perfection, or has had two rewrites too many. It's hard to tell which, but the result is akin to a robot that performs its set task, but you know it could have done it so much more efficiently and effectively.

The themes are there - the most obvious being that everyone wastes their lives plugged in and gawping at a screen - and the story is there, but the plot (ie. how it all happens) falls short frequently. Some dialogue stinks, plenty of it is fine, and some of it even sings. Some moments fall incredibly flat, but other sequences are incredible, notably an entire deserted mall inhabited by robots and the final battle. The emotional bits are also hit and miss - a much-touted reunion between humans is so-so, but the death of a quirky robot hits in the feels. There are some laughs but there could have been so many more.

The performances are fine, but nothing amazing. Brown and Pratt are okay, the latter just does what he does in every movie. Quan is largely wasted, and Tucci and Esposito are reliable without being exceptional. Alexander is the most memorable but has only a handful of scenes.

The robots are the bigger standout. Mackie, Harrelson, Slate and Azaria bring life to some wonderfully designed and animated droids, and the cyborg aesthetic is part of The Electric State's biggest strength - its production design. The setting looks incredible and believable, the robots are stunning, and it's this eye-for-detail that creates an immersive world that elevates everything else. It's this world that makes you get to the end of The Electric State, fully realise it's flaws, yet somehow think, "yeah I could probably watch that again one day".

Ultimately The Electric State is okay. There are plotholes big enough to manoeuvre a convoy of cross-country truck-driving robots through and parts of it land with a groan and a thud, but it mostly works, it's largely entertaining, and it looks a million dollars. But not necessarily US$320m.

Captain America: Brave New World

(M) ★★★

Director: Julius Onah.

Cast: Anthony Mackie, Harrison Ford, Danny Ramirez, Shira Haas, Carl Lumbly, Xosha Roquemore, Giancarlo Esposito, Tim Blake Nelson.

It was the time of year when the cherry blossoms were in bloom and asses needed whoopin'.

Some films are finely tuned instruments. Some are scalpels, capable of delicate incisions and leaving a very precise mark. Others are Swiss army knives, able to do many things, all with equal levels of skill. And others are nailguns, high-powered devices taking old actions to new heights.

Captain America: Brave New World AKA Cap IV is a blunt instrument. It's basically a hammer, good for little more than hitting things until all the things are hit. It is not about finesse, or sculpting something beautiful. It just hits, in unsubtle but effective ways, until all the nails have been hammered home.

But this is the 35th (!) film in the MCU, and there have been an incredible number of scalpels, Swiss army knives and nailguns there for Cap IV to be judged against. On its own, it's a so-so blockbuster you would quickly forget except for the fact Harrison Ford turns into a giant red rage monster. As part of the MCU, it's bottom-tier stuff, sitting in the lower five or 10 films of the franchise, only noteworthy for having Harrison Ford turn into a giant red rage monster.

Story-wise, it stands alone surprisingly well, despite referring all the way back to the second MCU film (The Incredible Hulk), with pit stops on every major MCU event along the way. For the diehards it picks up after the enjoyable TV series The Falcon & The Winter Soldier, which sees Sam "The Falcon" Wilson (Mackie) assume the mantle of Captain America.

Meanwhile Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (formerly played by William Hurt, but here it's Ford) has become US President, picking up the real-life idea that no amount of stupid shit you do can stop you getting elected President. Ross claims to be a changed man, but his past is lurking in the wings as he prepares to negotiate a treaty over a new "island" that has emerged (see the events of The Eternals).

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Cap IV is the missed opportunity - it's literally about having a black man take on the ultimate representative role of a country that re-elected a six-time bankrupt, twice-impeached, convicted felon as president over a black woman. Yet race gets barely a mention here. It's the angry red elephant in the room. And yes, I know filming wrapped on this midway through last year, but it's fair to say race relations in America have been an issue for a while, and this could've been the MCU film to have a real dig into that. Remember when Cap used to punch Nazis? 

Leaving politics aside, and Marvel's unwillingness to get a bit of dirt on its hands, Cap IV is fine. It's a familiar mystery punctuated by some fun action sequences - an aerial battle over the Indian Ocean is pretty great, and watching Red Hulk cut loose is undoubtedly enjoyable. It maintains an upbeat tone thanks to Mackie and relative newcomer Ramirez keeping things light in between the deadly serious  and somewhat OTT dialogue, while Ford brings gravitas to the late Hurt's role. Lumbly is one of the real highlights, as is an underused Nelson.

If this had come out in the early 2000s, ie. pre-MCU, maybe we would have thought it was a lot cooler.  Elements of the plot already make it feel like a second-run at Captain America: The Winter Soldier - sleeper agents, Cap on the run from the government, an unknown villain pulling strings from the shadows - but this lacks the sharp tone or panache of that excellent MCU entry. Cap IV never fully nails its thriller aspects, but when it's throwing punches and blowing things up, it's a good time.

Again, we've been spoilt by the MCU. Cap IV pales in comparison to much of what has come before, but having said that there are far worse superhero movies around. 

The Last Journey

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on March 6, 2025.

