I know comparison is the thief of joy, but I have to say I'm incredibly surprised and disappointed that Anyone But You did so much better than this film at the box office. I enjoyed every aspect of this film more. The premise was stronger, the humor was more consistent and clever (mainly driven by strong banter), there was better chemistry between the stars, and Jennifer Lawrence is of course Jennifer Lawrence. There were a couple of larger set pieces that went more over the top than I would like (e.g., driving into the ocean), but it wasn't enough to significantly detract. And those moments were balanced by great smaller "set pieces" that had me smiling throughout (e.g., Percy playing man eater at the restaurant).
Like most younger audiences, older movies have a disadvantage in trying to win me over. Filmmaking styles/techniques evolve, tastes change, fresh stories become stale, and of course special effects improve by leaps and bounds. Despite all this, I still enjoy giving old movies a chance and finding a 50+ year old movie that overcomes these hurdles is always incredible. Unfortunately, this movie is not one of those. There was nothing wrong with it technically - it was very watchable - but the style and story were just odd. So many scenes felt random and unnecessary, with odd interactions and characters that never rise to the level of a B- or C-plot, but for some reason get attention anyway. Most screenwriting advice is to have every scene be critical to the story, but that certainly isn't the case here. Perhaps they were trying to build mystery with red herrings and non sequiturs, but it ended up feeling more aimless. The performances at times hit a naturalistic quality that I liked, but it wasn't enough to save a story that I wasn't invested in. Add to that a head-scratching ending and the end result is a big misfire - too weird and art house for me.
I was on board with everything except the overly stylized moments. They weren't enough to ruin the experience, but I would be more likely to recommend the movie without them. The story is compelling, the character dynamics are unique, and the performances are excellent.
I don't have enough knowledge or nostalgia for Mary Poppins to love this movie, but my interest in filmmaking and healthy appreciation of Tom Hanks was certainly enough to like it. I will say that the I enjoyed the first half more than the second, as the initial fish out of water routine of P.L. Travers in Hollywood and the slowly unraveling mystery of her past (with some incredibly heart warming and later heart wrenching scenes with Colin Farrell and Annie Rose Buckley) really sucked me in. In contrast, the conflict and payoff in the back half felt a little rushed and cliché.
Not bad by any means, but it didn't live up to the high bar set by Fury Road. And as much as I hate to say it, the action was a big part of why I was underwhelmed. It all just felt a bit too familiar and, while I'm no expert, it does seem like there was an increased reliance on CGI. When I exited the theater after Fury Road, I could have easily rattled off my favorite action set pieces. In this one... Not so much. Again, not saying the action was bad - just maybe not quite inspired. The pacing also felt off and inconsistent. There were times I was feeling the length and checking my watch, and others where it felt like someone put the story on fast forward and we had missed some critical scenes. Overall, I think the simplicity of Fury Road was one of its greatest assets, whereas Furiosa's overly ambitious story gets it into trouble. I will say that I quite liked the opening chapters with young Furiosa. Normally I feel like that sort of backstory would be a quick 5 minute prologue, so this was a nice surprise. I'd also complement the performances, which were all strong. Chris Hemsworth gets a shoutout for having the most fun. As an aside, is it just me or was the tattooed star map a completely wasted MacGuffin? It seemed like there was so much potential for a dramatic ending where Furiosa has to cut off her arm to prevent Dementus or Immortan Joe from finding the location. Instead it just happens kind of randomly. Very strange.
An incredibly impressive feature debut from Francis Galluppi and more evidence that Jim Cummings presence is a reliable indicator of quality. I've got praise for pretty much every element involved, but the writing might be what shines the most. It's jealousy inspiring how the story lands so many clever moments with a set-up that is so damn simple. It subverts expectations, but not in a way that feels cheap or unfair to the audience. To paraphrase some writing quote that I only vaguely remember - you don't know where it's going, but when it gets there, it feels like it couldn't have ended any other way. Despite what I assume was a modest budget, this movie looks fantastic. There's numerous memorable shots (one that really stood out was Charlotte's hand reaching up from behind the counter with Richard Brake standing over her - tense as hell) and I can't imagine the set pieces looking any better. I'm excited to see what comes next from everyone involved.
I was worried this might be too arthouse for me, but I loved it. Fantastic performances, interesting character motivations/dynamics, and punchy dialogue. I'm sure it's getting meme'd to death, but the consistent club-beat soundtrack definitely grew on me and added to the confrontational exchanges made to feel like an intense tennis volley. That said, maybe the audio mix could have been tweaked a tad because I was frustrated to miss a handful of lines here and there.
I love movies about filmmaking, so this premise was right up my alley and, for the most part, I think they leveraged it well, delivering some fun action sequences and solid humor throughout. That said, I do think I enjoyed the first half more than second, as the plot started to lose some of its cleverness, with several very predictable sequences through the final act. Overall, a worthwhile watch, but not the instant classic I was hoping it would be.
