In the opening scene of A Conflict of Love Interest, Scarlett (Hedy Nasser) walks out of a man’s apartment as he pleads for her number. Her sharp, dismissive response—“I know”—paired with an effortlessly cool adjustment of her sunglasses as she steps into a cab, sets the tone for her character. Scarlett is someone who is on a dating spree and avoids commitment, exuding the self-assured main character energy reminiscent of Lindsay Lohan in Just My Luck.

Wherever she goes, opportunities seem to follow, and emotions remain at a safe distance. The film promises a journey of self-discovery and emotional reflection but ultimately fails to immerse us in Scarlett’s transformation or make her someone we can root for.

Scarlett’s primary goal is to land a photographer’s role with Joan (Midori Nakamura), the mother of her boss Jenny (Rebecca Lee Lerman). To get there, she takes on the task of playing wingwoman to Jenny in her quest for love.

The 88-minute film unfolds like a soap opera—occasionally engaging but largely perplexing. While director Andrew Rasmussen deserves credit for crafting Scarlett as a flawed and sometimes frustrating protagonist, the narrative doesn’t allow these traits to add much depth. For instance, Scarlett quips about her fears: “Chipped nails, wrinkled clothes, and everything that stops you from looking perfect.” It’s an amusing moment, but it feels hollow, leaving her internal struggles underexplored.

The supporting characters—Jenny, Lisa (Deanna Ott), and Scarlett’s love interest Lucas Sharpe (Logan Schmucker)—are not fleshed out in ways that add much to the story.

While the film raises intriguing questions about personal growth and decision-making, these themes are quickly drowned in a shallow and predictable narrative. There are, however, moments of brilliance.

A confrontation between Jenny and Scarlett at Lucas’s apartment is the highlight, evoking the chaos of Friends when secrets come tumbling out. Similarly, the recurring ‘cacao ceremony’ and sound therapy scenes involving Lisa and Scarlett spark some genuine laughs. Yet, these moments are fleeting, overshadowed by a script riddled with cracks.

The climax, predictable and unremarkable, does little justice to the story or the audience’s investment. Even the seemingly poignant escapade to Coney Island with Lucas feels derivative, reminiscent of Begin Again but lacking the emotional resonance.

There is no real conflict to engage the viewer or a love story compelling enough to evoke warmth. The result is a forgettable film that falls short of its potential.

Ultimately, A Conflict of Love Interest might hold some appeal for those seeking a light, surface-level romantic drama. However, it offers neither the emotional depth nor the narrative intrigue needed to leave a lasting impression.—Narayani M

EXCLUSIVE – Author Paul Kengor said the “disparity” between the Rotten Tomatoes critics’ score and audience score for the movie “Reagan” was comparable to President Reagan’s landslide presidential win in 1980 as he recalled his books’ whirlwind ride to the theaters.

The year’s best reviewed films have been assembled, and the film, “Reagan,” has one of the biggest disparities in recent years — currently sitting at a 98% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s starkly different from the dismal critics’ score of 18%. 

A writer for The Boston Globe called it an “interminable hagiography” and “a wretched 2½ -hour bore that’s uncurious about its subject.” A Washington Post critic called it “worthless” as a piece of history, while the Daily Beast called it the worst movie of the year.

Kengor said the disparity between the audience and critics’ reviews reminded him of the 1980 presidential election, which Reagan won in a landslide against Democratic incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

AUTHOR OF BOOKS THAT INSPIRED ‘REAGAN’ MOVIE SEES KEY COMPARISONS BETWEEN 2024 AND 1980

“Yeah, the disparity is really profound,” Kengor said of the reviews. “In fact, it reminds me of what happened in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 out of 50 states, which is probably about 98% of the states. If you do the math on this, 49 of 50 states won about 60% of the vote, won the Electoral College 525 to 13. But you had these liberal critics who didn’t like him, and they were very much in the minority. And I tell my students today, I tell other people, when you meet some liberal professor who is slamming Ronald Reagan in the classroom, just say, ‘You know, professor, but how did the guy win 49 out of 50 states?’ Right? I mean, he was liked, he was always liked.”

‘REAGAN’ MOVIE BEATS BOX OFFICE EXPECTATIONS ON OPENING WEEKEND

Kengor further argued that many of those critics didn’t have the right perspective because they were born after Reagan’s presidency.

“A lot of those 18% – now some are fair-minded critics who didn’t like this or that about the film artistically … But a lot of them, when you read the reviews, they’re clearly partisan. They’re clearly ideological. And it struck me that – I looked up some of the reviewers,” he said. “They were born after the Reagan years. And I think they just find it hard to imagine that there was a time in America when everybody liked the president. Even liberals who didn’t vote for him liked him. They liked him as a person.” 

Quaid said that Reagan endured difficulties similar to current American struggles prior to becoming president. (ShowBiz Direct)

The journey of “Reagan” to theaters began when filmmaker Mark Joseph called Kengor one day from Rock River, Illinois, where Reagan saved 77 lives when he served as a lifeguard, saying he was interested in turning “God and Ronald Reagan” into a movie. Kengor was interested in the idea, but suggested his book “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” would make a more compelling film.

But it wasn’t until 20 years later that it would finally hit theaters.

A key factor in finally getting the movie off the ground, Kengor explained, was securing Dennis Quaid as the lead.

“You know, we had three or four really big names promising at different points – and any of which would have been quite good,” he said. “And then at one point, Dennis Quaid was available, interested. Mark Joseph reached out to him. They took him to the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara. And there they put him in the cowboy hat and then the denim kind of jacket, Reagan Ranch jacket.”

DENNIS QUAID THRILLS LOCALS IN DIXON, ILL., FOR ‘REAGAN’ PREMIERE, SAYS HOLLYWOOD ‘FORGOT’ ABOUT SMALL TOWNS

Kengor said a friend who had been previously critical of their movie process called him to say congratulations, and it was a “done deal.” That’s when Kengor said he realized how the industry worked. But the author said he was blown away by Quaid’s performance.

“I can’t imagine that any of them would have been better than Dennis Quaid,” he said. “I really just marvel at how he nailed Reagan – the voice, the face, even the passion, the enthusiasm. All along, the trickiest thing was going to be to get someone to play Reagan who didn’t look like he was doing a parody of Reagan.”

Many moviegoers agreed with Kengor’s assessment, according to the high audience score.

(Original Caption) Washington: President Reagan joins Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (R), and others as they laugh at a remark made by Vice president George Bush, (L), prior to a Cabinet meeting 11/13. This is the first Cabinet meeting since President Reagan’s reelection. (Getty)

Kengor said he couldn’t wrap his head around how many liberals call for “unity,” yet when a movie comes along that does just that, they don’t want it.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So we give them this really positive movie about unity, which is what they claim they want,” he said.

“And they hate it, they hate it. They call it a hagiography, a movie about a saint. Well, it has a happy ending. We won the Cold War. We didn’t have nuclear war,” he said. “So a lot of the critics in those very low Rotten Tomatoes reviews, they just seem incredulous at the very idea that there was a time in America like this.”

Fox News Digital’s Hannah Lambert contributed to this report.

Kraven the Hunter, 2024.

Directed by J.C. Chandor.
Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ariana DeBose, Fred Hechinger, Russell Crowe, Alessandro Nivola, Christopher Abbott, Levi Miller, Billy Barratt, Diaana Babnicova, Chi Lewis-Parry, Michael Shaeffer, Dritan Kastrati, and Murat Seven.

SYNOPSIS:

Kraven’s complex relationship with his ruthless father, Nikolai Kravinoff, starts him down a path of vengeance with brutal consequences, motivating him to become not only the greatest hunter in the world, but also one of its most feared.

At one point during Kraven the Hunter (coming from A Most Violent Year‘s J.C. Chandor of all filmmakers), one of the several villains (I won’t specify which) delivers a hilariously eccentric line reading of “Get to the part where I should give a shit,” which sums the experience up. It’s hard to be convinced that Sony is instructing these filmmakers to try capturing something that resembles competent storytelling, compelling conflict, and human-sounding dialogue. However, chasing insanity isn’t necessarily working for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe (now seemingly dead, and going out with a whimper here); these films don’t make an impression beyond stunning stupidity, intentional or not.

