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.
Having unexpectedly enjoyed the TV show Heels, I was looking forward to another dramatic story in professional wrestling and was not disappointed. The relationship between the brothers is the highlight here, with nuanced writing that reveals complexities and contradictions. The wholesome moments are disarmingly heartwarming, which makes the gut punch moments land so much harder. The performances are excellent across the board. The production and technical filmmaking deliver memorable shots throughout. My only minor complaint is the pacing in the final act, as things moved rather quickly, with the final scene feeling a bit too on-the-nose/cheesy.
This film really highlights the flaw in the MCU's ambition to tell stories that connect to their TV-shows. I'm their ideal viewer. I'm caught up on all my MCU homework. I saw Wandavision. I saw Ms. Marvel. But the problem is they have to perform a balancing act of writing a movie that works on its own, while also leveraging the storytelling that took place on the small screen. The end result is a weird middle ground, where the characters from the TV shows feel like they get incomplete introductions, with awkward references to TV show events shoehorned in to connect the dots. It didn't work for me, and I suspect that it will be even less effective for the uninitiated.
As for the actual content of this movie, I think there are the seeds of an interesting plot (Captain Marvel confronting/atoning for the unforeseen negative ramifications of destroying the Supreme Intelligence), but the execution is severely lacking. Motivations feel forced, characters/relationships/conflicts are underdeveloped, and the story is rushed. There's sparks of creativity here and there (e.g., the power based body swapping, the singing planet), but none of it sticks the landing and the end result is another forgettable MCU adventure.
John Carney has carved himself quite an interesting Dublin-based, musical niche. The advice of "write what you know" can be controversial, but here is an example of someone who seems to have leaned into it and the results are consistently excellent. Flora is not the type of protagonist we see very often, with flaws prominently on display, but the writing and performance was nuanced enough to win me over. Not just to sympathize with her situation, but to cheer for her. The relationships are interesting, the dialogue feels real, and the story comes together in an unexpected way. The one thing holding the movie back for me was some pacing problems, as I felt like things were rushed in the back half. At only 97 minutes, it seems like there was room to let things breathe a bit more.
Went into this one blind and perhaps the most interesting aspect of it was how the central premise felt more like a B plot. It'd be interesting to look into relative screen time, but I suspect family/relationship drama comprises as much, if not more, than the pseudonym author plot. Luckily, the writing and performances are strong enough to make both plotlines compelling. I will say that the meta ending felt a bit like a copout, but even there the execution (and a hilarious performance by Adam Brody) makes it work. I don't know if Jeffery Wright's performance will be enough to land him the Oscar, but at the very least I hope it lands him more leading roles, because he deserves them.
More negativity in the comments, so once again I'm going to inject my more positive take. I'm not saying this was a perfect episode. Yes, I was disappointed that the opening didn't end with an action sequence, but the build up/tension was well done, and the way it played out adds more weight to the ONI intrigue/drama. At the end of the day, this is an episode to balance the budget. A cheap talk-y episode so they can save money for extended action sequences in other episodes. I think they are doing a respectable job with both the writing and performances to make even these cheap episodes compelling. Ackerson has definitely been the stand out for me. The actor is killing the role and the development/back story reveal in this episode was excellent. The scene between him and Halsey was fantastic.
After reading some of the negative perspectives, I thought I'd chime in with a more positive take. Overall, I thought this episode was a significant improvement over most of the first season, and the primary reason was writing. The dialogue has a more natural flow and finds ways to inject tension/conflict even in the non-action scenes. To my eyes, the opening action sequence was at least as good (and I'd argue better) than most of the action from the first season. Some of it is a production design shift, with things feeling a bit more gritty. As for the non-action scenes, budget constraints require the writers to build story around human drama, finding B plots that don't require extravagant CGI. I'm sure this is the basis for many of the complaints, but I'm actually impressed with much of what they've come up with so far (e.g., Ackerson tension, spartan team feuding, visiting knockoff Cortana) and am hopeful that they can keep it up.
A big step down from to the first film, which was already not great. Superficial writing, bland action, questionable CGI, and less than compelling acting from most everyone involved. I'll give Patrick Wilson credit for being the only somewhat okay part of the movie. With the material he's working with, somewhat okay is actually pretty impressive.
With the release of Mean Girls The Musical, it came to my sisters' attention that I had never seen the original and they felt the need to correct that oversight. I'm glad they did. This movie is genuinely clever and hilarious. Tina Fey knocks it out of the park on the writing and the performances from the entire ensemble really sell it. Turns out there's a reason this is so heavily quoted.
