Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
My brother came out of this movie insisting that it was basically a Marvel film, and upon some reflection I tend to agree. Sure it's got a fantasy coat of paint, but at the end of the day, what are D&D adventurers if not the superheroes of the realm. Even the action feels superhero-esque, as Michelle Rodriguez's Fighter (or possibly Barbarian? I haven't cracked open a Players Handbook in a while, so my knowledge of D&D classes is probably out of date) tosses enemies around with superhuman strength. Or maybe she's just got +5 gauntlets of kicking ass, who knows. I'd also call out the final fight sequence against Sofina, which definitely feels like it took inspiration from one of the Avengers fights versus Thanos. In any case, if this film modeled itself after Marvel, the question is, does it feel like a good Marvel movie, or a recent Marvel movie (looking at you Quantummania). All in all, I'd say closer to the former. I don't think it's going to win any awards and I don't know that I would feel the need to re-watch it anytime soon, but it was fun.
Surprisingly, the thing I'd praise most is the story. The writers manage to craft an adventure that somehow feels like a greatest hits of classic D&D while also avoiding being predictable (barring a couple of moments that still worked as payoffs). Specifically, there is some fun magic implementation and problem solving (the use of the portal gun, I mean, hither-thither staff in the heist plan was very clever. The comedy, which also feels quite Marvel-esque, never landed 100% for me, but it wasn't a total miss either. No real laughs, but some chuckles throughout. As far as things that disappointed, I wasn't a big fan of the fat dragon sequence. I'd also say that I wasn't particularly impressed with the performances, with perhaps exceptions for Chris Pine and Regé-Jean Page. Everyone else felt a bit flat. Luckily, this movie doesn't need Oscar winning performances to be entertaining.
While it may not fit the typical definition, I wouldn't hesitate to rank this as one of the best video game films of all time. Honestly, taking a glance at the competition, it probably is just the best, full stop. I never really had a Tetris phase, but that didn't stop me from having extreme second-hand nostalgia as this film successfully romanticizes not just Tetris specifically, but also early video game culture as a whole. Henk's visit to Nintendo America and the reveal of the prototype Game Boy was goose bump inspiring stuff. Just absolutely top tier. And if that's all the film was, a nostalgia bait look back, it would have been good, but it doesn't stop there. This film also manages to be a globe trotting political thriller, with a unique angle on the Soviet Union and a car chase to boot. Beyond that, the central conflict kept me at the edge of my seat with a somehow riveting exploration of the finer points of international IP contract law. I'd be remiss if I didn't also praise the performances. I've been a Taron Egerton fan for some time, but this might be my new favorite of his. The smaller parts also excel, with the uppity Maxwells and the always dependable Toby Jones being great throughout. The creative, 8-bit styled transitions were also fun. All in all, an early favorite for the year and an easy recommend.
This story felt too small. I'm not sure a central conflict which boils down to a family overcoming the stress of pressure/expectations is enough to carry a feature length film. Maybe I was just expecting a more traditional villain. I don't know. I also don't like how nebulous and manufactured the "losing the magic" feels. I like magic with rules and consistency, so having just a vague threat of "we're losing our magic because... we're all stressed and not united as a family?", generated a bit of an eye-roll. Perhaps my biggest issue came at the end when the movie completely abandoned what I thought was a central message: you don't need magic to be exceptional.. That seems like a worthwhile message for kids, but the movie rug pulls it away with a last minute "they get their magic back". Now watch as the Madrigals get to be really happy, even happier than without magic. Kind of lame. Unfortunately, none of the music really stuck with me either. It was all fine, but not immediately earworm catchy.
I do have some positives. Their were plenty of very cute moments and creative visuals. I quite enjoyed John Leguizamo's Bruno. All in all, not a bad movie, but not something that is going to stick with me.
Guy Ritchie's best movies have a lot of shared DNA. Memorable characters. A wry British humor. Frenetic pacing. Multiple plot threads that intersect in interesting and unexpected ways. And of course, Jason Statham. This film has only one of those things and, as much as I love the dulcet tones of Mr. Statham's deep, British accent, he unfortunately can't carry the movie on his own. The biggest issue here is the plot. It's simple. It's bland. It's forgettable. There's a phrase in screenwriting which refers to realizing the potential that is implied by whatever clever plot you've come up with: the promise of the premise. This movie fails to deliver on that promise. The central premise of recruiting a movie star for an undercover mission feels underdeveloped and Josh Hartnett's character doesn't have nearly enough to do. With respect to humor, I could see the attempts at Ritchie-esque humor throughout, but almost none of them land. The one exception, and the one bright spot of the entire movie, was Hugh Grant. His was the only character that felt like it had some actual character largely thanks to Grant's performance. I quite enjoyed him in another recent Guy Ritchie film, The Gentlemen, so here's hoping that he becomes another mainstay for the director.
