Josh Parham

The potential for a much more engrossing venture is sadly bypassed for a merely passable showcase.

There are very dark chapters in Michael Jackson’s life that one would not expect a film with the full endorsement of his estate to approve. It’s understandable, even expected, for these kinds of works. But what makes “Michael“ come underneath that generously low bar is that it refuses to paint its subject as anything less than saintly. It truly feels like this version of Jackson has been deified, shown to be consumed by his talent but without any dramatic stakes to accompany his triumphs.

Anyone seeking something with more depth will not find it here, but there are still worthy stories to tell.

Bunnylovr is another attempt to examine the melancholy that is especially prevalent among the young. What it gleams is an intriguing portrait, but it is also inconsistently engaging.

What’s most frustrating about Lee Cronin’s The Mummy is how tonally inconsistent it becomes. Yes, it finds a way to inject some delightful horror imagery that’s captivating, at least in the way that repulsive acts of over-the-top carnage can appease those sickos out there. However, this story does not come across as if that tone was top of mind.

This film may be more memorable because of its filmmaking, but it’s all sound and fury, amounting to very little. The momentum is lethargic, the characters shallow, and the narrative lacking any sense of intrigue from the romance that is supposed to anchor it.

Raimi’s efforts as director do a lot to bring out a campy tone amid the violence, which makes for an engaging ride. The commitment from McAdams and O’Brien goes a long way toward elevating their characters, and watching their changing dynamic unfold is intriguing. Yet these elements are fighting against a script that weighs down the other inventive aspects of the performances and filmmaking. The narrative is too broad and can’t sustain itself over this runtime.

It’s easy to identify the ingredients that would make “Bunny” fodder for a compelling situation. The characters, premise, and comedic setups are all there to drive up the tension while also crafting engaging set pieces to witness. Unfortunately, it all amounts to very little.

A flimsy plot and uninteresting characters would be tolerable if the dramatic moments of intense destruction were more intriguing. Instead, the palette is wholly bland and lifeless, unsupported by the framework of the storytelling and performances. A handful of impressive scenes come nowhere close to saving this picture. It’s disappointing that one of the most unexpectedly entertaining films of the last few years has led to a banal, forgettable project.

This new Anaconda does have some occasionally clever bits, and a smile can indeed stretch across your face from time to time. But those moments are fleeting, buried under a sea of other jokes that don’t land and a cash-in on nostalgia that is never really warranted.

What makes the film succeed, as much as it can, is that sincere commitment to advocating decency in a chaotic world. It demonstrates this ideology not only through its protagonist’s philanthropic ambition but also in how effortlessly charming these characters can be.

It’s a portrait that isn’t the most effective, but has enough pieces worthy of appreciation.

Although considerable attention is paid to a general love of cinema and those who work to create it, this portrait mostly plays on the surface, evading the more complex inquiries necessary to give this analysis greater depth. Despite much to commend, there remains an emptiness at the center that mirrors the protagonist’s own life. Perhaps it is intentional, but it remains unfulfilling.