Unless you count Jackie Chan's character in Shanghai Noon, this is my first John Wayne film. And it's not just John Wayne that's missing from my watch history - somehow the entire Western genre has been quite neglected (outside of a handful of modern Westerns). If this movie is any indication, I've been missing out on some great films. I'll admit, the opening threw me for a bit of a loop, with no dialogue or context to really appreciate the inciting incident. But the filmmakers knew what they were doing, as the process of learning who these characters are the implications of the opening scene makes things all the more enjoyable. My lack of western experience is probably an asset, because I'm told that there are plenty of recurring plot elements, but for me, the setup here was fresh and the execution was excellent. Yes, there's some contrivances and soft spots here and there, but the movie does a good job of sweeping you up in the story and maintaining the suspension of disbelief. On top of the compelling story, you've got some great characters and, most importantly, fantastic dialogue. Plenty of impactful lines and a surprising amount of wit/humor that is still effective even 60+ years later. Even the action, which is where old films most often show their age and lose modern audiences, was not a deal breaker - primarily because the film doesn't lean heavily on it.
I watched this one a lot on DVD when I was younger and it was one of my favorites but this is probably my first re-watch in at least a decade. Overall, it doesn't quite live up to my nostalgic recollection, but there's still plenty to enjoy here. The performances and the humor are the highlights, with some of the story elements and pacing sticking out less favorably. The first two acts feel a little disjointed, with almost stand alone vignettes that are sometimes awkwardly strung together. The finale also has some abrupt/rapid pacing as the movie feels like it skips some material to tack on the last two scenes. I'll keep my legacy 9 rating, but if I watched it for the first time today, this would probably be more like a 7.
This one will certainly lose some audience members in the first 36 minutes, but if you can have patience and trust in the filmmakers, the experience is an immensely rewarding and hilarious exploration of low budget filmmaking.
Not sure why I didn't see this back when it came out, as I remember hearing generally good things about it. Perhaps it was my residual anti-twilight bias poisoning the well on Robert Pattison. But, having now distanced himself from that sparkly history with some excellent films like Good Time and The Batman, I went into this expecting good things and overall was not disappointed. I think the first two acts are stronger than the third, as the pacing starts to get a little rushed, but other than that I was quite impressed. Strong performances, good production design, and interesting characters.
Another disappointing outing from Guy Ritchie. As with Operation Fortune, this feels more like a poor imitation of his best films, rather than recapturing their magic. It felt like it was going through the motions, with characters I wasn't invested in, overly long/repetitive action sequences, and not enough effective humor.
I'm not sure how I feel about the documentary style opening, which is effectively a long exposition dump, but once we get to the live broadcast that represents the bulk of the lean runtime, I was on board. I'm a sucker for films/TV that explore their own industry, so the live gimmick was appealing. I haven't watched a lot of late night television (and even less from the 1970s), but for what it's worth, this felt pretty authentic - David Dastmalchian's central performance and the production design in particular. Combine that with a reasonably compelling, though admittedly simplistic, demon possession story and you've got a solid horror film with a unique backdrop. Ingrid Torelli delivers an suitably off-putting/chilling performance as Lilly, carrying the tension through the back half. As far as critiques go, some of the interactions during the "cut to commercial" segments feel a bit superficial/rushed (e.g., conversations with the producer and/or Gus), but it's not a major issue. As a final comment, perhaps the biggest impact of the film was making me want to re-watch This Time with Alan Partridge, which makes brilliant use the same live TV gimmick, but for comedy rather than horror.
It appears I've aged out of the target demographic for these types of films. But despite some of the zoomer humor being a bit much for my aging millennial tastes, I still found plenty to enjoy in this farcical, coming-of-age high-school comedy. Strong performances and clever dialogue was enough to keep me invested through a lean runtime that doesn't overstay its welcome. The ending started to lose me, going from over-the-top to straight up crazy, but I guess a female high-school fight club was already pretty ridiculous from the get go.
While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.
First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.
When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.
Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.
The last best picture nominee I had left to watch and perhaps my favorite. The writing and performances are brilliant. Even before finishing the movie, I already wanted to revisit certain scenes to look for missed details and appreciate all the little nuances (definitely the flashback/recording scene, which was a highlight, but several courtroom exchanges as well). I really enjoyed the interplay between languages and how those types of elements might affect the judge/jurors. In the same way that it's difficult to judge a performance in a language you don't speak, I imagine it's also difficult to judge credibility. I was worried about how things would end, as these kind of stories can struggle to stick the landing (e.g., I was disappointed in HBO's The Undoing), but they made it work.