Not bad, but definitely a step-down from the original. The humor is still more hit than miss, though the ratio is down from the first. The story is serviceable. I was actually pretty happy with things until the last act when the CGI budget spiked and my interest cratered. It makes the classic sequel mistake of assuming bigger equals better. Unfortunately, much of the increased scope ends up feeling half baked and/or obligatory. For example, the movie really lost me with the random mythological creatures getting birthed from the tree. It feels like the movie just needed a lower level threat for non-super powered characters to face off against so that they have something to do. It's completely superfluous and I would have preferred to just not see those characters for a while. Black Adam did something very similar in its finale, with zombies/skeletons randomly popping out of the ground. Not sure which is worse. In this case, the issue culminates in the unicorn sequence, which got a big fat eye roll from me. I'd also criticize the pacing of the finale, as certain sequences seemed to drag way longer than necessary (e.g. waiting for the lightning staff to blow up). All in all, way better than Ant-Man Quantummania.
Re-watched this in anticipation of seeing the sequel and it was about what I remembered it to be: a family/YA geared superhero movie that succeeds on the back of better than average child performers, humor that hits more than it misses, and a story that is simple enough to not get in its own way. Of course, there are juvenile elements that don't land and the family theme results in some extra cheese here and there, but, as will likely be my refrain with any superhero movie I review for the foreseeable future, it's way better than Ant-Man Quantumania.
A childhood favorite that holds up incredibly well on re-watch. Now, don't judge me, but I'm going to repurpose a portion of my recent review of The Princess Bride, because it is equally relevant here (just the first paragraph below).
Before we started the movie, I was surprised to see its length: less than 90 minutes! I was incredulous. How could the countless incredible scenes that I remember from my childhood be packed into such a small package. I soon found out the answer. The entire movie is just those incredible scenes. There is no filler. It cuts from one highlight to the next without a superfluous scene, dangling plot thread, or wasted line of dialogue in the entire film. It puts on a clinic in terms of efficiency of storytelling and other than one character doing an unnaturally rapid double 180 toward the end (When Dean goes from okay with Giant, to scared of Giant, to okay with Giant in a matter of 15 seconds, which just so happens to correspond with an equally rapid weather change for cinematic snowfall. Notably, even this sequence was barely a hiccup), the pacing never feels like a problem. It just feels like masterful writing.
Beyond the writing, you've also got top tier voice acting with memorable deliveries of quotable lines in virtually every scene (or at least me and my siblings quote them, e.g. anytime one of us is looking for attention the default response is an unenthused "we're watching, we're watching" in the style of Dean on his lawn chair at the lake). The film also manages to be something that kids can enjoy, while not feeling like it was made for kids, which is a difficult balance. All in all, a ridiculously impressive film. It's got humor. It's got heart. And it's got Vin Diesel.
As a final positive, the last 15 minutes were pure joy for my 8-year old self. What other animated kids movie has well directed military action sequences with jeeps, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines!
One of those cases where the overall film is a bit less than the sum of its parts. We've got unique characters, strong performances, and memorable scenes, but the somewhat disjointed three part structure made me wish there had been a stronger narrative through line to tie everything together. It just felt like there were lots of setups without payoffs, which results in an unsatisfying experience despite the quality filmmaking. I'd also say the film was a tad overindulgent at times. Still, I had good time.
An incredible film that feels very unique among its peers of holocaust focused cinema. The contrast between the treatment of the Jewish counterfeiting operation versus the general Jewish population provides a powerful foundation to the story, as thought provoking to the characters themselves as it is to the audience. I really didn't have any complaints. The writing, performances, and overall story are all brilliantly executed and powerful.
