Connect with us

Movie Reviews

A review of 'Migration' disguised as a how to guide for movie reviews (or vice versa)

Published

on

A review of 'Migration' disguised as a how to guide for movie reviews (or vice versa)

How do you review a movie?

Let’s take, as an example, the movie Migration. The purpose of a review is to give the reader an idea of what the movie is like, and whether or not they might want to spend the time and money to watch it or not. The basic facts of the movie should be listed, so, in this example, Migration is a computer animated movie from Illumination (The Secret Life of Pets, Sing), directed by Benjamin Renner (Ernest & Celestine, The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales). I included examples of the creator’s previous work that might give my audience some idea of what to expect. However, this is pretty easily searchable on free sources like IMDB or Wikipedia, and a review is not just a recitation of facts.

A brief plot synopsis is usually a good idea. In Migration’s case, the story is about a family of ducks (Kumail Nanjiani as father Mack, Elizabeth Banks as mother Pam, Caspar Jennings as son Dax, Tresi Gazal as daughter Gwen and Danny Devito as uncle Dan) who decide to migrate from their tiny pond to Jamaica. It plays like a road trip comedy, but with ducks. Along the way, they have adventures with a decrepit heron (voiced by Carol Kane) and her mute husband, a one-legged pigeon (voiced by Awkwafina), a caged parrot (voiced by Keegan-Michael Key) and a cult-like group of farm ducks, while being chased by a chef who specializes in duck à l’orange.

Now that we have gotten the details of what Migration the movie is, we can move on to the opinion parts of the review.

It is important to note what a review isn’t as much as what it is. For instance, a review is not a critique. It is not for the filmmakers, giving them advice on how to make a better movie next time. It would be silly to think one individual reviewer would have that kind of power in general, and one from a small furry outlet specifically. Maybe in aggregate, like on Rotten Tomatoes, critics can throw some weight around, but even then the “percentages” and “Critics’ Consensus” are still more help to an audience looking to watch the movie than the filmmakers. A critic should remember who they’re writing for.

Advertisement

In a similar manner, when writing a review, a critic may want to point out what the movie being reviewed isn’t as well. In Migration’s case, it’s primarily a family comedy and therefore not an overly complicated or risk-taking movie. Once again, a critic should know their primary audience, and mine is primarily adult furry fans. It might be advisable to bring in some outside context, and note that Illumination’s head has said that they don’t have a strong “name recognition” as of yet, but I feel like that’s not really true. Illumination, of all the main American animation studios, seems the most comfortable just making kids movies. It might not always be advisable to bring up past reviews, but in my review of Illumination’s Sing 2, I noted that the movie was fine or even above average as safe “family” entertainment, but my problem was that it explicitly was not content with this idea, and seemed a bit over-insistent that it was more, despite not actually offering that “more”. Migration also doesn’t really offer much more, but it least it seems happy with being what it is; a fine, or even above average, safe “family” entertainment.

Well, that’s the main point of the review done, if I’ve done my job well, though now might be a good time to round up a few points, either in the movie’s favor or against it, that didn’t fit in before. For instance, I can note Migration’s animation is quite good, with colorful, pretty backgrounds that use color in a painterly way, without resorting to the in vogue tactic of actually making the CGI look like brushstrokes. Occasional experiments with form and content can be fun, but should be used sparingly.

The character designs are appealing when they’re supposed to be, and very ugly when they’re not, so the herons, villainous chef and Awkwafina pigeon are not pretty. Some audience reaction reportage is appropriate, and I had a later screening with older audience members. There was not exactly stony silence, but there was more polite chuckles than out and out laughter for a comedy. The only scene where an audience laughed very loudly was a scene where the Awkwafina-voiced pigeon has trouble avoiding traffic. (In this regard, the movie did better than the short subject it was paired, the Despicable Me spin-off “Mooned”, which garnered no notable reaction whatsoever.)

