In this edition of Additional Bite-Sized Reviews, I take a look at a handful of films that I checked out over the last couple of months. These films were interesting enough for me to have formulated notes about them that never materialized into extensive singular reviews — instead, here they are in bite-sized form. Are any of these worth your time? Well, let’s have a look.
F.A.Q.
- What are Additional Bite-Sized Reviews?
– My movie and television catch-up review series ‘Additional Bite-Sized Reviews‘ is an evolution of the Overview-article section previously titled ‘What I Didn’t Write About.’ I was originally inspired by film critic Peter Sobczynski’s article series ‘Films I Neglected to Review’ from eFilmCritic, wherein he would write short, or brief, reviews of films that he hasn’t had the time to write full reviews about. Therefore, in articles such as this one, I will provide my readers with my thoughts on select new films, new shows, or even classics that I feel like giving my thoughts on, even though I don’t have the time to dedicate thorough reviews to them. - Why do the bite-sized reviews not include either a letter grade or a review score?
– In my full and thorough reviews, I like to score or grade what I watch. But since these reviews aren’t as detailed, I think it is fairer to the films and shows to simply just decide whether or not to recommend them. I guess you could say this is the only type of review that is basically ‘scored’ with the classic thumbs-up/thumbs-down-method on my site, though sometimes my recommendation answer comes with a caveat.
Clerks III | Film | Directed by Kevin Smith | Screenplay by Kevin Smith | Release Year: 2022 | Recommended?: No, only for major fans of Smith’s View Askewniverse.
I really like Kevin Smith. I think he is a funny guy and an entertaining storyteller. I think he seems like a really nice dude, and I’m happy for him, as he appears to have created a really good life for himself. I consider myself a fan of his. I greatly enjoy several View Askewniverse films, and even though Tusk isn’t what I would call ‘a strong film,’ I still have fun with that one as well. While I really enjoyed parts of it, I have mixed feelings about Clerks III, Smith’s trilogy-completing film about the Quick Stop clerks.
I remember enjoying the first two Clerks films, and I think there are a couple of genuinely affecting scenes in Clerk III that, I’ll admit, did get to me. But one of those scenes — the sad but loving and moving movie theater scene — also highlights that both Clerks I and II just looked much, much better. I’m sure Smith would agree that his style hasn’t exactly gotten more cinematic or showy at this point in his career, and I don’t think anyone expected Smith’s style to change massively all of a sudden. That said, neither the film’s visual style nor its shot composition or editing here is what anyone would reasonably expect from the third film in a trilogy that started back in 1994.
I don’t mind the self-referential dialogue in III (sure, a lot of it falls flat, but that type of dialogue was to be expected here), and I think it was smart to make this a film about its central characters addressing their own mortality. Where the film falls short is in the tonal whiplash between nostalgia-laden and sometimes crude jokes and the deeply serious and sentimental scenes. That shift is jarring and the moments often don’t go together (and some scenes just go on for too long). The tonal balancing act doesn’t fully work.
Frankly, had it not been for the last ten-to-fifteen minutes, then this would’ve been a really rough one. But you do have those last scenes, and this is where I think Smith salvages just enough of it. Because it becomes really moving in these moments (arguably the most affecting scenes of any of Smith’s films), it is clearly a passion project for Smith, and it does feel like a love letter to his humble beginnings and the fans who have followed him since then. I can’t say that it’s a good movie. I can’t recommend it to people who aren’t fans of his already. But it did get to me. It does have its moments. And ultimately those last moments were just enough for me to like enough of it, warts and all.
Mainstream | Film | Directed by Gia Coppola | Screenplay by Gia Coppola and Tom Stuart | Release Year: 2020 | Recommended?: Not really, but one of its stars is exceptional in it.