As an aside, I try to go into all of my films blind, but there are levels to that blindness. The lowest level of blindness is just avoiding spoilers. That's the level that most everyone considers normal. It starts to get controversial when you move to level two: avoiding trailers. Most people rely on trailers to make them aware of up and coming films to get excited about, but for me they are just spoilers by another name. The third and final level is having zero knowledge of the movie. Not knowing the premise. Not knowing any of the actors. Not even knowing the genre. This level is almost impossible to achieve, as even seeing a poster can convey a lot of information. Which brings us to this film. I watched this film with what I thought was the 2nd level of blindness. I hadn't seen the trailer, but from the poster and the title I had a sense of what it was about. Or at least, I thought I did. All of this is to say, I've discovered a new level of blindness. Whereas the first three levels are all about having little to no expectations, this fourth level is about having expectations that are completely wrong. I thought this was some sort of thriller about counterfeiting in the vein of Oceans Eleven. I was very wrong.
What a uniquely brilliant film. I wouldn't exactly identify romance as one of my favorite genres, but this film transcends the genre. Yes the subject is love, but not just love between a romantic couple (though it includes that too). This is about every type of love. Love between siblings. Love between friends. Love between father and son. But most importantly, this film is about love of life, whatever that life may look like. Tim's final conclusion about how he's learned to live life just hits hard and really captures the spirit of the entire movie. It's wholesome, uplifting, life affirming, poignant, and on top of all that, quite hilarious at times.
To expand on my point regarding the broader romantic genre, I feel the average romance film has a fairly narrow scope, most commonly exploring a brief stage of a relationship (meet-cute => rocky patch => make-up). By comparison, we see Tim and Mary from meet-cute to marriage to three kids. Actually, now that I think about it, the clever sci-fi premise allows them to give us two meet-cutes, and both are excellent. Then we get a brilliantly executed montage (and a great song!) that shows us the relationship is a success. And then the rest of the film is a perfect mix of big and small moments that give us a window into the longer term relationship. How refreshing is it to see a romance where the conflict doesn't come from the romance itself? There is no rocky patch here. In fact, when the movie hints in that direction, they use it as a clever misdirect and pivot into the next relationship milestone proposal!. Just brilliant writing all around.
Last thing I'll complement is the characters and the performances. They're all fantastic, but the easy favorite for me is Bill Nighy. Great dialogue with plenty of humor combined with quirky speech mannerisms and of course the fact that his wholesome relationship with his son really ends up forming the emotional backbone of the film. But even the minor characters are great. Uncle D's final dialogue about his brother definitely had me choking up.
Old films are tough. Do you judge them based on modern standards, or do you attempt to judge them retroactively based on the standards of an era that you may not have even been alive during? I choose the former for two reasons: (1) the latter is basically just guesswork; and (2) I want my reviews to be helpful to a modern audience, so saying something akin to "this movie is really good (as long as you watched it back in 1989)", doesn't really fit the bill. So, with all of that said, how does Tim Burton's original Batman stack up in 2023? Well... it was better than Ant-Man Quantumania, so there's that.
But in all seriousness, this film is a mixed bag. The performances and story hold up surprisingly well, but the extremely dated special effects really drag down the more ambitious spectacle moments. In particular, everything with the bat wing was pretty rough, and even the scenes with the bat mobile were barely okay. I'd also point to several of the ambitious Gotham settings that look to be created through some combination of miniature or painted backdrop. I could be wrong on that, but whatever technology was used, it doesn't exactly hold up (though still better than some of Quantummania's CGI fest backdrops). Because the finale rested on a lot of this spectacle, the movie really didn't stick the landing for me. Luckily, the smaller scale production design and special effects don't suffer nearly as much from their age. I would also criticize the romance aspect of the film as underdeveloped and forced.
On the positive side, we've got Jack Nicholson, who brings this version of Joker to life in a way that really carries the movie. Michael Keaton is solid, though I feel like he isn't given nearly as much to work with.
I hadn't seen this masterpiece in over a decade, so of course I jumped at the opportunity to re-watch it when a friend told me they had never seen it. Before we started the movie, I was surprised to see its length: less than 100 minutes! I was incredulous. How could the countless incredible scenes that I remember from my childhood be packed into such a small package. I soon found out the answer. The entire movie is just those incredible scenes. There is no filler. It cuts from one highlight to the next at a breakneck pace that honestly was a bit jarring compared to what I'm used to these days. Some of this is due to editing choices, i.e. establishing shots are short and to the point, we don't linger in scenes, etc.. But the other key factor here is efficiency in story telling. There is not a superfluous scene, dangling plot thread, or wasted line of dialogue in the entire film. As my friend put it, "had this film been done in the style of Avatar Way of the Water, the opening love story with Westley and Buttercup on the farm would have been 30 minutes long instead of 30 seconds".