To finish a review, it may be necessary to reiterate and expand the final verdict on the movie. In Migration’s case, I feel like it’s an okay movie that is worth seeing at some point, especially for bird fans, though it’s not a must-see, either. Some people believe you should end a review on strong statement, but sometimes, I find, it’s best just to end it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: CHUM – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: CHUM – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: June 5th, 2026 / 09:01 PM

CHUM movie poster | ©2026 IFC

Rating: Not Rated
Stars: Alice Eve, Eric Michael Cole, Elle Haymond, Sarah Siadat, Johnny Gaffney, Lisa Yaro, Jim Klock, Vince Jolivette, Stephen Oliver
Writers: Jonathan Zuck and Joe Leone, story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik
Director: Jonathan Zuck
Distributor: IFC
Release Date: June 5, 2026

CHUM is the latest entry in the shark-obsessed-psycho-with-a-boat subgenre. It also meshes, perhaps coincidentally, with the 2024 sharks-but-no-psycho-ruin-a-Mediterranean-destination-wedding SOMETHING IN THE WATER.

Advertisement

Our narrator is Roy (Jim Klock) who, in the opening sequence, loses his wife to an enormous Great White in the sea off Malta. He begins by saying in voiceover, “You took her from me.” This is followed by a monologue about how much Roy loves his wife and includes the line, “Her scream lost in the roar of the sea.”

There isn’t anything particularly wrong with the line, except that we see the whole incident and then some – CHUM is very gore-friendly in all its shark attacks – and the woman is already underwater when the attack occurs. There’s no scream.

So, are we supposed to think that Roy’s imagination is playing tricks, or that director Jonathan Zuck and his co-writer Joe Leone, working from a story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik, aren’t paying close attention to what they’re doing? 

Roy says he spent his life on the ocean, but “when you took her, I learned something new.”

Then we cut to a wedding banquet, where proud father Reginald (Stephen Oliver) is toasting his daughter the bride Tina (Alice Eve) and her groom Tom (Eric Michael Cole). Also in attendance are Tina’s irritable younger sister Sadie (Elle Haymond), bridesmaids Rachinda (Sarah Siadat) and Britney (Lisa Yaro), and Eric’s bro-ish best man Rick (Johnny Gaffney).

Advertisement

It’s a beautiful setting and a good-looking group, but it doesn’t take long for us to realize this union may not last. Tina and Tom have had a bitter fight about something that they seem unable to resolve. Tom winds up sleeping on the beach near the tide line, while Tina passes out on their hotel room bed in her wedding gown.

The nature of the dispute turns out to be one of the best aspects of CHUM. It’s real, it’s not the clichés that we too often get about onscreen marital disputes, and it’s wholly plausible that the timing is such that the couple haven’t had to confront it earlier.

Unaware of trouble in paradise, Rick has arranged a boat outing for the wedding party (sans Dad). Tina and Tom don’t want to go, but Rick guilts them into it – renting the boat for the day cost him a fortune.

The proprietor of The Tipsy Mermaid, Captain Mackey (Vince Jolivette), welcomes the six passengers aboard. He assures shark-averse Britney that there have never been attacks in these waters.

This again makes us wonder what’s happening on a meta level. We can see that The Tipsy Mermaid is out by the same coastline that we saw in the opening, so we know there’s been at least one shark attack here. Is Captain Mackey uninformed or lying?

Advertisement

A little later, we see that the microphone on the communications panel is severed. Our minds leap toward sabotage, but – spoiler alert – no, it’s just shoddy upkeep on The Tipsy Mermaid.

In reality (and easy to Google for Mackey or anyone in the group to who knew they’d be going out to sea that day), while they are rare, there have been shark attacks off Malta.

Furthermore, Tom, who is meant to be an expert on these matters, asserts that Great Whites are strangers to these waters, but are being driven north by climate change. It’s laudable that CHUM makes climate change part of the plot (and not just because of where the shark is), but again, there is a whole actual (albeit declining) subspecies of Great Whites in the Mediterranean.