That line especially sticks out since, for a film with magical potions (from underdeveloped minority characters serving the arc of a white hero nonetheless), a comically over-the-top punishing father played by Russell Crowe putting on a Russian accent and dialect that makes him come across like a Simpsons “in Russia, car drives you!” meme come to life, a human who has undergone a procedure for hardened rhinoceros skin rendering him impervious to bullets, and a time-stopping gifted assassin, Kraven the Hunter is an interminable slog that no amount of gratuitously entertaining R-rated violence can elevate.

It begins in medias res with a prison break-in and subsequent hit, presumably because the filmmakers (the script comes from Richard Wenk, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway) know that the childhood origin story to the actual origin story unfolding is also quite boring, filled with setup for a plot containing an excessive amount of characters, most of them villains, working across elaborate schemes and betrayals that don’t register, mainly because it’s unclear what anyone actually wants, other than vague gestures of power and control over mysterious businesses. Yes, I could go to Wikipedia and research more about the Kraven bloodline and family business since the movie isn’t concerned with making it clear what any of these people are running, doing, and what they want, but why the hell should I do the work for the filmmakers?

What can be gathered is that Sergei Kravinoff’s (Levi Miller as a teenager, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the adult antihero alter ego Kraven) hunting-obsessed father Nikolai (Russell Crowe) is heartless, asserting that he and his half-brother Dmitri’s (Billy Barratt as a young child, Fred Hechinger in the present day) mom took her life because she was mentally ill; it had nothing to do with him being a ruthless monster. Nikolai doesn’t want his boys to grow up weak or let America make them soft, so he instills hunting into them, proclaiming that one becomes a legend from killing notable beasts. Dmitri doesn’t exactly approve of this, but he is a pushover with loyalty to his father, even if he struggles to live up to such vile masculinity. Meanwhile, Sergei questions the fairness of using firearms while expressing an objection to the poaching period.

This probably makes Kraven the Hunter sound on the right track to tensely exploring toxic family dynamics and perhaps the general consequences of hunting animals for sport. Still, it’s also shockingly quick to do away with those themes in favor of several other subplots overstuffed with ability-enhanced characters. One doesn’t expect realism in a story about a boy mauled by a lion who is then discovered and given a magic potion by Ariana DeBose’s mystical Calypso, which not only miraculously heals his inner wounds but gives him animalistic traits, including the ability to catlike scale walls as if it’s all a parkour performance, but it’s reasonable to expect something to engage with and care about among the absurdity.

From there, Sergei runs away from home and apparently becomes Kraven over the years, protecting a personal piece of land shared with his beloved mother and murdering any poachers who stumble into the area. Meanwhile, Calypso has become a lawyer by day, with Kraven reuniting with her and looking to strike up a beneficial partnership; she provides him the locations of targets the law struggles to punish, and he kills them. That is also not a flawed premise, but again, so many generically motivated villains and ridiculous plot swerves come into play that it’s as if Sony or the filmmakers knew they were only going to get to make one of these, so they decided to cram three movies into one.

Although the film constantly throws Kraven from location to location with all the grace of whiplash or a video game abruptly jumping to the next level with only a 30-second cut scene in between, there is a healthy amount of bloody violence here. Such action sequences are poorly edited together with a distractingly high amount of cuts and typically never feel like they have gotten underway before they are over, but at the very least, the filmmakers understand this should be a graphic affair that doesn’t hold back on colorful stabbings. Similarly, the animal CGI leaves much to be desired (one wonders if Disney chose to release Mufasa a week after this under the impression that the quality can only go up from here), often leaving Aaron Taylor-Johnson looking ridiculous, such as an interaction showing that he can wrestle a lion to the ground, demonstrating a playful bond.

The issue is that the above craziness is stuck inside exhaustively formulaic plotting. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is not only a dud in the lead role but also has a good chunk of screen time taken away from competing villains that range from his aforementioned father, Alessandro Nivola’s Rhino, and Christopher Abbott’s time-bending hitman The Foreigner, all of whom are incomplete characters. Nothing is interesting to note about them other than that their allegiances consistently shift, spinning the wheels of incomprehensible storytelling aside from being able to tell who viewers should be rooting for. Viewers should also crave more from Kraven the Hunter. Hunt for better movies.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews, follow my Twitter or Letterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com