When the most enjoyable part of a movie is the end credits, you know you've got a problem. Very disappointed with this one and honestly confused how it's getting so much positive attention and doing well at the box office. The writing felt like Hallmark/Lifetime took a stab at R-rated. I know "chemistry" is subjective, but I didn't feel chemistry between any of these characters. And I don't know if the writing is to blame, but Sydney Sweeney wasn't really working for me at all. I've been a fan of Glen Powell since the excellent Everybody Wants Some (an R-Rated rom-com that is actually good, go watch that instead), so I was very much expecting to enjoy this, but even he wasn't able to save it.
A definite step down from the first, as the novelty has worn off and a lot of the humor falls flat. Specifically, the humor feels more forced and sketch based, often having no intersection with the story (e.g., Liam Neeson cameo, throwing fruit at joggers). On top of that, it seems to lean more on over the top set pieces and slapstick versus clever dialogue. That said, there are still successful bits sprinkled throughout (e.g., Monopoly exchange, improv suggestions). The final act felt rushed and Donny's return as the central villain was superficial and didn't go anywhere interesting. Despite all that, Wahlberg and MacFarlane are still enough to keep it watchable.
After hearing good things about the new prequel TV series, I decided to go back and watch the movies in preparation. I saw the original back when it came out and never got around to the sequel (I think because I heard it wasn't that great). The clever premise does most of the heavy lifting, with plenty of humor to be extracted by the reliable work of Wahlberg and MacFarlane. That said, I was surprised at how dated some of the humor feels. Even in 2012 a lot of these jokes probably would have caused discomfort for certain audience members. I suspect the offensive humor was largely intentional, but that's a dangerous game to play and a decade later things that were once riding the line now feel well beyond it. In the end, I definitely don't think the movie lives up to the 8/10 score that I gave it originally. Probably would give it a 6 today, but I'll average the two for a 7.
Enjoyable enough with some surprisingly deep messaging for a movie this goofy. Jake Johnson's comedic chops are always dependable and he proves to be capable enough behind the camera too. I'd say my biggest gripe was the balancing act of "is it real or is it in his head". Just feels like the movie plays a bit too fast and loose on that issue. It was certainly intentional, but the ridiculousness of certain elements took me out of it a bit (e.g., production ninjas). Still, with its fun premise, plentiful humor, and admirably brisk 89 minute length, I think this one is worth the watch.
Fantastic performances, interesting character dynamics, and a technically impressive production are all let down by an unsatisfying ending that felt unearned, infeasible, rushed, and vaguely derivative. It's not enough to sink the experience completely, but I certainly wish they had taken it in a different direction.
It's a little too slapstick-y and kid-leaning in its humor to secure a spot among top-tier animated films, but between the stellar cast (Sam Rockwell in particular), the ever reliable heist genre, and the surprisingly solid animation, this was still a very good time that shouldn't have any problem winning over its target audience.
This was a rewatch after only seeing it once 10+ years ago. Initially I was surprised I only gave it a 7, as I was really enjoying the opening act, but then it started to lose me a bit in the back half, with the final conflict feeling too manufactured and over the top. That said, the performances were still excellent and there was plenty of solid humor, so overall still a good time.
I dragged my whole family to this on Christmas, and even though they're not the most adventurous film goers (probably the first foreign film most of them have seen in theaters), they all had a good time. This is an old-school crowd pleaser that deserves all the love it's receiving. You might be able to tell where the story is going well in advance, but that's exactly where you want it to go and you can't help but smile as it takes you there. I don't know if the budget numbers floating around are accurate, but if this was made for $20 million, Hollywood needs to get their head out of their ass, because this would have cost them five times that and it probably would have looked worse. Talking about the film with my brother afterwards, we started to realize that there are plenty of potential nitpicks and extreme gloss overs, but the movie swept me up enough that they didn't bother me in the moment. Watching my sister in the seat next to me get pumped as the soundtrack kicked in during the final confrontation is what the movie going experience is all about. In fact, I just pulled up that song while I'm writing this review because we could all use that level of hype in our lives.
I went into this with minimal expectations, as Adam Sandler is not normally my cup of tea. His brand of humor is usually too broad for my tastes, often over-the-top and full of slapstick. This film still has some of that DNA, but not only does it work much better in an animated film (where visuals can be more creative and physical gags aren't limited by something as silly as physics), but its also in service of a story that surprised me with its heart and depth. This is far closer to a Toy Story or Over the Hedge than I ever would have expected out of a Netflix kids movie. It delivers not just one, but a whole collection of positive messages for kids in a package that adults will also enjoy. This movie deserves to stick around as a classic.