(PG) ★★

Director: Filip Hammar & Fredrik Wikingsson.

Cast: Filip Hammar, Lars Hammar, Fredrik Wikingsson, Tiina Hammar.

Gramps was dead-set on a Vegas road trip for his buck's party.

Getting old sucks. Being made to do things you don't want to do also sucks. If you put both these sucky ideas together you would have The Last Journey, the highest-grossing Swedish documentary of all time.

Not that The Last Journey totally sucks. It is annoyingly contrived and often uncomfortable to watch, but its heart is in the right place and it does offer up some sweetly sentimental moments. However, the whole thing is an awkward and unfortunately answerless discussion on ageing.

Swedish TV star Filip Hammar is struggling to deal with his 80-year-old dad Lars' decline into old age, and surprises him with a trip to the south of France - the location of their past family holidays - in an effort to spark some life back into the old man.

With his buddy and fellow Swedish TV star Fredrick Wikingsson squeezed into the back of a Renault 4, the trio set about recreating Lars' past glory days on the Mediterranean and revitalising his life.

The Last Journey, like its star Filip, is well intentioned but ultimately misguided. The doco is occasionally successful at hitting you in the feels, but in between it can be a tough watch.

In the early part of the film, Filip's efforts to drag his father along on this final vacation are ill-conceived and even ignorant. While Filip and his mother agree it's the best medicine for Lars, his health and in-built pessimism make it painful to watch him passively try to back out of the project, all the while Filip is manipulating him into staying in. 

Some of these awkward vibes continue through-out the doco. Filip is obviously doing this as much for himself as he is doing it for Lars, but there is no self-awareness or revelation for Filip by movie's end. Instead, it feels very self-serving or self-congratulatory when he and Fredrich's contrived plans come together. And Filip regularly seems oblivious to the physical ravages of age, urging his dad to play guitar or chop vegetables or walk without his walker more often than is comfortable to watch.

That's not to say The Last Journey is a waste of time. It has a lot of heart in among the prank show-style set-ups, and the trip genuinely seems to reinvigorate Lars, although it would have been nice to get an understanding of how much pep it put in his step via a more detailed post-script.

But for the most part, it feels about half an hour too long, and gives us no real answers to the questions it poses about living our last days in the best ways.

Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Victoria's Statewide Mornings program on February 20, 2025.

(M) ★★★★

Director: Michael Morris

Cast: Renée Zellweger, Mila Jankovic, Casper Knopf, Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Leo Woodall, Colin Firth.

Some nights, they could sit and watch the UFOs for the hours.

I honestly don't know if I've seen a Bridget Jones film before. I feel like I have, and watching the inevitable polaroids of past movies flash up amid the credits gave me a sense of deja vu. And it's possible I reviewed one or two of them back in the day. But maybe I haven't seen them. The first film was certainly so zeitgeisty, so embedded in the pop culture consciousness, that maybe I absorbed it by osmosis without ever actually watching it.

Zellweger's Bridget is such an eminently understandable and relatable character - the ultimate everywoman - that she is part of the fabric of cinema now. You know her without having seen (or remembering if you've seen) any of her films. And that also means you don't need to have seen the previous Bridget Jones movies to be wooed by this one.

But watching Mad About The Boy (the fourth instalment in the series) makes me want to watch the rest of them. It's a fun, sparky rom-com with an utterly charming lead, but it's also a beautiful meditation on grief and the ups-and-downs of parenting and mid-life living.

The fourth film finds Bridget as a single mother-of-two, grappling with all the things that come with being a single mother-of-two in 2025. When a much-younger man meet-cutes his way into her world, she wonders if this is exactly what she's been waiting for. 

Mad About The Boy's best bits are the surprisingly poignant explorations of grief that swirl throughout Bridget's often chaotic and comedic existence. Yes, it's funny, yes, it's charmingly silly, and yes, Bridget is endearing and easy to identify with. But there is some truly magical writing in here that manages to distil so much about loss into some sparkling and home-hitting dialogue.

And when it's not finding ways to carry on in the face of the ultimate heartache, it's got some sweet things to say about living your best life in the face of modern middle-class pressure. Which brings me to the biggest problem with the film: parts of Bridget's life are too comfortable and good things come to her too easily. Mad About The Boy digs up regular embarrassments to keep Bridget on our level, but when she decides to turn her life around, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

But if you're not here for the life lessons, there are plenty of laughs. Grant returns as her caddish ex-suitor-now-best friend Daniel, and adds spark every time he's on the screen, and Thompson makes the most of her cameo moments. 

Zellweger seems effortlessly at home in Bridget's skin. A world away from her last big-screen performance as Judy Garland in 2019's Judy, it's another reminder not only of Zellweger's comedic skill but of her chameleonic abilities. This is the fourth time in the role, and maybe it's all the easier for the repetition, but Bridget Jones never feels anything less than a real and wonderfully adorkable person.

  

Rom-coms are an oft-derided genre but sometimes they capture something beautiful about the human condition amid the schmaltz. And Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy manages to have the lolz and the love, while also giving us something thoughtful about life.