Other than serving as a relatively tame introduction to whatever fetishist community Grey is a part of, this film doesn't have much to offer. The fact that the book started as fan fiction makes sense, as the writing feels decidedly blunt and underdeveloped. Despite clocking in at just over two hours, it felt like there wasn't enough story to even feel like a complete movie. The conflict/tension is so narrow and low stakes that I was never invested.
I don't have any deep nostalgia for Winnie the Pooh, but this film made me feel like I do. I guess there's a reason these characters are so well loved - they're cute, hilarious, and wholesome. And of course there's the voice acting. I think the dialogue was strong, but honestly Jim Cummings could probably say any line with Winnie the Pooh's signature voice/cadence and I'd probably love it. The story isn't revolutionary, but its compelling enough to serve as an effective nostalgic vehicle. There aren't many live action films for younger audiences that win me over, so it was a pleasant surprise to find another favorite here.
The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my top 10 films, perhaps even top 3, so to see the series fall to this level is quite disappointing. The movie isn't shy about trying to imitate it's predecessors, but inviting that comparison was a bad move, as it is never more than a poor reflection. The opening sequence was actually a cool idea, although the dialogue got cheesy. With respect to the action, everything is way too over the top for my tastes. That problem was already creeping in with the original sequels (e.g., ball cage sequence in Dead Man's Chest), but this movie ramps it up even more (e.g., dragging a building, getting pulled by a shark, etc.). That said, I will admit that the guillotine sequence, though completely ridiculous, was at least a bit more clever than the rest. The comedy is equally over the top. While the original film has plenty of comedic elements, it still took itself seriously. In this film, the comedy is way more in your face. The story is rushed, none of the new characters leave an impression, and this iteration of Jack Sparrow, though still the bright spot of the film, has dulled significantly compared to his first performance.
Explores some interesting relationship dynamics but didn't quite land for me as a complete package. The entire film is focused on this relationship, with effectively no B/C plots to speak of. This resulted in the characters feeling underdeveloped and the pacing feeling rushed. The first couple of sequences felt too short. And I don't necessarily mean short on runtime, but rather short on story. The movie lingers in many scenes, creating a melancholic feel, but not much is actually happening. By the time we get to the longer, present day sequence, I haven't had a chance to fully invest in the characters and so the conflicts feel a bit superficial. That said, the performances are still strong and there was some thought provoking dialogue throughout (particularly enjoyed Arthur talking about how Nora makes his life bigger, as well as Hae Sung's discussion of Nora being the one who leaves for him, but the one who stays for Arthur).
I don't have a great recollection of the 2nd and 3rd films, but I still feel comfortable saying that this is the weakest of the bunch. Based on reporting, the budget for this entry was significantly reduced compared to the previous films ($85M vs $135/$150/$145), and you can tell. The animation is noticeably less detailed and the absence of the furious 5 was almost certainly a cost cutting measure. However, the lower budget isn't what drags the film down. In fact, I think it makes sense to push back against bloated animation budgets. Do we really think the primarily younger audiences are going to care about the graphical fidelity of the animal fur or how realistic the water simulations are? I think studios are realizing that there are diminishing (perhaps even zero) returns at higher budgets. While I couldn't find any reported numbers, I expect that animation budget for Adam Sandler's recent Netflix film, Leo, was comparatively low, as they leveraged a stylized/simplistic style that still allowed for all sorts of visual creativity. The point being, creative and engaging visuals don't need to be expensive and ultimately it's the story/characters that do the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, that's where this film disappoints. The story is incredibly rushed, at some points feeling like they cut entire sequences (e.g., when Zhen gives Po a cryptic quote about footprints, we cut to him following foot prints through the snow, and then we cut back to Zhen following up on the cryptic quote. The movie feels like it's going through the motions, relying heavily on call back material in lieu of anything more original.
I can't speak to the negative (or positive) aspects of the representation in this movie, so I'm just going to ignore that whole conversation. All I can do is comment on how it landed with me, someone who doesn't have any skin in the game and was just watching it as a movie. Overall, I thought Sean Penn's performance was compelling and the central relationship between Sam and Lucy landed enough emotional beats to carry the film. The story understandably dodges any real conversation surrounding Lucy's conception or some of the practicalities of how Sam raised Lucy for the first 7 years, but they glossed over it efficiently enough that it doesn't really detract. What does detract is Michelle Pfeiffer's character, which often feels superficial and melodramatic, especially toward the end.
After watching both Dune's back to back, I had an itching for more epic, desert based cinematography and decided to revisit George Miller's masterpiece. This also makes for an interesting comparison. While I enjoyed my 5+ hour visit to Arrakis, I think this is the stronger movie. The amount of world building it accomplishes in just 2 hours is incredible. Combine that with an elegantly simple story, strong central performances, and jaw dropping action sequences, and you've got a winner. After almost a decade, the action set pieces remain unmatched, and it's honestly not close. Comparing the practical heavy stunt work to the CGI messes that are so common now is night and day.
