On paper, a movie about catfishing (albeit your son) in the age of social media sounds brilliant. We live in an age where it’s very easy to make yourself appear however you want to on social media and dating apps. That’s the concept that James Morosini attempts to capitalize on in his love letter to his actual dad, I Love My Dad. But for all of the good intentions, Morosini’s film, unfortunately, comes off as cringy more often than not in the same way that Fortnite was in Avengers: Endgame. You can’t say the effort isn’t there; Patton Oswalt goes for it in a role that sees him as a father catfishing his own son. Yes, you read that right.
To be fair, this isn’t the first time that a Patton Oswalt character has catfished someone he knows. In a brilliant episode of the King of Queens, Spence (Oswalt) is told that he’s the victim, not the prankster, by Doug (Kevin James) and so Spence poses as an anonymous admirer of Doug’s “karaoke skills” at the local bar, flirting with Doug and boosting his own ego. I Love My Dad, as mentioned, follows Chuck (Oswalt), the classic distant father who can’t make graduation, claims anything mom says is untrue, and cannot make vacation due to “fake” airline tickets, who takes a passing comment about social media stalking a bit too far from his friend Jimmy (Lil Rel Howery). After encountering a lovely young waitress named Becca (Claudia Sulewski) at a rinky-dink diner, Chuck begins chatting with his son Franklin (Morosini) as Becca.
It should also be mentioned that Franklin is struggling with mental health problems, but the time you spent reading that statement is roughly as long as the film itself hones in on it. The film really struggles to juggle actually speaking about mental health in favor of its contrived plot. When we first encounter Franklin, he’s just graduating from therapy and he’s shown to struggle with suicidal thoughts. That alone and social media are a recipe for disaster but a disaster that is prevalent in 2022.
A still from I Love My Dad courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
And yes, I’m aware that there wasn’t an Avengers-sized budget for I Love My Dad, but the 90-minute runtime is both a blessing and a curse. It makes the film digestible, yet, it feels like a portion of the story is missing. Those examples above of Chuck failing as a father are all used in the form of voicemail messages played over the opening credits. It’s clear that Chuck wasn’t a great dad, but the film doesn’t really show that outside of the opening where Chuck gifts Franklin a lost dog (we see him tear down a sign for it) and when he spams his son with messages like Peter Parker did to Happy at the beginning of Spider-Man: Homecoming.
Chuck’s whole facade that he maintains throughout much of the runtime is also very frustrating. I get that I Love My Dad is going for the uncomfortable humor, but there is a limit to how far that can go (Chuck actually “sexts” his son while in the same motel room as him). And the fact that Franklin blindly falls for Becca — a woman he’s never actually spoken to — and believes every excuse in the book that is used to not speak to him over the phone really begs the question: How horny is Franklin?
Gen Z’er here talking, but in 2022, does an attractive girl with zero followers, a brand new account, and who can’t ever call or video chat sound at all suspicious? These are thoughts that Franklin should have had, and I guess to be fair to the film, thoughts he does have for a hot second, yet the “relationship” between Becca and Franklin gets way too far way too fast. And if you’re Chuck, how do you not see the card tower getting way too high? Yes, this is the only source of connection that he’s had with his son in years, but I don’t know how it gets to the point of Franklin and Becca organizing a meetup.
A still from I Love My Dad courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
I realize that nitpicking a film that is telling, what I assume to be, a larger-than-life adaptation of a true story between Morisini and his real-life father, but the most egregious thing that Chuck does is let the whole thing go to the point that Franklin believes that he’s going to go on a date with Becca and actually goes to Maine to see her (another weird coincidence that he overlooks). Even if Chuck somehow let this messy situation reach the point of organizing a meetup, there’s one very simple solution for that: Take Franklin to the agreed-upon location, have him get stood up, and watch as it fizzles out. Is that really that hard?
Look, it’s no secret that Franklin is portrayed as a bit of an awkward kid, but what about his relationship with Becca would insinuate that he is in a real relationship? The two haven’t even met in person yet. I mean, I did the same thing when I was in sixth grade, but Franklin is supposed to be a bit older than that. While his age is never specified, you imagine he’s in high school or maybe college, but either way, he should be a bit smarter than that and realize it’s not quite a relationship yet.