Now, while the pacing was jarring, the movie as a whole holds up incredibly well. The most impressive thing on display here is the characters. Through a combination of stellar writing and fantastic performances, the heroes, the villains, and everyone in between are all established as memorable, unique, and most importantly, fun. To highlight anyone in particular feels unfair given that everyone is excellent, but Mandy Patinkin and André the Giant are personal favorites, bringing humor and heart in equal measure.
I reserve 10/10 ratings for movies that have everything. Action. Adventure. Comedy. Romance. Just all around crowd pleasers. This movie is usually the first example I point to. Now, re-watching with a modern eye, would I still give it a perfect score? Probably not. But does it still deserve a perfect score? Absolutely.
Am I becoming a harsher critic or are Marvel movies just getting worse? Probably a little bit of both, but this one certainly makes it feel like the latter. I've described much of the recent Marvel content as serviceable; that is to say, not good, but not bad either. I can't be so generous with this film. It was bad. The dialogue. The plot. The special effects. The dialogue. The humor. The setting. The dialogue. But really, the dialogue was bad. So full of clichés. Bland. Derivative. Forced.
Now, I prefer my reviews to have at least some specifics to hold myself accountable and make sure I'm not just throwing out substance-less word vomit, so here are a couple of problems that I still remember one week after watching this mess: (1) Janet keeping all this crap a secret; (2) Janet continuing to keep all this crap a secret when the crap is practically overflowing; (3) Janet making dumb excuses as to why she won't tell everyone about this secret crap. Okay, I'll throw in some non-Janet secret keeping related issues as well. (4) MODOK doesn't work in live action; (5) the quantum realm's rag-tag team of rebels is underdeveloped and I didn't care about them at all; (6) daughter hacking quantum realm AV system was an eye roll moment; and (7) Michael Douglas' final(?) line (something akin to "Sorry I'm late") was groan inducing.
It would be unfair to be so harsh and not also acknowledge the film's positives. It's a short list: (1) Jonathan Majors. He is the only one that sells his lines. Unfortunately he isn't enough to carry the movie.
Babylon and The Fabelmans differ in many ways. Pacing. Style. Tone. The former's disturbing use of elephant excrement and even more disturbing use of Tobey Maguire. Despite their many differences, they do share a common thread: a focus on the magic of filmmaking (or in the case of Babylon, a deconstruction of the magic of filmmaking). Given my love for filmmaking, I was looking forward to both. Unfortunately, neither lived up to my expectations; though, for very different reasons. I won't rehash my review of Babylon (feel free to read it on my profile), but suffice it to say, while that film suffered from excess, this film struggled with the opposite. Characters take precedent over plot, and though the performances were generally excellent, the character dynamics felt more strange than compelling. To some, I'm sure that strangeness will be worthy of praise, perhaps characterized as unique. But to me, it was just strange. Combine that strangeness with a somewhat jumpy structure and an ending that felt abrupt, and you have a recipe for an underwhelming experience.
All of that said, this is Spielberg. The craft is excellent and there are certainly moments that shine. As with Babylon, I enjoyed all of the scenes that actually deal with filmmaking and I can't help but be amazed at the process for making home movies during this period. I'd also highlight Gabriel LaBelle, who is excellent in the central role. I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him in the coming years.
I was surprised that this film was from 2013. Maybe different countries just operate on a different timeline in terms of genre trends, but this felt more like a 90s or early 2000s comedy to me. Just generally more slapstick-y and juvenile. The overall setup feels very School of Rock, but unfortunately it can't live up to Jack Black's classic. The plot is a bit too over the top for my taste, and the main character arcs are all pretty cliché. On the bright side, the pace is snappy and I enjoyed Elyas M'Barek's performance. With the understanding that comedy is particularly susceptible to getting lost in translation, I was pleasantly surprised.
A barebones action film that puts all its faith in a simple premise that ultimately fails to deliver. The characters, heroes and villains alike, are all flat and predictable. Every plot point is obvious, with the final set piece being the most egregiously so (you probably wouldn't title your movie Plane if the titular plane just sits on a dirt runway during act three). It doesn't help that the big spectacle moments are too ambitious for the film's modest budget. Everything just looks a little cheap. You cut too many corners and it takes all of the punch out of those sequences. I also struggled with suspension of disbelief, as things got more and more ridiculous as the plot progressed. Gerard Butler does his best to make it all work, but despite my soft spot for King Leonidas, ultimately this film is only a step or two above the straight-to-DVD geezer feature schlock that actors like Bruce Willis/Nicolas Cage have churned out late in their careers (no disrespect, I wouldn't turn down easy paychecks either).