I can understand why critics are loving this movie, but I am a bit surprised that its audience scores are almost equally high. I guess it's more digestible than some of Lanthimos other films, but it still feels more arthouse than your typical best picture nominee. But maybe I'm just underselling the appeal of watching Emma Stone's explicit adventure of uninhibited sexual discovery. But, while that element of the movie certainly appeals to some of my baser instincts, I was never fully on board with the rest of it. It just feels like some of the decisions are trying to inject weird for weirdness sake, rather than tying it to any sort of character/story motivation. It's that feeling of an online video that is trying too hard to go viral. In terms of pacing, the final act (or at least everything from the interrupted wedding onward) felt rushed. Now, with all of that said, I still enjoyed the movie. There were lots of interesting characters and ideas being explored and, despite feeling intentional/manufactured, some of the quirky humor still lands.
After watching both parts of Denis Villeneuve's new adaptation effectively back to back, I had a morbid curiosity as to how David Lynch's 40-year old version holds up. The answer, generally speaking, is not well (though I understand that it wasn't exactly a big hit on release either). I suspect there is no modern audience that will enjoy this movie on its face. That said, it still was interesting to compare and contrast. Perhaps most interesting of all is the relative run times, as this movie tells the same story (at least superficially) in 137 minutes that Villeneuve needed over 321 minutes to tell. While some of that differential can be explained by Villeneuve's flair for spectacle, it's clear from this version that the extra time was needed to give the story room to breath and avoid a rushed/superficial feel. In terms of the spectacle offered in this movie, the non-practical special effects are super rough, but some of the practical work has some nostalgic appeal (e.g., miniature work on the worms). Production design decisions are much more hit and miss. I'm sure the fashion sensibilities are a product of their time, but going from Villeneuve's bald/brutal/black and white Harkonnen aesthetic to a bunch of redheads was quite the whiplash.
Spectacle is undoubtedly the focus, and in that respect the movie generally delivers. The one exception might be the worm riding, which is something that seems cooler in theory than it looks in practice. The set-up for it is cool, but once they actual get on the worm it just looks goofy (especially when they show it from a distance). But like I said, that's the exception - there's plenty of fantastic production design, visuals, and audio throughout. So what about character and story? This was a mixed bag for me. I think there are some ideas that worked well (Emperor/Princess interplay, Bene Gesserit intrigue, Feyd-Rautha set-up), but Paul's central conflict of accepting or rejecting the prophecy felt repetitive and ultimately fell flat. Now, I do think the ending salvages the arc and makes it work as best it could, but the path to get there was less than compelling. All in all, I think Villeneuve's two-part adaptation is worthy of praise for its ambition and technical brilliance, but I don't think these will be movies I feel the need to re-watch with any regularity.
The biggest strength of this film is the extreme contrast between the story of the Höss family and the story taking place on the other side of the wall. The former gets most of the attention, with the movie playing out like a slice-of-life family drama. But the latter, which exists only in the background, unspoken and off screen for most of the film, is what packs the punch. The writers leverage the knowledge that most audiences already have - we all know what was happening. And that's where the contrast is - watching a man help orchestrate one of humanity's darkest moments without any acknowledgement is disturbingly compelling. That said, this isn't my favorite kind of film, as it feels less focused on building a narrative arc and more focused on the thematic ideas. Just a little too arthouse for my tastes.
Re-watched in preparation for part 2 next week. I wish I had been writing reviews back when this came out, because I'd like to compare my current thoughts to my initial reaction, but overall I suspect they didn't change much. This is a spectacle focused movie that rightfully prides itself on production design, cinematography, and audio. I have a distinct memory of my brother coming out of the theater and raving about the costumes and you know what - he's not wrong. But through all of the impressive visuals and thunderous soundtrack, the characters and story felt a little thinner than I would have hoped. Not bad, by any means. I think the performances themselves are excellent. But I just didn't find myself particularly attached. I think part of the problem is that the scope is so ambitious that even with a 2.5+ hour runtime, things have to move pretty quickly to get through it. There's also the problem of being a part 1, as the arc definitely feels incomplete and the ending is somewhat abrupt/unsatisfying. Luckily, that last problem will soon be solved - looking forward to part 2!
I didn't have high expectations for this movie. First, I'm not the biggest fan of musicals. And second, I hadn't yet been sold on Timothée Chalamet. Now, the first issue remained an issue for me, as the music here wasn't catchy enough to win me over. But on the second issue, I was happily surprised by Chalamet's goofy/optimistic performance. He's fun and wholesome and carries the film. There's a solid ensemble with plenty of humor that lands throughout. I'd also generally compliment the writing. The whole opening sequence, even when wrapped in a song that I didn't love, was an impressively efficient and clever way to introduce the character, the world, and the conflict.
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z2024-12-31T23:59:59Z