It’s admirable of James Morisini to want to direct, write, and act in I Love My Dad — especially given the embarrassing subject matter — but let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way: He’s way too old to play this character. Unfortunately for him, he’s no Cooper Raiff — one of Hollywood’s best up-and-coming directors who has shown the ability to wear all of the hats Morisini does here. But the biggest difference between the two is that Raiff writes himself characters that are roughly the same age as is — spoiler alert: not high schoolers — and Morosini looks even more like a 30-year-old man (he’s 32) than Ben Platt did in the film adaptation of Dear Evan Hansen.
On the subject of Dear Evan Hansen, whose film adaptation would be a heaping pile of dog crap if not for Kaitlyn Dever and one of Platt’s songs, it’s not like Morosini has a tie that attaches him to the character of Franklin aside from the fact that it was written from a real experience of his. But since the film doesn’t even use his (and presumably his father’s) real name, why couldn’t he entrust the role in the hands of a better (and younger) actor? Like it or not, Platt at least had the excuse that he played the titular role of Evan Hansen on Broadway and knows the songs like the back of his hand. Morosini, on the other hand, (mercifully) has no songs (aside from one karaoke song) that tie him to the role, leaving him singing in the wrong key that a younger actor could have hit the notes of.
To be completely honest, it’s hard to see how a story like I Love My Dad‘s has a happy ending. In real life, Morosini and his father have connected and have a relationship stronger than ever, but this hyperbolic version of their story won’t have you rooting for such an ending. As you’d imagine, the catfishing scheme comes to a head and reaches a boiling point where all of the dirty laundry is aired. The film should have ended there, but instead, it goes for a cutesy ending that is very strange. One can only assume that this ending was squeezed in to show that Franklin actually does have some sympathy and love for his father.
But even if Morosini and his father are close today, I guess the overarching question I have is: Whywould you want to share this story with the world? Sure, everyone needs to be able to laugh at themselves here and there and take life a little bit less seriously, but I thought that was referring to the times you tripped in front of your crush or had to awkwardly converse with the cashier after your mom ditched you in line to grab an extra half-and-half, not a time where you got catfished by your own father. Neither guy looks great in this situation, and I guess Morisini deserves some credit for telling this story to a mass audience.
A still from I Love My Dad courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
But to end on a note that is somewhat positive, Patton Oswalt deserves praise for going for it in his performance. It’s not as if this is Oswalt’s first rodeo and the first time he has been okay with his character being the butt of jokes or dorky — those are practically his only character traits in the King of Queens — but I don’t think I could be paid enough to do some of the things Oswalt has to do in this film (hence the reason I’m the one writing about this film and Oswalt is being paid to star in it). Oswalt’s King of Queens co-star Rachel Dratch plays Chuck’s girlfriend in I Love My Dad. Her character doesn’t go much further than serving the sane voice of reason that questions Chuck’s actions, but it’s just nice to see the two on screen together again.
Maybe I Love My Dad will make you look a little bit harder at your next follow request, but it’s telling when the most relatable part of the film was Chuck’s theory about your car’s check engine light, which is that they are put in by manufacturers so that you take it into the shop and have to spend money. And again, while it’s great to make art for someone that means a lot to you, is this really a story that you would want to share with the world? I Love My Dad struggles with balancing serious subject matter with a laughable portrayal of catfishing leaving you, the viewer, feeling like you have been catfished into watching it.
I Love My Dadis available on Blu-ray, DVD and digital platforms now.
Andrew is an entertainment journalist and film "critic" who has written for the likes of Above the Line, Below the Line, Collider, Film Focus Online, /Film and The Hollywood Handle among others.
Leader of the Kaitlyn Dever Fanclub.
Imagine a studio paying so much money for a screenplay that it literally bankrupted them. That’s what happened when Solstice Studios acquired Robert Rodriguez’s Hypnotic, which, on paper, does sound quite interesting: the film chronicles a police detective’s (Ben Affleck) quest to find Lev Dellrayne (William Fichtner), the person who kidnapped his daughter. Dellrayne is hypnotic, meaning he can easily manipulate someone’s mind and perception of reality by uttering a few words to someone.
Detective Rourke (Affleck) teams up with Diana Cruz (Alice Braga), a powerful hypnotic, to take town Dellrayne, but things are quickly not as they seem… Again, that sounds like an interesting premise, and it is seemingly very much a riff on Christopher Nolan’s Memento, Inception, and Tenet (perhaps in 2010, it would’ve been a box office juggernaut), but its execution is amazingly sloppy and barely watchable.