Mainstream is the second feature film from Gia Coppola, a granddaughter of Francis Ford Coppola, and it tells the story of an aimless young filmmaker and dropout, Frankie (played by Maya Hawke), who decides to use some of her energy on her YouTube channel. One day she encounters a manic stranger, Link (played by Andrew Garfield), and uploads a video of him, which quickly becomes her most popular video. Frankie eventually decides to build her channel around Link, and they find a lot of success with these videos. But, at some point, Link lets the success go to his head and essentially becomes a character that Frankie struggles to control.
Here’s what I’ll say about Mainstream (which I didn’t get enough out of and which I will probably forget most of soon): Andrew Garfield is genuinely good in this. He goes all out here in an eccentric and undeniably weird but impressively committed performance as a toxic YouTube personality. He is terrific in this, and he almost single-handedly makes this work.
But ultimately I’m just not sure it has all that much new to say about YouTube and internet influencer obsession culture (or cancel culture), and I don’t think what it is trying to say is being communicated in a way that is fully formed, coherent, or visually inventive. Gia Coppola does have experience directing music videos from artists like Carly Rae Jepsen, and there is sometimes that kind of music video energy to be found here.
To reiterate, Andrew Garfield is occasionally electric in this, and I enjoyed seeing Maya Hawke and Nat Wolff in prominent roles as well, but the film, as a whole, doesn’t have all that much else going for it. But, hey, Andrew Garfield is such a good actor and every time I see him in something I get more impressed.
Red, White, and Royal Blue | Film | Directed by Matthew López | Screenplay by Matthew López and Ted Malawer | Release Year: 2023 | Recommended?: Unsure.
Not to be confused with Steve McQueen’s Red, White, and Blue, Red, White, and Royal Blue is based on Casey McQuiston’s 2019 novel of the same name, and it tells the story of a surprising and secret romance between a British prince and the son of the President of the United States. This film was the internet’s favorite movie for a little bit a while back, and, in the process of it being discussed far and wide, I had heard mixed things about it. Ultimately, it’s not as bad as I had feared. It’s a well-meaning and sweet little fan-fiction-esque romance film that is centered around the difficulty of exploring your identity within the tight jacket that being a public-facing figure can probably feel like — especially when you’re stuck in an institution with traditions and expectations that won’t allow you to be anything other than a stereotypical and squeaky clean puppet.
I liked the leads — Taylor Zakhar Perez and Nicholas Galitzine — and enjoyed seeing Uma Thurman in the film but I thought her accent felt too put-on and unnatural. It’s not much more than merely a modern LGBT and world leaders twist on the stale and cliched royal-commoner romance flick. It is exactly what you think it is, which means that it doesn’t really have anything particularly innovative hidden up its sleeves, but I certainly don’t think it’s awful. It’s sweet and cute when it needs to be, but it really feels like fan fiction far too often.
Haunted Mansion | Film | Directed by Justin Simien | Screenplay by Katie Dippold | Release Year: 2023 | Recommended?: Not really, no.
All things considered, this is a fairly disposable but also inoffensive flick. I think I remember enjoying the Eddie Murphy-led version that came out — *checks notes* — twenty years ago for what it was, but, then again, I don’t really remember a lot from it. Speaking of which, I think this film will be equally forgettable, even though it’s got better-than-merely-serviceable production design and visual effects (though too much of it in its finale).
Frankly, as a family horror-comedy film, it has no business being two hours long, there are several scenes wherein bizarrely wild product placement is inserted into pivotal dialogue scenes that thus fall flat due to them suddenly feeling quite jarring, and, generally, the film wastes its stacked cast. Others have suggested that it would perhaps be a passable entryway into horror for younger viewers, but, really, the 2003 version is thirty minutes shorter and, on top of that, it’s got Eddie Murphy, so, there’s that.