We’re trying to figure out how all this will link up with Roy and what he’s learned, and we get to that, although perhaps not the way we expect, which is another CHUM asset.

Except for when the shark needs to interact with humans and/or vessels, the animal looks realistic, like footage of a genuine Great White. We also get a variety of fish in the underwater shots, which is a nice touch.

Advertisement

But there are the common-to-the-subgenre tropes of the shark looking way too big every time she breaches and eating way too much. Also, sharks do not growl.

One key aspect of this subgenre is how intrigued we are by the human villain. Here, the link between motivation and action doesn’t stack up well against that of comparable characters (e.g., Quint in JAWS or Bruce Tucker in DANGEROUS ANIMALS).

As these kinds of movies go, CHUM is moderately diverting, but it’s easy to see where it could have been better.

Related: Movie Review: CAROLINA CAROLINE
Related: Movie Review: THE SUMMONING
Related: Movie Review: BACKROOMS
Related: Movie Review: SPEED DEMON
Related: Movie Review: PRESSURE
Related: Movie Review: PASSENGER
Related: Movie Review: I LOVE BOOSTERS
Related: TV Review: GREAT PERFORMANCES: STAGEBOUND
Related: Movie  Review: OBSESSION
Related: Movie  Review: LIFEHACK
Related: Movie  Review: IS GOD IS
Related: Movie  Review: AFFECTION
Related: Movie  Review: ITCH!
Related: Movie  Review: HOKUM
Related: Movie  Review: ANIMAL FARM
Related: Movie  Review: OVER  YOUR DEAD BODY
Related: Movie  Review: LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY
Related: Movie  Review: HAPPY HALLOWEEN
Related: Movie  Review: NORMAL
Related: Movie  Review: FACES OF DEATH
Related: Movie  Review: EXIT 8
Related: Movie  Review: READY OR NOT 2:  HERE I COME

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Advertisement
Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie Review: CHUM

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

Published

on

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

It just isn’t sure what, exactly.
Photo: Giles Keyte/Amazon MGM Studios/Everett Collection

There’s a maybe half-hour stretch of Masters of the Universe that takes place in the real world, and I have no idea why. It isn’t something the original He-Man and the Masters of the Universe cartoon felt compelled to do. The ’80s TV show, which was conceived of as an elaborate commercial for a Mattel action-figure line, was about the adventures of Adam, a brawny pageboy’d prince who transformed into the equally brawny hero of the title when he held his special sword aloft and intoned some magic words. Adam may have been half-Earthling on his mother’s side, but that was just a biographical footnote — he was an avowed citizen of Eternia, a planet where sword and sorcery elements exist alongside sci-fi ones like fighting robots and flying ships. It’s a setting made up of a bunch of shit a kid might like, mashed up together with no concern for internal logic, and the new movie can’t help but start there, too, even though that messes up its whole premise. Masters of the Universe kicks off with an introduction to Eternia in all of its kid–safe–Frank Frazetta glory, summarizing lore about the Sword of Power and its osteal resting place, Castle Grayskull, before exploring the angst of young Prince Adam (played as a child by Artie Wilkinson-Hunt), who’s small for his age and easily pushed around during weapons training. Then it flings Adam off to Oklahoma City as a refugee from the attacks of perpetual villain Skeletor (Jared Leto, allegedly), and it becomes clear that no one involved in this project has a clue how to make a tolerable product out of this aging IP.

That’s the bar everyone involved in this movie was aiming to clear, and I’m not just saying that because the “fan screening event” I attended began with a heartwarming speech from a Mattel executive about how “Masters of the Universe was one of the most important brands we wanted to bring to life” (he mentioned Travis Knight only after a long ode to their corporate producing partners). The script for the movie, which is credited to Chris Butler, Aaron Nee, Adam Nee, and Dave Callaham, feels overwhelming, like something hastily patchworked together from different passes at the story over the years, rendering some aspects repetitive and others nonsensical. Take that sojourn in Oklahoma, in which we see a grown Adam, played by Nicholas Galitzine, go on a failed date, go to his job in human resources, and go home to the apartment he shares with a roommate. There was obviously an earlier version that started here, presenting Adam as either the exiled prince of a fantastical kingdom or an office drone who made up a grandiose backstory for himself to cover up the trauma of his parents’ death. But because the movie leaves no question about our hero’s identity, the Earth interlude is not just pointless but confusing. Like, what happened when a 10-year-old dropped out of the sky with no record of previously existing? Was he adopted, and does he have any investment in the people who raised him? And why does it take him so long to find a sword that appears to have been right down the block the whole time?

