The subject of this movie has a lot of natural overlap with Adam Driver's 2019 film, The Report. When I saw that film a couple years back, I didn't come away with a super high opinion. I thought the story didn't translate to the screen in a compelling way, resulting in a dry experience that made me wish I had just read the Wikipedia article instead. Luckily, this film does not suffer from the same problem. The key difference is that we now get the POV of a character who is going through this awful experience first hand, rather than just seeing things through the lens of an investigator years later. It's a much more emotionally and narratively compelling perspective. Of course, this is largely thanks to Tahar Rahim, who delivers a spectacular performance as the titular Mauritanian. In the midst of such dehumanizing conditions, Rahim makes sure that the audience still sees Slahi's humanity. While the legal drama outside of Guantanamo feels a bit manufactured at times, it ultimately does its job and certainly doesn't detract from the powerful story at the center of this film.
I can recognize when a documentary is well made, while still not loving a lot of common elements of documentary film making. That is certainly the case here, as the duo behind Free Solo do an excellent job bringing this crazy true story to life, while having to lean on reenactments and some overly dramatic interview segments to keep the drama level up. That doesn't mean it isn't effective, as the film lands plenty of powerful/poignant moments, but in most cases the story itself is doing the heavy lifting and the visuals are just sort of there as window dressing. That is to say, reading a Wikipedia summary could easily be just as powerful to me. And that's one of the other problems I often have with documentaries (especially ones that explore an event that isn't even that old): I already know most of the story. It would seem that my aversion to spoilers does not discriminate between fiction and non-fiction. I like to be surprised by a film, and that unfortunately doesn't happen much in cases such as this.
I didn't know this film was co-written and co-directed by Stanley Tucci until I got to the opening credits, which was a nice surprise, as I'm a big fan of the singular vision films that can come from triple threat writer/direct/actors. This film definitely is a good example, as it really succeeds in every area. The writing and performances are top notch. These are complex characters portrayed by actors who are up to the task. The dialogue has a naturalist feel, with every pause and subtlety helping to make these characters feel real. I will acknowledge that I have no idea what authentic Italian or Italian accents sound like, so that's an area where I can't be a good judge, but it didn't raise any issues for me. Regarding the story, I really enjoyed the small scope. Being able to wring so much drama out of what ultimately amounts to a dinner party is an impressive display of writing.
When I recommended this movie to my brother, I told him it was not that great, except for where it mattered. What I meant by that was that, at the end of the day, I came into this looking to watch some crazy Predator fights, and in that area, the movie delivers. Yes, it takes a little too long to get to the good stuff, and the human drama that gets in the way is chock-full of clichés and not particularly compelling or revolutionary, but from the mid-point on, our favorite mandibled alien takes the center stage and starts wrecking people's day. The action is well shot, creative, and suitably gruesome. There are plenty of fun moments, and they do a good job making each action sequence feel unique. Realism aside, I particularly enjoyed that they didn't make things too one sided. Even in one of earliest Predator sequences they have him take some damage, which makes for more interesting fights. As far as critiques of the action, I did think the finale fell a bit flat and had some less than compelling elements (the mechanics of the homing bolts and targeting lasers don't make a whole lot of sense, i.e. why would the Predator even shoot them if they only fly toward a laser target that he knows is not on his target? Also, it's a small thing, but I really don't like the "strap sharp sticks to a tree because maybe the Predator will jump on it later". Felt out of place and even more unrealistic than everything else).
A couple other miscellaneous thoughts in no particular order.
First, I saw that they released a version of the film dubbed in Comanche, which I thought was a cool idea, but after watching the film (in English) I can't help but think they should have gone the Apocalypto route and actually filmed in Comanche. I just think the dialogue was not one of the film's strong suits, feeling a touch too modern and not quite capturing the gravitas that I feel like they were going for. When films use English as a proxy for a foreign language, sometimes they'll stylize it, either with accents or Shakespearean writing in order to still give it a foreign feel (e.g. Chernobyl or most swords and sandals epics). This film didn't go that route, and so the English dialogue just felt flat and out of place.
Regarding music, I strongly suspect that the composer(s) of this film were at least partially inspired by and trying to capture the epic feel of The Last of the Mohicans soundtrack. Unfortunately, inviting comparisons to that masterpiece of orchestration puts you in a tough spot, and despite the music here being totally serviceable, during many of the sweeping nature shots I couldn't help but wish I was listening to Promentory.
I went into this film totally blind and had a blast. An over the top action film with a Guy Ritchie-esque story and style? Sign me up. The writing was clever, there were plenty of genuine laughs, the performances were solid, and the action scenes that tied it all together were creative and fun. Brad Pitt was dependable as always, but the real standouts for me were Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon. Their hilarious duo provided the most entertaining and fully fleshed out B-Plot, with stellar performances and humor/style to spare.