Still, this one does have Rosario Dawson, Lakeith Stanfield, Owen Wilson, Danny DeVito, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Tiffany Haddish — so, I mean, if you’re gonna spend two hours with a mediocre, not particularly scary or funny horror comedy (perhaps for family movie night purposes), then that’s a pretty entertaining line-up of actors to see it for. But, yeah, I’m glad I chose to wait for it on Disney+ because it certainly isn’t worth buying an expensive ticket for.
Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant | Film | Directed by Guy Ritchie | Screenplay by Guy Ritchie, Ian Atkinson, and Marn Davies | Release Year: 2023 | Recommended?: Yes.
In my review of Nikolaj Arcel’s The Promised Land (or Bastarden), I wrote fairly extensively about the importance of a good title. In reviewing Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant, it feels appropriate to revisit that discussion. The Covenant, on its own, is a fairly generic title, so, from that perspective, it makes sense that the director’s name has been added to the title. Then again, Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant doesn’t necessarily feel like a Guy Ritchie movie. It actually feels more like something Peter Berg would make, with Lone Survivor being a film that I was constantly reminded of as I was watching the film (though this film is never as emotional as the aforementioned film was).
The film takes place during the War in Afghanistan, and it follows U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant John Kinley (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) as he and his unit are, at some point, attacked by Taliban soldiers, who take down everyone except Kinley and his interpreter Ahmed (played by Dar Salim). As Kinley is eventually wounded and incapacitated, he must rely on his foreign interpreter to get him safely back to the airbase. When Kinley is back on his feet, he finds out that Ahmed is still in Afghanistan and not under the protection of U.S. forces. So, Kinley decides that he must go back to Afghanistan to save Ahmed and his family.
I think this film might have benefitted from a restructuring of the plot because ultimately this feels like a tale of two halves. The first half is obviously dedicated to character-building scenes — with these on-the-ground War in Afghanistan sequences — whereas the second half of the film is more about how Gyllgenhaal’s character feels indebted to Ahmed, who he is desperate to save. and thus pay his debts, as it were. However, while the first half is engaging and gripping, once the film separates Salim from Gyllenhaal, it does feel like it gets a little bit long in the tooth, as Kinley waits for good news. I suppose that some of this is the point of the film, as the film does make a point of specifying how interpreters have largely been abandoned by the United States. But I think there is some fat that could be trimmed in the second half of the film by perhaps restructuring the narrative somewhat. I’ll also add that the female characters are clearly underwritten here.
But, really, the film shines when it focuses on Dar Salim and Jake Gyllenhaal being together in scenes. This is such a fantastic career opportunity for Dar Salim, an Iraqi-born Danish actor, who is a bit of an action star in Denmark thanks to his Darkland films (original title: ‘Underverden,’). Admittedly, I think you can definitely tell that Salim is putting on some gruffness in his voice to mask his Danishness, but I don’t think Americans will be able to tell at all. Salim gets to take part in scenes that allow him to exercise his skills as a physical actor and an emotional one — and he does a solid job. Gyllenhaal is believable as the commander with immense expertise, and it is interesting to see the former Jarhead star in a role like this. In my review of Michael Bay’s remake (or reimagining) of the Danish film Ambulancen, I noted how, in this phase of his career, Gyllenhaal allows himself to sometimes do more over-the-top work, which really worked for Ambulance, and which also makes sense here as he employs it in the scenes where he is struggling in the United States — once again, I was reminded of Thomas Bo Larsen, who is an expert at making that kind of acting work. Salim and Gyllenhaal really make this work.
On the whole, this is a really engaging film that should excite fans of modern war dramas with strong on-the-ground kinetic camerawork during intense scenes and some excellent rapport between Salim and Gyllenhaal. It may be a tale of two halves, to a certain extent, but I really liked it.
– Reviews Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen
I'm Jeffrey Rex 
One thought on “‘Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant (2023),’ ‘Red, White, and Royal Blue (2023),’ ‘Haunted Mansion (2023),’ ‘Clerks III (2022),’ and ‘Mainstream (2020)’ | Bite-Sized Reviews”