Rodriguez has always been known for making movies through a cheap and no-nonsense style, and it has worked to great effect in his El Mariachi trilogy and even in the Spy Kids flicks. Hell, The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl is a guilty pleasure for many, even if its screenplay is one of the worst ever written, and the CGI is an absolute nightmare to watch. Rodriguez has also proven himself to direct massive blockbusters like Alita: Battle Angel and episodes of The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett. He is an incredibly versatile filmmaker, but his filmography has been mostly inconsistent.
You’d think that a scenario like Hypnotic would mean success for Rodriguez as he gives his own spin on Nolan’s trippiest movies, but he cannot save this film from being anything more than a disaster. There isn’t a single actor that gives a good performance here. Affleck looks particularly bored trying to assimilate every ounce of exposition Braga and Fichtner consistently deliver. None of the characters feel like they are human or live in a human world with extraordinary circumstances. The dialogue is mostly flat and unengaging, with Braga’s character being the worst offender of them all.
I cannot for the life of me explain to you all what a “Hypnotic” truly is because the film keeps adding more information to the concept without necessarily explaining how that’s important. Such an expository-heavy movie needs more time to make the audience understand exactly what’s going on, but it continuously jumps the shark whenever it gets quasi-interesting and has “fun” blurring the line between reality and fiction. Is what you’re seeing even real? Is it a construct of Rourke’s imagination? Is Dellrayne an actual character? Who knows, and who cares!
The film gives the audience little motivation or interest to care about what’s happening because it overexplains the concept of hypnotics to the point where no one truly understands their purpose and underexplains everything else. Of course, it’s fine for a movie to be ambiguous and suspend certain elements. But for the movie to do that, its narrative must be tight, and its thematic elements must be strong. Hypnotic doesn’t have any of that.
It also doesn’t help that none of the action scenes are remotely engaging. They’re shot with the energy of an Asylum flick and edited in the vein of an Olivier Megaton picture. You cannot see a damn thing, but what you actively see are the actors sleepwalking through the setpieces. There’s no engagement from any of the stars — they perform in those sequences as if they were handcuffed and desperately want to leave.
But the worst part of the film is its midpoint twist, which changes everything that came before and is ridiculously uninspired. It feels like a total cop-out. I won’t spoil what it is, and you’re better off discovering it on your own, but it is amazingly lazy and insults the audience’s patience and intelligence. It also thinks it’s smart to add in so many twists and turns to subvert audience expectations after its “core” twist, but they all fall flat and deliver absolutely nothing of note for the viewer.
There’s no fun to be had watching Hypnotic. Even Rodriguez’s worst films have a campy quality to them that makes them watchable. Hypnotic isn’t unintentionally hilarious, nor campy enough for me to have cared. It’s not worth anyone’s time, and it certainly wasn’t worth bankrupting an emerging studio for having paid way too much money for such a mediocre script…
There are times when we see a documentary and it forces us to think about subject matter that we might not have given thought to otherwise. Watching a documentary is never easy because it takes you on a journey that might trigger a lot of people. That’s what documentarian Daniel Roher did with his recent project, titled ‘Navalny’. Almost everyone knows who Alexei Navalny is, what he did, and why the Russian government fear him. But only a fraction of the population knows about the struggles he went through to make people realize how Vladimir Putin has been poisoning the minds of millions of Russians and running a government that is full of corrupt people.
Navalny is considered to be an influential figure in Russia and his story is nothing short of an edge-of-the-seat thriller. In the documentary, filmmaker Daniel Roher takes a journalistic approach and follows Navalny’s every move. However, the documentary primarily focuses on the events surrounding his poisoning in Tomsk, Siberia, in August 2020, and the subsequent investigation. It was a miracle that the Russian revolutionary survived and went ahead with the investigation. The extraordinary footage provided by Roher makes this documentary an enthralling watch and there are moments when viewers will be on the edge of their seats to see what happens next. From the footage of the poisoning and investigation to lengthy interviews with Navalny and his loved ones, this documentary will give viewers all the details of why Navalny became such an influential person in Russia and across the globe.
Through the documentary, Navalny comes across as a force to be reckoned with and a person who never shies away from putting on a show for his followers and his nemesis. But he is acutely aware of the constant shadow of death that looms over him. This is what makes him so relatable. If you ever take on a powerful person, you know he or she has all the resources of taking you down at any point in time. Navalny never thought of such consequences and moved forward with his strategies so that he could expose what Putin and his government is doing in Russia.
Despite being a documentary, ‘Navalny’ has all the hallmarks of being a spy novel and keeps the audiences hooked from beginning to end. One particular scene with Navalny talking to one of the men who poisoned him on a phone call is undoubtedly one of the most jaw-dropping moments in the history of cinema. These moments make viewers feel like they are watching a spy thriller and not a documentary. To be honest, this movie is more than just a documentary, it is a testament to what people have the go through while battling corrupt people.
Navalny [credit: HBO Max]
But one thing that this documentary does so well is that it shows how people around him were also at significant risk. His wife, Yulia, played a significant role in pushing Navalny forward and provides much-needed human moments Roher gets up close and personal with Navalny, who doesn’t shy away from answering tough questions, including ones about his past associations with the far-right in Russia.
It is one of the rare documentaries that are highly engaging and draws the audience into the drama through its skillful editing and pacing. From the very first frame, it is evident that ‘Navalny’ wants to reach a wider audience and comes forward with moments that are both emotional and thought-provoking.
The Russian revolutionary doesn’t want the public to stop if he gets assassinated or dies in prison and that’s why he categorically made it clear that this film should not act as a tribute to the work he has done in his life.
The documentary is a unique tale of one of the most brazen incidents of state-sponsored assassination in memory, making it a must-see film for any who is interested in knowing about a man fighting against his country.
There have been several major basketball pictures this year, with Ben Affleck’s Air and Calmatic’s White Men Can’t Jump remake being considerable successes. This week, it’s Universal’s turn with Shooting Stars, based on the 2009 memoir of the same name written by LeBron James and Buzz Bissinger. The film chronicles the life of a young LeBron (Mookie Cook) as he plays in the St.Vincent-St.Mary High School basketball team with his friends Dru Joyce III (Caleb McLaughlin), Sian Cotton (Khalil Everage), Romeo Travis (Scoot Henderson) and Illya McGee (Algee Smith).
The film’s basketball scenes are shot with great verve by cinematographer Karsten Gopinath. Drones have been part of our collective imagination since Michael Bay showed the world how great of a filmmaking tool it can be with Ambulance, and here, Gopinath and director Chris Robinson use it to terrific effect. The film cuts to an overhead drone shot of a building slowly panning to LeBron during one of its opening scenes, and there’s an even more impressive shot of a drone going into a net, spiraling backward as if it were a basketball.
Stuff like this is so cool to watch, but it seems like Gopinath and Robinson use every trick in their arsenal during the film’s opening hour and starts to fizzle out afterward. The movie then becomes a highly conventional basketball picture with less interesting stakes and style than what came before. When Shooting Stars pushes the stylistic envelope, it’s a marvel to look at. But when it starts to morph into something terribly conventional and formulaic, it’s a massive bore.
Barring two great supporting performances, none of the leads are memorable in any way. Cook does his best as LeBron but can’t match the charm the real LeBron has had on the court and in film. The same can be said for every other lead: their performances are lethargic, and they feel devoid of any legitimate charm or kinship that would solidify a movie like this and make it memorable. Some of the scenes where they bond together on the court are well made (because of their impressive visual kinetics), but they seem to come few and far between.
Shooting Stars [credit: Universal Pictures]
Most of the character arcs and relationships feel underdeveloped since the movie focuses most of its time on the basketball scenes. And as impressive as they are from a purely visual standpoint, they’re not so impressive from a storytelling standpoint. The basketball scenes don’t necessarily develop the characters and don’t draw interesting stakes for the audiences to become invested in the film.
Thankfully, Wood Harris and Dermot Mulroney are excellent as coaches Dru Joyce II and Keith Dambrot, respectively. Harris is the film’s emotional core and the main reason why anyone would want to seek it out. His dramatic presence is unparalleled and delivers monologues of terrific profundity. It’s a shame that the leads can’t match, or at least can’t feel as tangible as Harris in this film and in most of the performances he gives.
Ultimately, Shooting Stars doesn’t hit a slam dunk. The film’s underdeveloped core of main characters, paper-thin plot, and formulaic structure doesn’t help it, even if the basketball scenes and two strong performances help it become quasi-engaging. But it’s not enough for me to recommend you seek it out, even if you’re a massive LeBron fan. You’re better off reading the book it’s based on instead of watching a biopic where you’ll learn nothing of value from LeBron or the “fab four” that shaped him.