Babylon suffers from a style over substance problem, which feels particularly egregious given it's 3+ hour length. There were a lot of extended sequences of non-narrative window dressing that overstayed their welcome. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some arthouse film with no story to speak of. There's plenty of story, but it just feels like it plays second fiddle to a disturbing magical realism vibe, an almost fairy tale-esque (Grimm, not Disney) style that took me out of the story (the most extreme example of this was the entire sequence with Tobey Maguire, which went completely off the rails). This was compounded by the film's frantic pacing and aggressive editing. I'm quite confident that this was all intentional; that Damien Chazelle wanted to create a feeling of discomfort. Unfortunately, the discomfort was a bit too much for me.
All of that said, I still enjoyed certain elements of the film. I'm a sucker for stories about Hollywood, so the overall backdrop was appealing. Brad Pitt is also dependable (as always). However, even those elements that I somewhat enjoyed just had me wanting to re-watch movies/tv that I enjoyed even more (i.e. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or The Last Tycoon).
The last thing I'll say is that the final sequence definitely didn't land for me. I appreciate the idea and, had it served as the conclusion to a movie that I enjoyed more, it might have been effective, but as the finale to this film, it just felt unearned or even cloying.
The comedy leans a bit too heavily on the cringe for my liking, and the last 20 minutes veers into feel-good/Hallmark movie territory with how cleanly everything resolves, but overall I still had a good time. Jonah Hill carries the film, being the most consistent in terms of landing the humor. Normally I love Julia Louis-Dreyfus, but unfortunately the humor for her character was almost entirely built around cringe/second-hand embarrassment.
My review is largely going to be built around comparisons to this film's predecessor, Searching (2018), which I quite enjoyed. While I was initially concerned that the filmmakers were following the formula of the original a bit too closely (e.g. opening with a melancholic flashback to reveal the death of a parent), they ultimately use the similarities as another means to misdirect the audience. The tongue in cheek acknowledgement of the first film (in the form of the true crime Netflix adaptation "Unfiction") was also a clever touch. As with the original, the screen based POV is an excellent way for the audience to experience an investigation, with plenty of opportunity for creative problem solving. Of course, there's still a lot of handwaving necessary on the tech side of things, with two factor authentication likely stopping much of June's work dead in it's tracks, but things move fast enough that I didn't really catch on it. With respect to the central mystery, things ramp up in scope and stakes a lot more than the original. It took me a bit by surprise, and it does start to strain suspension of disbelief, but nothing deal breaking. With respect to performances, Storm Reid's June was a bit hit or miss for me, with some stilted deliveries standing out amongst otherwise solid work. Javier the Columbian Taskrabbit was a standout. Just a fun idea for a character.
Re-watched this film in anticipation of seeing the follow-up, Missing. I loved it back in 2018 and it absolutely holds up. The opening sequence stands out as a powerhouse proof of concept. It could easily have been released as a short film, packing an emotional punch that proves that the computer screen POV is more than just a gimmick. The movie uses the POV in creative ways that ring true (or true enough anyway - yes, the excessive use of facetime is a crutch, but what do you expect? We obviously need to see our actors). Once the central mystery kicks off, the true power of the POV is revealed, as it allows the audience to be much more involved in the investigation, getting a direct window into our protagonist's train of thought. Honestly, it puts the "detective" work in most mystery movies to shame, which typically have to rely on either narration or some other equally blunt expositional dialogue to catch the audience up. The twists and turns keep the audience guessing, and the final reveal, though straining credulity in certain respects (surviving five days down a ravine still feels like a bit much, even with rain), generally sticks the landing. Finally, John Cho's performance needs to be called out, as he absolutely carries the film and excels despite the unconventional demands of the POV.
Puss in Boots' second solo outing improves on the first in every way.
The biggest improvement comes in the story/writing department. While the original was generally surface level and kid-focused, this film provides a meatier narrative with foundational themes that offer much more for adult audiences. It sounds like a superficial compliment, but this film simply has more going on, with what feels like three times as many story threads as the original. Most importantly, those story threads are successfully weaved together in a way that feels natural and provides worthwhile payoffs.