Advertisement

It’s possible to make a real movie out of the most dire of corporate circumstances — even a toy line, the way Greta Gerwig did with Barbie, and the way that Knight himself, best known for heading up the stop-motion studio Laika, did with the improbably charming Transformers spinoff Bumblebee. But Masters of the Universe isn’t a real movie. It’s a bunch of half-realized, semi-contradictory ideas accrued over years. It takes the rough shape of a comedy without ever really landing a joke, up to and including the potentially great one that Eternia warriors “Fisto” and “Ram Man” aren’t actually named that, that those are just the childish labels given to them by Adam as a kid. It never decides whether it’s fan service for nostalgic adults who’ll get some juice out of a cameo from Dolph Lundgren, star of the notorious 1987 Masters of the Universe movie, or an action-adventure for kids (Alison Brie, as henchwoman Evil-Lyn, is the only cast member who seems consistently aware she’s in a comedy). It cast Leto as its big bad, despite his reputational baggage and the character’s computer-generated skull for a face, then excised the actor from all promotional events. What was the point of shelling out for his participation in the first place? (He does trill his “Rs” impressively, I guess.)

Its action sequences are marked by endless pratfalls as Adam sorts out his He-Man powers and also endless pratfalls as his former weapons teacher Duncan (Idris Elba) tries to recover from his years as a depressed drunk. This gives their scenes together the feel of two different drafts that were document merged incorrectly. (As Duncan’s hypercompetent daughter Teela, Camila Mendes is left to roll her eyes.) The movie never really decides whether its source material is to be mocked or to be approached with a more wry affection. Worst of all, Masters of the Universe is under the impression it has something to say about masculinity without deciding what that is, exactly. It’s not difficult to see how Knight and company arrived at this thesis, when working with a main character who transforms into a bulgy warrior in a loincloth wielding, as Skeletor himself points out, an incredibly phallic weapon. But it’s exasperatingly impossible to sort out how the movie delineates good masculinity from the toxic kind. The movie wants to free up its hypertough characters to talk about their feelings but also has a clear contempt for the HR speak it presents as the alternative. In his regular-guy garb, Adam acts humiliatingly out of place at the gym and then weird on a date with a model-beautiful woman, despite looking like a handsome if charmless actor who’s been training intensely for months. In his He-Man form, Adam makes a show of reluctance about embracing brute force, then rips his foes’ arms off and beats them to death.

Masters of the Universe ends by making fun of the blunt moral lessons the original animated series punctuated its episodes with but couldn’t come up with even a joking conclusion of its own if pressed. There’s something appropriate about the movie coming out in the wake of two horror movies from 20-something YouTubers that have been setting box-office records. Obsession and Backrooms may not be perfect, but they are both, thrillingly, the visions of their respective young auteurs, while Masters of the Universe belongs to no one — a project engineered at enormous cost from the needs of IP.

See All

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

Published

on

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

An innocent family ends up killing an unwelcome guest and has to escape the wrath of law enforcement. Ever since George Kutty walked out of that under-construction police station, a slew of films capitalising on the Drishyamwave have made their way to our screens. Titles like Bharathanatyam 2: Mohiniyattam, Revolver Rita and last week’s release, Blast, ruminate on the basic throughline of a family that has inadvertently or has been forced to commit murder. Director Pandiraaj’s latest flick, Parimala and Co., starring Jayaram and Urvashi, also follows suit. Except, here, the one murdered isn’t just the unwanted visitor, but also screenwriting, the anticipation of watching comedy films, and your patience.

