THE CAST – Ben Wang, Jackie Chan, Ralph Macchio, Ming-Na Wen, Joshua Jackson, Sadie Stanley, Wyatt Oleff & Aramis Knight

THE TEAM – Jonathan Entwistle (Director) & Rob Lieber (Writer)
​
THE RUNNING TIME – 94 Minutes

After seeing “The Karate Kid” back in 1984, who could’ve expected that it would spawn an entire franchise consisting of five sequels and a spin-off television series that would go on for six seasons? It’s a series after the original trilogy (honestly, after the second film), where the wheels began spinning, showing the limitations of the winning recipe that John G. Avildsen created. It’s baffling how studios attempt to breathe new life into this franchise every few decades, hoping that the pure magic of nostalgia is enough to motivate modern moviegoers to return to the dojo. So it’s no surprise that not long after “Cobra Kai” aired its final set of episodes, Hollywood would take advantage of its goodwill to bring another “Karate Kid” film to the big screen. “Karate Kid: Legends,” the sixth entry in this series, is just another display of legacy sequels at their lowest and why this was the wrong move in a post-“Cobra Kai” world.

Director Jonathan Entwistle immediately tries to win the audience’s goodwill by taking us back to memory lane by using the scene of “The Karate Kid Part II” where we see Pat Moria’s Mr. Miyagi explaining to his apprentice Daniel LeRusso (played by Ralph Macchio) the history of the Miyagi family. A sweet moment used not only to soften the hearts of those watching but also to sneak in some new exposition that bridges the world of the original 1984 film and the 2010 reboot, which features Jackie Chan’s mentor figure, Mr. Han. Jump forward to now. We’re in Beijing watching Mr. Han train his nephew Li Fong (played by Ben Wang) and a new generation of students in the ways of Kung Fu. Li’s mother (played by Ming-Na Wen), desperate to have her son avoid a life of violence after experiencing a family tragedy, accepts a job in New York, entirely uprooting Li’s life. “Karate Kid: Legends” begins to slide into familiar territory as the fish-out-of-water story we’ve come to expect from most of the films in this franchise starts to plant the seeds for the friends, romantic interests, and, of course, an emotionless antagonist that Li will have to square off with in the film’s finale.

Rob Lieber’s screenplay is a blenderized puree of all the previous “Karate Kid” stories that have come before it. The only thing interesting about “Legends” is the inverse presented in the story, where the traditional dynamic of mentor and apprentice flips. Li steps into the shoes of the teacher helping out Joshua Jackson’s Victor Lipiani, a local pizza shop owner who befriends Li and needs help training for a boxing match to escape the clutches of a loan shark to whom he owes money. A decent portion of the film’s runtime is shockingly committed to this beat and how it also ties into Li’s blossoming relationship with Sadie Stanley’s Mia, Vincent’s daughter. Inside this beat is a whole film that could’ve rejuvenated this story only before devolving back into the tired blueprint the franchise has continuously operated around. We soon get Chan’s Mr. Han back into the fold to help our karate kid enter another tournament to not only help those he cares for but to avoid running from his greatest fears. What are those fears? It doesn’t really matter, but at least it’s what gets Macchio’s LaRusso back into the mix.

It’s shocking how one of the most heavily marketed aspects, the involvement of Macchio, the one who started it all, doesn’t appear until halfway through the film. It could be a sign of strength that “Legends” isn’t in a rush to implement member berries from the franchise, but it’s not like anything before his involvement is that much better. In a legacy sequel like this that banks on the audience’s pre-existing love for the franchise to enjoy it, Lieber actually avoids annoyingly referencing the previous films. “Karate Kid: Legends” avoids anything from “Cobra Kai” like the plague (minus one appearance towards the end), which is honestly not the worst thing ever.

Macchio, who was solid in the original films, is fine at best in this film, embodying the personality of cardboard in his older age as an actor. Chan, who is only somewhat better, at least is clearly attempting to show off his physicality as a performer, but it is far from a career-best performance. Wang is also good in the film as our new lead stepping in the shoes of where many young actors in this franchise have before him. Wang’s charm and physicality lend themselves to giving dimension to a character that has been offered before. Even the antagonist, Connor Day, played by Aramis Knight, is the most generic offering this series has provided. To be fair, no villain in the Karate Kid films has been interesting since “Karate Kid Part III.” It’s like it’s a requirement for our lead to square off with someone devoid of any aura. Pair these performances with fight sequences that are sloppily edited and vary in interest; we’re left with a “Karate Kid” film with little to offer.

There’s a moment in the final fight in “Karate Kid: Legends” where the film reeks of desperately aspiring to be in the vein of something like “Creed.” Instead, it looks and feels like an extended TV special made for Netflix. It’s a film more preoccupied with training montages set to terrible pop music and breezing through the actual fights we came to see. Those hoping “Karate Kid: Legends” is up to par with any season of “Cobra Kai” are sure to be disappointed. It makes one yearn to be taken back to the 2010 reboot, which should tell audiences all they need to know about this latest film.

The post “KARATE KID: LEGENDS” appeared first on Next Best Picture.

THE CAST – Ray Romano, Laurie Metcalf, Sebastian Maniscalco, Jacob Ward & Sadie Stanley

THE TEAM – Ray Romano (Director/Writer) & Mark Stegemann (Writer)​

THE RUNNING TIME – 103 Minutes

Ray Romano’s feature directorial debut, “Somewhere in Queens,” is firmly in his comfort zone. For those who loved the comedic actor’s brand of “grounded absurdity” from “Everybody Loves Raymond,” you’ll be treated to more of the same, just longer. “Somewhere In Queens” is a pretty standard indie comedy. It’s likable enough, but it is entirely lacking any sort of visual flare or innovative storytelling. Still, it incorporates just enough nuance, spirit, and memorably uncomfortable scenarios that it tends not to be totally forgettable.

Queens, New York native Leo (Ray Romano) is a walking midlife crisis. He never went to college. He is unhappy in his construction job, where he works for his father and brothers, none of whom respect him. His relationship with his wife, Angela (Laurie Metcalf), has lost its spark. However, when his introverted but athletic teenage son (Jacob Ward) gets spotted by a basketball scout, suddenly college scholarships are on the table. Leo sees the possibility of a better life for both himself and his son and decides he will stop at nothing to ensure his son lands the basketball scholarship, even if it means jeopardizing his career and family relationships in the process.

If that description sounds generic, that’s because it is. There are too many movies to count that have featured similar concepts. As a result, Romano as a director, doesn’t bring anything unique to elevate the story beyond its familiar trappings. The scenes are staged and shot like sitcoms. It’s all basic shot-reverse shot coverage where there clearly wasn’t much thought put into the coverage other than ensuring the camera captures a reaction from each cast member, along with basic wide shots. Then there is a sloppy b-roll of New York and Philadelphia, captured through handheld work shot out of a car window. And the film’s acoustic guitar score is excruciatingly generic.

Now, with all that out of the way considering this is a first-time feature, if Romano, the director, fails to impress, Romano, the actor, and Romano, the writer, bring something notable to the table. For a concept that sounds as uninteresting and generic as “Somewhere in Queens” does, Romano’s brand of comedy and humanism goes a long way to making the film something more. There’s an authenticity in a film that attempts to be a grounded dramedy that feels quirky but earned, making it much more watchable and engaging.

Leo consistently behaves in a way that makes the audience cringe with secondhand embarrassment. He usually means well but makes decisions that range from unwise to actively deranged. In fact, some of his choices are so absurd that they take you out of the film. Some of those decisions to protect his son’s future feel like something that no human being, even the good-natured but dumb Leo, would ever do. Still, providing a character with such flaws makes the film less predictable and entertaining to watch. Watching Leo is like watching a train wreck in slow motion as he approaches levels of poor judgment, similar to Adam Sandler’s character in “Uncut Gems.” And because eventually, Leo has to face the consequences for his deranged actions, waiting for his chickens to come home to roost ends up lacing the film with this consistent sense of almost Hitchcockian, “bomb under the table, but the characters don’t know it,” anxiety. While the film’s concept is bland, it has a madman wandering around in the form of Ray Romano’s Leo. He may not be the most “grounded” character, but he is someone you can’t look away from simply because you have to know what spectacularly unwise choice he will make next and how his character will suffer for it.

There’s also a darkness underlying everything that makes the film more interesting than your average good-natured father-son, midlife crisis indie flick. While Leo’s determination to help his son succeed is meant to be endearing, the film acknowledges that, in many ways, that determination is unhealthy. Indeed, the lengths Leo goes to are excessive. We see just how dysfunctional his life and family are in one of the most-aggressively Italian American films ever made. Many big Italian meal scenes with squabbling aunts and uncles over meatballs function as some of the film’s highlights. Even with the sitcom-y trappings of how the film explores Leo’s family, it also provides some raw reality– the kind of damaged relationships that can’t ever really be fixed. These aspects make the film more interesting and provide it with more bite. It’s a shame that the film must resolve everything easily by the end. Some of the story’s resolutions (such as those involving Leo’s relationship with his father and brother) feel unearned and rushed to provide a conventional feel-good ending.

Both critics and Romano were critical of his acting in earlier seasons of “Everybody Loves Raymond.” But as shown in “The Irishman,” “The Big Sick,” “Paddleton,” and now here, he has grown immensely as an actor. The only reason the Leo character works is that Romano manages to ground him in reality to an extent and make someone as flawed and often selfish as Leo likable and relatable. Romano may be no Daniel Day-Lewis here, but he mostly lands his dramatic beats, making some of Leo’s most insane choices feel less ridiculous than they come across on the page.

Matching Romano, Laurie Metcalf shows the same dramatic side we saw her demonstrate in Greta Gerwig’s “Lady Bird.” As Leo’s long-suffering wife, unsure how to deal with the trauma of having recently recovered from cancer, she gets a few big moments that she sells well. In the quieter moments, she effectively showcases this weary sadness in her eyes. And she’s as funny as ever, of course!

Everyone in the supporting cast is funny and plays their parts as needed. The dialogue is unquestionably Romano’s, though. On some level, every character sounds a little bit like the Ray Romano we all know and love. That probably isn’t surprising for fans of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” but without a writers room to balance it out, it is especially noticeable here.

Some great individual scenes are to be found in “Somewhere In Queens.” And everything in between is likable enough. Romano has a unique voice as a writer in fleshing out his characters, even if his inexperience as a director shows. The characters may not always be believable, and that’s a problem when a film wants to be something more than an outright absurdist comedy. Still, in a film that otherwise would be beyond forgettable, some of that deranged absurdity makes for a happy, neurotic accident that ends up being pretty watchable.

The post “SOMEWHERE IN QUEENS” appeared first on Next Best Picture.