1 of 5 | Jason Statham is “A Working Man,” in theaters Friday. Photo courtesy of Amazon Content Services LLC
LOS ANGELES, March 25 (UPI) — A Working Man, in theaters Friday, never quite reaches the magnificent heights of last year’s Jason Statham vehicle, The Beekeeper. Nevertheless, it delivers a satisfying action movie with Statham as a new hero.
Statham portrays Levon, a former Royal Marine now working for Joe (Michael Peña) and Carla Garcia’s (Noemi Gonzalez) Chicago construction company. When the Garcias’ daughter, Jenny (Arianna Rivas) is kidnapped, the desperate parents hire Levon to find her.
Adapted from Chuck Dixon’s novel Levon’s Trade by Sylvester Stallone and director David Ayer, the story has familiar but reliable tropes. Levon’s set of skills are as particular as those of Liam Neeson’s character in Taken, enabling him to succeed where basic law enforcement fails, and no matter how many enemies attack him.
The Beekeeper elevated the genre with its cryptic explanations of covert agents and the flamboyant villains Statham’s Beekeeper faced. The baddies ranged from cyber scammers to outrageously high levels of authority, which made it even more fun.
The kidnappers in A Working Man are basic human traffickers funded by the Russian mob. They do their best to add flourishes in costume and demeanor, but no generic Russian villain is as memorable as the rogue Beekeepers who came after one of their own.
Human trafficking is also a much more real and unsettling crime. While cyber scams are real and devastating, The Beekeeper took it to a wonderfully absurd degree.
Still, it is undeniably satisfying to watch Levon shoot rapists and send them flying to the back wall of the room. He employs extraordinary interrogation on equally deserving targets, especially when he scolds them for unrelated but equally unsavory offenses.
There are fewer fights in A Working Man. Levon rescues one of his crew from gangsters as an appetizer, but the plot does not lead to as many scuffles. It still has a big finale with Levon taking on the mob and a biker gang at once.
The supporting characters exhibit maybe 1% more color than their plot functions require. Levon is fighting his late wife’s father (Richard Heap) for custody of his daughter (Isla Gie), so it’s nice to see Levon prove his worth to his father-in-law later in the film.
Jenny misses a piano recital when she’s kidnapped, so when she finds a piano in captivity and plays, it has earned that poignancy. In addition, Levon’s war buddy Gunny (David Harbour) is so lovable as a blind marksman that it is a shame he only babysits, rather than joining in the action.
Even though he’s a working man, the film does get Levon in a suit for one scene. Levon cleans up as well as Statham in The Transporter.
It is clear A Working Man was made by people who know what fans come to see in a Statham movie. Both Ayer and Stallone are frequent collaborators.
Perhaps the source material kept Working Man more grounded, or maybe adding the Statham elements made it far more outrageous than Dixon’s version. Though it’s not the best, it is the Statham movie that’s in theaters right now, and that’s not a bad thing.
Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.
While a bit hollow as a character study, painting with broad thematic brushstrokes that often keep its hero at a distance, Young Washington is a compelling historical drama, with a grandiose scope that is rare in Hollywood, and an inspirational story befitting of America at its best.
It’s trendy for Hollywood to disparage the United States with films that highlight how the country has fallen short of its lofty ideals (and the beauty of American liberty is that such critical self-reflection is possible). Last year’s One Battle After Another was the darling of the Academy Awards with such a tale. But this Independence Day, and in celebration of 250 years as a nation, audiences can be reminded that (like the men who founded it) America may be imperfect, but the American spirit is a noble and beautiful thing worth fighting for. Young Washington is the origin story, not just of one of those brave Founding Fathers, but of the patriotic spirit and noble values they inspired. While a bit hollow as a character study, painting with broad thematic brushstrokes that often keep its hero at a distance, Young Washington is a compelling historical drama, with a grandiose scope that is rare in Hollywood, and an inspirational story befitting of America at its best.
Director Jon Erwin (House of David, I Can Only Imagine) again proves to be one of the best all-around storytelling talents in Hollywood right now, faith-based or otherwise. Produced and distributed by Angel and Wonder Project, the film is among the most ambitious projects to emerge from the new wave of faith-based entertainment, even if Young Washington isn’t explicitly “faith-based” in a rigid sense. When I interviewed screenwriter Diederik Hoogstraten, he aptly referred to the storytelling approach as “values based.” It may not be a gospel-preaching cinematic tract (and it’s the better for it), but Christians will find plenty to affirm and celebrate here.
If we do count the film among the “faith-based” genre family, then it’s easily a peak achievement. It’s a visually beautiful and well-crafted film. For as good as the modern faith-based genre has become, few movies have warranted a theatrical viewing, being built more on wholesome narrative than visual spectacle. In contrast, seeing Washington gallop on a horse as cannon fire and the pandemonium of battle rages all around him is a full-blown cinematic experience that has rarely been achieved in the genre – other than perhaps Erwin’s own The House of David.
Young Washington is solid from start to finish, but it never fully soars. The film is more interesting than engrossing; good in most areas, but never quite great at any one of them. The clearest comparable, due to the subject matter, is perhaps Mel Gibson’s The Patriot (2000). Historical inaccuracies aside, that film packed a cinematic punch of action, spectacle, and emotional storytelling. Young Washington offers the first two but lacks the third. It’s a story that appeals more to the head than the heart, historically informative, but not making me feel much toward the story.
The creative decision to focus the story on a limited, formulative period of Washington’s early life shapes the film in significant ways. Many biopics fall into the trap of dutifully checking boxes, adapting a Wikipedia page more than unfolding a character journey. There’s still some of that with Young Washington, but the limited parameters lend the film a greater sense of focus and an opportunity to breathe. It feels like a story about something more than just putting historical events onto the movie screen.
At the same time, the film also feels like “part one” of a larger story, or a prequel for a film that doesn’t yet exist. The story seems constantly building toward something but then ends on the cusp of reaching it. Perhaps a future sequel is in the cards (although Middle Aged Washington doesn’t have the same ring to it), but the climactic pay off feels lacking. Interestingly, while the movie remains largely historically accurate (as far I can tell), the climactic final battle is more positively framed as a sort of inspirational victory, even when the historical battle was a crushing defeat. It’s perhaps an attempt to manufacture a thrilling third act resolution for a historical figure who was still only in the “first act” of his life. The decision mostly works, and that final battle is the film’s greatest triumph, but the story overall, as told, feels incomplete.
Also notable is that despite the intentionally patriotic release date, and centering on George Washington—arguably the American hero—the “Young” part of the film’s title means that the story pre-dates the revolutionary war. It sees Washington spend the duration of the runtime as a proud officer in the British army. Not quite the patriotic celebration the marketing has promised. Beyond existing knowledge of the historical significance of the protagonist, there is no real “America” at all, beyond a focus on his Virginian regiment, and some hints at the “American Spirit” that would one day define the nation (see themes below).
The fact that it has taken until the end of this review to discuss the character of George Washington himself is also telling. Unfortunately, he is the least interesting part of the film. The fault is not with actor William Franklyn-Miller, who does an admirable job. The problem is with the characterization. Washington has understandable motivations and inner conflict, but they are approached more from the perspective of an outside observer, rather than getting into his own headspace (we are told about struggles but rarely feel his turmoil). The film doesn’t probe deep enough into the root causes of these struggles, or the causes of his insecurity and drive for greatness. I left the film having learned about the events his early life, but without a better understanding of him as a man.
In the end, Young Washington boasts enough entertainment and quality filmmaking to please audiences. It’s a high floor, low ceiling type of film. There are no moments where the film fails to deliver consistent quality, but it just never seems able to achieve anything more. It’s good, but not great, which is something rarely said of George Washington himself. Still, I enjoyed it, and in retrospect, its legacy may be more for how it paved the way for the genre to enter a brighter future. Come to think of it, that sounds befitting of George Washington after all.
On the Surface
On the Surface—(Profanity, Sexual content, violence, etc.).
Language: There are three minor profanities (“d—” x2, “b—ard” x1).
Violence: There is plenty of wartime action, including men shot with rifles and cannon fire, although the action remains relatively bloodless. The most extreme violence comes when a man is hacked with an axe, although it is more implied than depicted on screen.
Sexuality: None.
Beneath The Surface
George Washington was a larger-than-life person. By the end of the film, he is depicted as a near mythic figure (although, the scenes are adapted from details provided by several Pulitzer Prize winning biographies, so sometimes real life really is a Hollywood story). But one of the film’s central ambitions, and one emphasized in my interview with the screenwriter, is to humanize that mythical figure.
Early in the film, he is not necessarily even very likeable at times. He is stubborn, and his deep insecurities manifest as the appearance of pride and arrogance. His poor choices and refusal to heed wise counsel, such as the defeat at Fort Necessity, lead to serious consequences. Many biopics are hagiographical (such as the recent Michael), but Young Washington demonstrates the biblical truth that all men have sinned and fallen short of God’s standard (Romans 3:23). It answers the age-old question by suggesting that great leaders are not born great, they must become great.
In an early scene, George and his mother argue about their unfavorable circumstances. George’s mother wishes for her deceased husband back, but says, “Providence denied me this.” George responds, “Then providence is cruel!” His mother eventually counters, “God raises what is well grounded.” That exchange represents the heart of the film. We cannot control our circumstances, but we can shape our character (and allow God to shape it) to respond to them. As one character says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God.” Washington lacks the status and social advantages of others, and at first, he attempts to take it into his own hands to rise to prominence. Ultimately, after great failure, he learns that it is through humility and service that he can be used to do great deeds (Matthew 20:16). Interestingly, at the end of the film, even the pagan Indian tribes recognize God’s anointing on Washington’s life.
Minions & Monsters, 2026.
Directed by Pierre Coffin and Patrick Delage.
Featuring the voice talents of Pierre Coffin, Trey Parker, Allison Janney, Christoph Waltz, Jeff Bridges, Jesse Eisenberg, Zoey Deutch, Bobby Moynihan, Phil LaMarr, and George Lucas.
SYNOPSIS:
Follows the Minions in 1920s Hollywood as they search for frightening creatures for their monster movie, partner with a green creature, and must save the planet after unleashing monsters.
Minions & Monsters comes with a genius creative choice to reinvigorate a tired schtick. The slapstick antics of the mischievous Minions have always felt partially inspired by comedic stuntwork from the likes of Buster Keaton (at one point, a house comes down over a Minion, paying homage) and Charlie Chaplin, so it’s seamless for director Pierre Coffin (who continues to voice all of them) to place them in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Yes, these movies are critic-proof and will crack one billion dollars regardless, and a case could be made that the filmmakers could have made bank once again going down an artistically bankrupt path, so it is refreshingly welcome that he (directing alongside Patrick Delage and crafting the screenplay with Brian Lynch) chooses to insert these yellow goofballs into a Hollywood love letter that doubles as an avenue for children and anyone else to develop an interest in the era.
Generally, when nostalgia-pandering is discussed or Easter Eggs flood a cinematic experience, it’s about placating fans and giving them what they want out of corporate obligation to put a film in the best position to succeed financially. Minions & Monsters is an animated feature that begins by rewinding the Universal Pictures logo all the way back to when it was The Trans-Atlantic Film Company, with an opening scene that uses The Horse in Motion, the earliest example of photography resembling a motion picture. From there, it’s an adventure involving Minions and Hollywood, giddy to reference anything it possibly can, from classic monsters to Humphrey Bogart to Westerns to Citizen Kane to a plot point that feels ripped out of the recent more cynical and vulgar Babylon, with the red-hot popular Minions struggling and failing to adjust to the transition from silent-era flicks to talkies.
There is a narrative here (more so than in the first two installments, which is a huge part of why this film works in addition to its sincerity) in that a present-day Hollywood museum tour guide (voiced by Allison Janney) educating kids about E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, The Matrix, George Lucas (voicing himself while locked inside a glass casing), and more, eventually comes across a pair of Minions named James and Henry with quite the sweet friendship and story worth telling. Its initial stages aren’t too far off from what we already know about Minions in that they have always existed looking for evildoers to serve, this time coming across a cyclops, a wizard, a mummy, a viking, and others that they inadvertently kill through slapstick means.
The chaotic up-and-down history leads them to Hollywood, disrupting the shooting of an intense train robbery scene, which sends its director Max (voiced by Christoph Waltz) into a neurotic panic until studio executives, the Bright Brothers (voiced by Jeff Bridges), express that they find these yellow demons utterly hilarious and captivating to watch as they wreak havoc. As previously established, good things don’t last forever, and the Minions find themselves shoved aside in a new movie-making landscape, but not before a montage celebrating numerous genres across silent-era films and leaving James and Henry with a dream to make “the best movie ever”, Minions y Monsters.