The story follows the murder of Varghese (Sandy Master), a crooked goon who has been eve-teasing a young woman named Madhumitha (Ananthika Sanilkumar), and has been a cause of trouble to her sister, Parasakthi a.k.a Sakthi (Sanjana Krishnamoorthy), mother Sudhandhiram (the ever-impressive Urvashi), and father Parimala (an underserved Jayaram). The twist here is that nobody really knows who killed Varghese. While the members of the Parimala family are busy pointing fingers at each other, Inspector Empurumaan (Mysskin gives his all, as always) begins to investigate the case.

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

The chinks in armour appear much earlier, in how the writer fails to even convince us that one of these seemingly innocent members of the family is the killer. Even the first major narrative step in the story — the decision to murder Varghese — feels rushed and unconvincing. Parimala goes to great lengths, including approaching the police, to save them from the troublemaker, but what leaves you scratching your head is how instantly this innocent middle-class family (and a UPSC trainer father) broach the idea of killing off a human being. And how calmly they take the idea that one of them could have killed off someone.

But it is with a heavy heart that I say that these initial portions feel like great writing when compared to what is to follow. With every following scene, Parimala and Co. only ends up more trite, bafflingly amateurish, and outright yawn-inducing. Much of the film moves in a routine pattern. Show a scene at the Parimala house that vexingly tries to make you laugh. Now cut to introduce some random detail about the gangster world. Yogi Babu rags the Parimala family; now a minister threatens Mysskin. Parimala does this; a new potential villain does that. And collectively, the film feels like a mash-up of already ill-conceived scenes glued together like pulled hair on a rag doll.

Parimala and Co.

Director: Pandiraaj

Cast: Jayaram, Urvashi, Sanjana Krishnamoorthy, Mysskin

Advertisement

Runtime: 138 minutes

Storyline: After a notorious gangster is mysteriously murdered, a middle-class family finds itself entangled in a web of suspicion, secrets, and a police investigation

Nothing makes any sense, and you stop caring about what would happen to any of these characters. What was the whole point of the trip to Palakkad? What does Varghese’s mother, Sengamalam, have to do with the story? What’s the point of the siblings of Parimala and Sudhandhiram? Firstly, what was the point of any of the character-specific details, like the love-hate equation between the sisters or the fact that a housewife is named Sudhandhiram, when they don’t get sentimental pay-offs or find a callback in the plot? Well, the biggest curveball the director throws is that even the titular Parimala family eventually ends up feeling inconsequential to the story.

Given how many details — like the water tank being full all the time due to overuse of the motor, or a girl drinking wine for cosmetic reasons, or how Sakthi always forgets to switch on the switch while charging her mobile — never find any utility in the thriller narrative, it makes one wonder if this was an attempt at imbuing the story with real quirks. If that’s the case, Pandiraaj has chosen the most ill-fitting project to do so. At the end of the day, what really bothers one is how incredible performers like Urvashi, Jayaram and Mysskin end up getting the raw end of the deal. While Mysskin has truly grown to become one of the most sought-after character artists, Jayaram and Urvashi offer a few glimpses of comedy gold (like a scene set in the living room that also features Mysskin), further making one wonder the potential Pandiraaj had in his hand.

Urvashi in a still from the film

Urvashi in a still from the film
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

Parimala and Co. ends with a dull stretch about the horrors of drug abuse that screams tokenism, and if anything, this is a film that would make you want to drink, either a hot cup of coffee or a shot of vodka, to forget and forgive.

Advertisement

In life, sometimes, all that can go wrong will go wrong, and we are bound to think of Murphy. You might end up in a place where anything you touch turns for the worse, and this is precisely what happens to the Parimala family and Varghese — but I am also sad to report that this is what has happened to the Pandiraj-directed film as well.

Parimala and Co is currently running in theatres

Published – June 05, 2026 11:00 am IST

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending