DRAWMA KINGG Movie Reviews

Month: July 2025

  • THE PHANTOM 1996 Movie Review – A superhero that Slammed Evil before Batman and Superman

    Now I know some of you are thinking – “The Phantom doesn’t count as a classic!” OK, you win that argument. Moving on… This movie is one of my top 10 personal favorites. Wait, that doesn’t sound right. It’s gotta at least be in my top 5000 superhero movies of the last 30 years though. Yeah that sounds like the right category for it!

    Unlike most SO-CALLED PEOPLE, I like The Phantom. That is not even a joke or a lie. It holds a special place in my heart from the 90’s. However, I would be lying if I said I LOVED the movie or that it was a cinematic experience worth everyone’s time. But c’mon, with a tagline like “SLAM EVIL!” how could this movie go wrong?

    The character of The Phantom predates both Superman and Batman. He is a contender for the argument – “Who is the first superhero?” along with Zorro and some other costumed crime fighters. Who better to play him than Billy Zane?! it would probably be impossible to lead a movie with this many varying tones unless you were previously a cast member on Twin Peaks. Billy, Kristy Swanson, and Catherine Zeta-Jones are definitely the highlights of the film. The beginning of the movie is pretty rocky and lackluster, but it really picks up and becomes much more entertaining once Zane, Swanson, and Jones have their first scene together. Honestly, I think these actors could’ve carried this movie to a great place if there was a better director. I feel like the director must not have been a fan of the comic, because he did not seem to have a good vision of how to present this character on screen.

    What are some of the good things in this movie? My favorite scene is when Phantom’s doggie and horsey meet up in the forest, make some noises and gestures that show they can communicate with each other (horse-dog language), then go off on a hero/buddy mission to save Phantom and Buffy. Kristy Swanson’s character kicks a lotta butt, so we were one character name away from getting a Phantom/Buffy The Vampire Slayer superhero team up movie. There was also one scene where the director actually impressed me with the clever way he put it together. The villain does something very bad to another character, but it happens off screen. The dastardly act was just implied to the audience, which kind of made it MORE terrifying than actually showing what happened. This might have just been a way to avoid the censors, but it came across as artistic and well done.

    Ending Explained: Phantom explodes the bad guy.

    Final Thoughts: The Phantom is very close to having the components it needed to work. I think it would have succeeded with these improvements:

    1 – The costume didn’t look very good and desperately needed a redesign.

    2 – The cinematography was bad. Personally, I would have liked a darker atmosphere, but it definitely needed something different than what we got.

    3 – Different director, please!

    I really like the casting choices for the main characters. Catherine Zeta-Jones character particularly had a cool enemy turned ally arc. I thought she was perfect for this role. Unfortunately, a great cast can’t usually save a movie from a bad choice of director. But hey, I’ll trade parallel universe great versions of The Phantom for the one with posters and merchandise that encourage you to “SLAM EVIL!”

    Nostalgia rating: 7/10 Crowns

    Critical rating: 4 or 5 out of 10 Crowns

  • JURASSIC WORLD REBIRTH 2025 Movie Review – Ending Explained

    One thing I can tell you about Jurassic World Rebirth is that Scarlett Johansson is really good at eating a bowl of cereal! I was not impressed with any of the actors in general in this movie with the exception of one scene where a bowl of cereal is superbly consumed. I USED to think Johansson couldn’t act her way out of a wet paper bag. How wrong I was! Move over Daniel Day-Lewis! Martin Scorsese is ditching you for Scarlett Johansson in his upcoming biopic about a person that once ate a bowl of cereal!

    Was Jurassic World Rebirth any good? I’ll be honest, I had a really hard time deciding that in my brain as I exited the theater. Let’s talk about the good first. The CGI seemed fine. That is a bigger compliment than it sounds, because I tend to like practical effects wayyy more than CGI. Although a lot of the exposition was boring, (aside from a bowl of cereal eaten with Juilliard-level acting precision), I found myself just chillin’ and enjoyin’ a big budget dinosaur movie. You don’t need substance in your script to enjoy dinosaurs! If nothing else, this movie definitely proved that for me. Lastly, the best part of the movie was the moral. It was not subtle at all. They have a conversation about whether they should really give the biological samples they are collecting to the rich people that hired them or give the data to everyone to benefit humanity. This was very direct social commentary on how the billionaire class doesn’t care about the proletariat. Advances in science and technology should be motivated by helping people, not by profits.

    The bad – The characterization was rushed/forced and resulted in none of the characters being interesting or likable. When characters die, the remaining ones are just like “Oh well at least it wasn’t us” and go about their task. It’s almost as if the movie is self-aware that the characters don’t matter. But even the lead hero and lead villain are just totally “meh”. I can’t think of a single cool thing either of them did that was worth remembering. The plot of the movie is thin, the dialogue even thinner. All the characters are constantly making horribly bad decisions. This irritates me in movies, but I have been trying to reconcile this irritation as of late. Normies in real life constantly make stoopid decisions so maybe this is actually more realistic than seeing characters on screen with good reasoning skills.

    Ending Explained: The characters who had the most speaking lines survive by getting on a boat.

    Final Thoughts: Did I like or dislike this movie? I eventually figured this out by asking myself the question: would I watch it a second time? I realized that no, I would not want to use my time doing that. However, it was enjoyable enough to watch it once on a big screen. I am not sure if it would work well if you watched it on your TV at home though. Plus, the real reason you should see this one at the theater is to see Scarlett Johansson eat the BIG bowl of cereal! I don’t care about the concept of proportion! BIG bowl of cereal or NOTHING! 

    Rating: 5/10 Crowns

  • M3GAN 2.0 2025 Movie Review – Why does this movie exist?

    Yes, I really went to see Megan 2.0 and yes, I was even a Thursday night early bird. Why was I possessed with the desire to actually do this with my short time on this space rock we call planet Earth? Let’s get philosophical today with a lot of whys. Most importantly, why does this movie exist?

    To answer why Megan 2.0 exists, we must first assert these assumptions: that it does in fact exist, I exist, things exist, and the Earth exists. Now that we have the eezy peezy stuff outta da way – why did M3gan get a sequel? I’ll tell you two inaccurate reasons: it was a great film and human beings demanded more Megan world-building.

    Upon hearing of a M3gan sequel, my initial thought was “That movie doesn’t need a sequel!” Upon watching 2.0, my thought had not changed at all. Well, if anything, it solidified. The movie really did have no point whatsoever. I guess on the philosophical end that does make it a good representative work of the pointlessness of real life. When I say the movie had no point, I don’t mean there wasn’t a plot or any goals for the main characters. I mean that the movie did not position itself anywhere in the history of movies. I seem to remember the first Megan being a horror sci-fi film. 2.0 was sort of an action comedy movie. I guess it is still sci-fi, but there were only a couple moments of horror. However, perhaps the only legitimately good thing about the film was [SPOILER] when you see Megan’s makeshift physical body in the basement that is extremely grotesque and reminiscent of the horror robot film Hardware.

    While viewing the first half of the movie, I was actually strangely impressed with the director for how he approached making a pointless movie. It was inexplicably almost working somehow. The second half starts to get so silly that it throws it all away though. Impromptu singing scene, impromptu dance scene, guy accidentally chloroforms himself, impromptu gliding through the air like a superhero scene, main characters doing things that can’t possibly avoid serious prison time scenes, etc. etc. I will say that the movie did actually make me laugh a handful of times. The funny moments and Hardware Megan are honestly the only real positive things I can say about this film.

    Ending Explained: They beat the bad guy. Megan is now [trying to be] a franchise superhero.

    Final Thoughts: I’d give it maybe a 3 or 4 out of 10. A stronger first half than I expected, but the second half WAS just as bad as I expected. The logic and the physics of the movie just fell apart biggg time. I’m pretty sure the main message the movie leaves the viewer with is:

    You should never mix up your poisonous rag with the rag you use to wipe your face. 

    “Oh no! Dat one waz my CHLOROFORM RAG!”

  • 28 YEARS LATER 2025 Movie Review – Ending Explained

    28 Years Later really is a different beast than I was expecting. It felt like a slice of life virus movie. Compared to other 28 Later movies, there was arguably quite a lot of drama here! If you know anything about dis Drawma Kingg so far, you know I am AT LEAST a moderate fan of drama!

    The good: Oddly, my favorite part about the movie is the pacing. It seems to move just at the right pace to keep you engaged in the experiences the main character is having. The acting, in my opinion, was very good IF I am allowed to voice my opinion on whether acting is good or bad in a movie of pictures that move. The directing and the camerawork were both exceptional. For someone that feeds on the dramatic flair, these are not the usual things I praise in a movie.

    Now, let me explain. I was enjoying the film while watching it. It even won me over after a rocky start with the odd intro scene. This is my super extra nonchalant express method of segueing into the next SPOILER paragraph:

    I won’t ever be able to talk about 28 Years Later without talking about Da Sandwich! The beginning and end involve this Jimmy character that seemingly has nothing to do with the rest of the film. He is a boy that survives an attack during the intro and is NOT the boy that is the actual main character. Then at the very end, we have a complete tonal shift to the Adidas Parkour People. Jimmy from the intro is now the leader of these people that do jump flips in what looks like Adidas style comfy clothes. The final scene feels drastically out of place in an otherwise well-made drama. I have imagined a conspiracy theory where the producers told the filmmakers that the initial movie didn’t wrap around like a bow properly and then forced them to add Da Sandwich (perhaps they called it this TOO) scenes at the beginning and end. Just don’t quote me on my imagination’s machinations. Usually, I love sandwiches! Unfortunately, this time Da Sandwich was the worst part.

    Ending Explained: Father and son live, mom not so much. Intro boy now leads a team of Adidas Parkour People.

    Final thoughts: 8/10 Ish, if the first and last scenes about Jimmy were cut from the master (film masters still work that way!). 6/10 ish as the movie played to me at the theater. The slice of life angle of the film is probably what I enjoyed most about the third 28 Later movie. Overall, it wouldn’t be a bad choice for an outing at the theater with some friends and sum snaxxy snax. That is, assuming I hadn’t spoiled it for you already. Drawma Kingg out.