The improvement in story is intrinsically tied to the incredibly strong supporting cast of characters. The standout out for me was Goldilocks and the three bears, whose side story stands toe to toe with Puss' central narrative in terms of emotional strength. I also enjoyed that their story harkened back to the Shrek days, with its simple yet clever twist on a classic fairy tale. Beyond that, there is of course Perrito, whose wholesome innocence provides a worthwhile sounding board for the rest of the cast, and the big bad wolf, who offers a suitably intimidating presence and fantastic action sequences with every appearance. The only character that didn't do much for me was Jack Horner. I've never been a huge Mulaney fan, as his performances always strike me as same-y, so that was part of it, but I think my real complaint is that the character stands out as one dimensional compared to everyone else in the film. Luckily, that's not as much of a problem for a villain in an animated kids movie, especially when the film offers two other compelling pseudo-villains.
Finally, there is the animation. The film makes the interesting choice to weave in various styles that depart from the classic Dreamworks' look. This mostly occurs during action sequences, and if I had to guess, I'd say the inspiration comes from things like Into the Spiderverse and anime. Under the hood, I also suspect that there may have been a budgetary benefit to this decision. While the transitions caught me off guard initially (the lower frame rate animations in particular), I ultimately was converted, as the animation consistently delivers visually creative action sequences.
It would seem that I have at least one thing in common with the director of this film: we're both fans of Christian Bale. Scott Cooper has only directed 6 films over his 13 year directorial career, and half of them have starred the Dark Knight. I've seen both of their previous collaborations (Out of the Furnace (2013) and Hostiles (2017)) and enjoyed them, so I was looking forward to seeing their third outing together. Unfortunately, I came away disappointed.
I had several problems with the film, but the most significant was with the story. I think this is a strong premise on paper, but one that doesn't quite translate onto the screen. This may be partially an execution issue, but there's definitely some inherent difficulty with the story's structure. The issue is it relies too much on its big twist to salvage what is otherwise an uncompelling detective story. The final 20 minutes, though surprising and reasonably successful in re-contextualizing everything prior, are not enough to make up for the 90 minutes of bland investigation that proceeded it (e.g. the visits to Robert Duvall's character were the epitome of cliché detective work, i.e. unimaginative, overly convenient, almost superfluous). It also doesn't help that Christian Bale's character is equally reliant on the twist as a source of depth, so prior to the reveal, his character felt quite flat.
Now, even with these high level issues, the film isn't quite bad. The biggest saving grace is Harry Melling's excellent performance as Edgar Allen Poe. He steals pretty much every scene he shows up in. I'd also credit the lower level writing, as Poe's dialogue is suitably poetic and compelling. I only wish the rest of the film delivered the same.
Ben Affleck's directorial debut was an instant classic for me. The highlight here is the writing. I haven't read the original novel, so I'm not sure how much credit the Batfleck should get, but in any case, this is a brilliantly paced, hard-hitting mystery. Moral dilemmas in movies often feel superficial, serving more as a plot device for the characters than as a meaningful exploration for the audience. That is not the case here. Thanks to it's clever structure, this movie plants all of the seeds for its moral dilemma without the audience even knowing what the dilemma is. Getting the context before the question makes the finale's reveal that much more effective.
The low level writing is equally brilliant, with virtually every scene packed with memorable moments and dialogue, all of which benefit from fantastic performances. There's multiple darkly comedic exchanges that add a touch of humor to this otherwise heavy story, and the brief moments of action are well staged and punchy. There's also the setting to discuss. From the opening scene, it becomes clear that this depressingly well realized city is as much a character in this story as Patrick Kenzie. I can't speak to how accurate the representation actually is, but it certainly feels real. Also, I might just be a sucker for a Boston accent.
I read the script for this film back in 2019/2020 when it was included on the annual Black List, which documents the favorite unproduced scripts of hundreds of industry executives. At the time, I remember thinking the script was well written and entertaining, but that its absurd premise, specifically toward the finale, went a bit too far for my liking. I'm happy to report that the final film maintains all of positives of the script, while also managing to sell the absurdity thanks to some fantastic performances by the central trio. Ralph Fiennes, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Nicholas Hoult are all brilliant. Beyond that, the film has found ways to add complexity to virtually every character. Skimming through the script now, it's interesting to see how the overall structure is the same, but the details are either different, or missing entirely. While I'd have to do a full read through to be sure, I feel pretty safe in saying that this script benefited heavily from the rewrite process. All in all, a well executed dark comedy that benefits greatly from its writing and cast.