This is where the film slightly loses its way, transitioning into a more familiar animated feature/Minions story, as they bust out the sorcerer’s spellbook they found ages ago to summon Cthulhu as their monstrous antagonist. Instead, they conjure up a tiny blob named Goomi (Trey Parker, voicing a different character in the franchise this time while sounding like an amalgamation of about five different South Park characters with plenty of Cartman coming through) who can’t be what they need for the movie but can help find other suitable monsters, all while joined by sidekicks Philips and Howard (voiced by Bobby Moynihan and Phil LaMarr).
While James and Henry (who are joined by Ed as their cinematographer) try to make this dream happen, the other minions search for another villain to serve, stumbling across robot Dort (Jesse Eisenberg voicing a character riffing on Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still), who turns out to suck at being evil even though he desperately wants to break bad. Rather amusingly, he befriends a suffragette (voiced by Zoey Deutch) in a completely bizarre, random subplot that mostly works because of how out-of-left-field it is. Nevertheless, it’s mostly filler material until the Minions meet their match in the climactic showdown that, unfortunately, has more in common with modern blockbusters than the classical Hollywood it’s trying to imitate, even if the enormous blob they’re up against looks icky, with gross animation details that deserve applause.
Setting that aside, it is noteworthy that even if there are still plenty of jokes with the Minions here that don’t land, it is also funnier when they are interacting with not only recognizable scenes, genres, and movies, but also what shouldn’t be forgotten. There is also a joyous friendship at the center holding it together, whereas I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about the Minions from previous movies other than that one of them was named Bob. Minions & Monsters is still more of the same, while also a testament and celebration of the beauty and magic of making and watching movies, with earnest love for the era that shines through. For the first time, the brain isn’t turning to mush watching one of these.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★
Robert Kojder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist
The Invite is a remake of the Spanish film The People Upstairs, itself based on a play by the same director Cesc Gay. With all remakes, the question is: What’s this version bringing to the table. In this case, it’s a rock solid cast with great chemistry and some very snappy direction by Olivia Wilde.
Joe (Seth Rogen) and Angela (Olivia Wilde) are a dysfunctional couple with some noisily amorous upstairs neighbours. They invite Hawk (Edward Norton) and Piña (Penélope Cruz) to dinner and hijinks ensue.
There’s a lot to like about The Invite. Each member of the cast is funny in their own way. Rogen plays his usual schlub but his character is more nuanced than usual, with the rapid-fire jokes masking a deep frustration and melancholy. Wilde‘s Angela is a persnickety neurotic, but it’s not hard to see why. Cruz plays a sultry therapist who’s in permanent flirt mode but is also holding something back. Norton steals the show with a quietly hilarious performance as a retired firefighter who is all too eager to share his new age insights. The way each person interacts with the other results in a rollercoaster of cringe comedy, acerbic satire and genuine gut-busters. This is a film that relies entirely on performance and actually succeeds.
The story itself is a little masterpiece. Adapted from Gay’s original by Rashida Jones and Will McCormack, the dialogue is quick, laden with not-very-subtextual motivations and always up to something. It’s very even-handed, and all the characters are sympathetic but flawed in amusing ways. Watching the increasingly desperate Joe and Angela bouncing off the Hawk and Piña is both funny and excruciating. Joe’s attraction to Piña is played fairly straight, but Angela’s attraction to Hawk becomes side-splitting as she pours out her soul to his Zen-calm ears and gets responses that make her even more attracted to him and by the end she’s practically hyperventilating.
The Invite does take something of a turn towards the end, although the film is in a state of continual twist throughout. This final shift throws the couples’ dysfunction into stark terms but doesn’t ruin anything. In the end, it moves from a somewhat misanthropic tone to a sincere and compassionate one. It skillfully makes you complicit in Joe and Angela’s spatting and then forces you to reconsider. The comedy is so intense throughout the film that when this happens it might lose some viewers, but it’s well-earned, true to the characters and it’s a very satisfying payoff.
The Invite is a small film that feels like a return to a better era in cinema. It’s a remake that is worth watching for its performances, and it’s very, very funny. It’s the sort of film that can be watched at home given its confined setting, but it generates enough laughs that seeing with an audience is a real pleasure.
Free Crow Culture Program at Fort Phil Kearny
UK investors sue Binance in London for £150 million
What the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling means for the 2026 election
I pushed myself too hard at the gym – and ended up in the hospital
Young Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision
Neon Closing in on Luca Guadagnino’s Sam Altman Open AI Movie ‘Artificial’ After Amazon Drops Controversial Film
‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries
Google’s NotebookLM can sum up your research in a TikTok-style clip