I will note that the animation is quite simple, a far cry from Disney or Illumination. But the creators made it work, turning limitations into a stylistic choice that still allowed for creativity and flair - there's a lot of cute animation in this movie (the design for the kindergarteners was hilarious/genius). And while I already commented on the Sandler-esque elements of the humor, the movie also has plenty of more clever dialogue and ideas that had me chuckling throughout.
Other than knowing it was directed by and starred Bradley Cooper, I went into this completely blind, to the point that I wasn't even aware that it was biopic until 20 minutes before the showtime and I certainly had no preexisting knowledge about Leonard Bernstein. But having quite enjoyed Cooper's first directorial effort (A Star is Born (2018)), I was still quite excited to see his second. Luckily, it lived up to that excitement.
Recently I've complained about slice-of-life movies where the slices are too thin to draw me in, or don't provide enough connective tissue for a cohesive narrative, but this movie avoids that completely. It not only delivers perfectly sized slices of the Bernsteins' life, but also perfectly chosen slices, with each helping to capture the nuance and complexities of their relationship. I can't speak to the accuracy of the portrayals, but I thought the performances were brilliant. I'd also credit the writing, as the dialogue was consistently thought provoking, but not unrealistically so. It's still rare for emotional beats to really land with me, but this film's final act certainly did, getting me watery-eyed in the theater.
With all of this said, I do think I'm somewhat predisposed to the subject matter. Not the world of classical music and conducting, which actually doesn't do anything for me at all (I definitely would have trimmed the extended conducting performance near the end), but the broader exploration of the troubled creative-type. As an aspiring screenwriter who is still crossing my fingers for a call up to the metaphorical Carnegie Hall, I certainly found elements of the story relatable.
Even though I've only seen two Miyazaki films before this (Nausicaä and The Wind Rises), I still felt like a I had a pretty good idea of what to expect and thought I would enjoy this one. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Way too abstract for my tastes. Didn't feel like a cohesive story and I didn't connect to any of the characters. You can have the cutest, most impressive animation in the world, but if the story and characters aren't working, it just feels empty. Once we enter the tower, all semblance of relatable story-telling is jettisoned and instead we get a random collection of "wouldn't it be cool if..." visual ideas in service of vague thematic elements. Clearly I'm in the minority here, but this one was just not for me.
These types of character studies succeed primarily due to stellar performances. There is interesting narrative ground explored, but that's not where most of the runtime goes. Instead it feels like we get what amounts to slice-of-life style storytelling that flesh these characters out into real people. I know the slice-of-life characterization feels odd considering the entire movie takes place over a two week span, but that's just how it feels without a propulsive A leads to B leads to C type of story. Luckily, the performances really are strong enough to carry it. Paul Giammatti deserves whatever praise (and nominations) he receives. The production is also top notch, with the retro-style style working well to sell the era. With all of that said, I think this is a film where audience reception will vary depending on how much they relate to the characters and themes being explored. I can recognize that it's all incredibly well executed and I did enjoy it, but I think I'm missing the personal connection that would really sell it.
As an aside, with my brother recently delving into stoicism, the funniest joke in this film for me was probably Hunham using Meditations as a go-to gift for everyone. Hilarious.
I don't know if it's my memory deteriorating or if I just watch too much content, but I went into this musical not only unaware that it was an adaptation of the 2007 film, but also having zero recollection of what that film was about despite having seen it. Admittedly, I probably saw the film about a decade ago, but it seems like I should have at least remembered the premise. In any case, I prefer going into movies blind, so I guess having a terrible memory accomplishes much the same thing.
So, what did I think of this adaptation? It was good enough to overcome my general indifference toward musicals. None of the music felt like instant classics to my ear, but it was catchy enough. I have zero qualifications to judge the quality of the singing, but the performances were strong and there was a surprising amount of solid slapstick-esque humor, with Drew Gehling and Joe Tippett really selling their quirky roles. As for the story, it's an effective feel-good drama about breaking out of a negative rut with the help of found family. Fans of musicals will likely enjoy it and it may win over non-musical folks like myself as well.
Better than most of the sequels, but still not great. It seems like Rocky has been flirting with retirement since 1976, so the overall arc certainly feels familiar, but the time jump gives us a new context that adds emotional weight. Adrian's passing is obviously the biggest change, and the opening act uses this to good effect. The exchange between Rocky and Paulie at the demolished ice skating rink was a highlight. Everything with Rocky's estranged son is less effective and the actual boxing storyline is just more of the same.