After hearing high praise for Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, I figured it was about to time to go back and watch the original, which I somehow never saw despite being a big fan of Shrek 2. While not quite as clever as the film where the character debuted, this origin story still offers an entertaining, if slight, adventure. It does feel more kid-focused, with the running theme being "look at the cute cats doing cute things", but there's still a fair amount of humor for older audiences. Even if there wasn't, it's not as if older audiences are impervious to the charm of cute cats doing cute things. The animation is starting to show its age, but this is easily overlooked thanks to visually creative ideas and solid execution that works regardless of animation detail/fidelity. That said, it will still be interesting to see how the new one looks in comparison. With respect to the story, it's pretty dang simple (again, kid-focused), but it gets the job done and the voice actors are able to sell the characters despite the simplicity.
I watched this mainly because I was a huge fan of Paul Mescal in Normal People (2020). Both he and his co-star from that series, Daisy Edgar-Jones, have been on a tear recently, with her being in a slew of mainstream films and shows (Where the Crawdads Sing, Fresh, Under the Banner of Heaven), and him being cast to star in Ridley Scott's much belated Gladiator sequel. From what I've seen, they both deserve it. Mescal's performance in this film was once again brilliant. Unfortunately, that performance was in support of a story that didn't quite do it for me, mainly because there wasn't much story at all. This is a slice of life where the slice is a bit too thin. We get all of these wonderfully acted snippets and moments, but not enough progression for my liking. On top of that, the film drapes everything we see in an opaque cloud of the abstract/surreal. It's very intentional, and I'm confident the creators were trying to invoke specific ideas/feelings. This makes it all the more frustrating when I'm struggling to decipher what I'm watching and only coming up with vague guesses at what it all means.
With a seemingly bottomless amount of content stacking up in my watchlist, I find it hard to justify re-watching anything. As such, I was surprised to discover that my most recent re-watch of this film was in fact my 4th viewing. This may not seem like a lot, but it's actually the second highest of any movie in my Trakt history (member since 2016). I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that, even after three previous viewings, this film absolutely holds up. The clever story provides a strong foundation, but the real selling point is the hilarious performances, with every member of the cast getting a chance to shine. Jesse Plemons and Billy Magnussen were particularly excellent, really nailing their parts and bringing laughs with almost every line. The movie also benefits from some uniquely thematic filmmaking, with establishing shots made to feel like miniatures on a game board. All in all, an easy recommendation and a definite highlight in the action-comedy genre of recent years. Bring on the sequel.
While the story doesn't work quite as well as it did in the 1996 original, the energetic musical numbers and impressive choreography are easily enough to justify this adaptation. The performances are also worthy of praise, although they still live in the long shadow of the original cast (Danny DeVito's height not withstanding). As for my story criticism, the biggest issue was that it felt rushed, particularly the ending. I also found myself reminiscing about the various missing plotlines and sequences from the original (e.g. Trunchbull buying a car from Matilda's Dad, the FBI speedboat salesman, and Matilda breaking into Trunchbull's house). That said, there were some worthwhile additions (Matilda's storytelling scenes with the librarian come to mind). All in all, a strong adaptation that differentiates itself enough to recommend, but won't ever supplant the original.
A fun premise, but only an okay movie. The musical element feels half-assed, with the fourth wall breaks as a kind of copout to acknowledge that they don't have the quantity or quality of songs to really pull it off. Other than the first track and Ryan Reynold's entrance track, none of the songs really left much of an impression, especially compared to the songs in the composers' previous smash hit musical, The Greatest Showman. Luckily, the movie is able to coast along on the charms of Ryan Reynolds and Will Ferrell, but even then, the humor is hit or miss and the ending was unsatisfyingly neat.
As a big fan of the 1966 original and a big anti-fan of the live action 2000 version, I didn't make it a priority to see this when it came out. However, this year I finally gave it a go, mostly at the request of my niece and nephew. I was pleasantly surprised, as this adaptation is both respectful of the original and reasonably successful in fleshing out a 26 minute story into an 85 minute film. The animation is impressive, the voice acting is solid, and none of the story additions/changes bothered me. At the end of the day I think I'll always prefer the original, but I certainly don't begrudge this film its place as a Christmas tradition for the next generation of kiddos who want something a bit more modern.