I did have some small issues with the film, especially in the final act. The big action set piece was way too much for my tastes, crossing the line into over the top Marvel-esque action that clashed with the rest of the film. I have to believe they could have come up with a clever, smaller scale finale that wouldn't need to resort to such a meaningless CGI fest (and save millions in the process). Additionally, and perhaps relatedly, the dialogue and performances during that portion of the film weren't quite as solid as everything prior. I don't know if it was the writing or the performances, but even Brad Pitt felt flat with some of his deliveries in the last 20 minutes.
I'm sure if I googled around for a minute I'd be able to find an established term that describes the style/vibe of this film, but instead I'm going to reinvent the wheel and describe it myself. It exists in a heightened version of reality. All of the ideas are familiar, and are grounded conceptually in the real world, but they're turned up to 11 in absurdist ways that are used to add humor and/or visual style. If I had to guess what the established term is, it would probably be some distant relative of fantasy or an offshoot of magical realism or the like. Regardless of what it's called, I'm a fan. I was on board with the quirky sense of humor and, with only one exception, I enjoyed the caricature-esque portrayals from the cast. That exception is Jennifer Jason Leigh's portrayal of Amy Archer. I don't think this has anything to do with the performance, which is probably great. The problem is that the accent and character are just too tied to the cliché for me to disconnect them (I blame the reporter character in one of the later seasons of BoJack Horseman). In any case, I don't know that any portrayal of this type of character will ever feel convincing to me, because I inherently associate it with over the top acting. Aside from that, my one other big critique is the film's third act, which felt rushed and also leaned a bit too much on the fantasy relative to the rest of the film. Despite those two issues, I still have no problem recommending the film, thanks primarily to Tim Robbins' fantastic central performance and the clever writing typical of the Coen brothers.
I went into this one with fairly low expectations. Netflix's mid-large budget action movies have developed a less than stellar reputation in my mind, often characterized by uninspired storytelling, cheap CGI, bland action, and phoned in performances. Luckily, this film avoids at least one of those issues, which is just enough to smooth over the rough patches caused by the others.
First, regarding the rough patches. The story is definitely uninspired. The impetus of the entire plot feels like something we've seen dozens of times in better secret agent films a secret agent unknowingly is tasked with killing one of his fellow agents. The central MacGuffin is somehow even more bland and meaningless than your typical MacGuffin, perhaps because they devote so much exposition trying to justify its importance. Just call it kompromat and be done with it. The archetypes represented by the various characters feel very well trod. Realism and logic are seemingly jettisoned entirely through large swathes of both action and plot, with the film leaning on a break neck pace to hand wave away the ridiculousness of what is happening on screen. Suffice it to say, this feels a lot closer to Marvel or late stage Fast and Furious than it does to James Bond or Jason Bourne. Regarding the action, there are times when things are entirely serviceable, but during the large, CGI-heavy set pieces, things tend to devolve into a muddy, indecipherable mess.
So, what saves the film? Well, Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans mostly, with the former bringing charm and humor, and the latter delivering hammy villainy. The performances are good, but I'll also credit the dialogue. It just goes to show that there are two very distinct elements of writing, and they succeed or fail completely independently of one another. In this case, the high level writing was bland and uninspired, but the low level writing, the character work and the dialogue, had plenty to like and was enough to hold together an otherwise subpar film. Finally, the one other element of plot/writing that I'd complement is the subplot involving Billy Bob Thornton's niece. It's not exactly revolutionary stuff, but it is well executed and gives the movie a solid emotional core.
Loved the opening sequence. Loved Daniel Kaluuya's performance. Loved the almost Tarantino-esque backstory behind Steven Yeun's character. Loved Brandon Perea as the conspiracy theory Fry's employee and Michael Wincott as the auteur cinematographer, who both are worthwhile sidekicks to the Haywoods. I was a little less enthused with Keke Palmer's character, although her frustrating qualities were mostly intentional and therefore well performed. Regarding the plot, while I was totally on board for the ride, I didn't end up loving the way things played out in the end. The movie tries to set up and pull off a big reversal/reveal (the fact that it was an alien animal rather than a UFO), but it didn't really work for me because: (1) it felt contradictory to what we had already learned (how does an animal generate a cloud that holds perfectly still? And how does it knock out all electricity? Definitely sounds like something tech based, not organic); and (2) it just didn't seem to practically matter all that much to the story, with the attempts to thematically tie things together coming across as superficial/forced (i.e. the whole taming/breaking discussion and the idea that not looking at a creature that doesn't even have discernible eyes would somehow change its behavior). This carries over into the spectacle/visual reveal during the finale, which also fell flat for me. When something is so out of left field that that audience couldn't possibly have predicted it, then the specifics start to matter less and less.
All of that said, I still had a good time. The filmmaking is expectedly excellent, and while the storytelling decisions didn't all land for me, they were still well executed, with plenty of highlight moments.
While the single take execution on display here is certainly deserving of praise, I can't help but think of it as the cherry on top of an already great film. The writing and performances are brilliant. The efficiency of character development is absolutely masterful, as the film somehow manages to juggle a large ensemble cast in 90 minutes. Some of these characters don't get more than a few minutes of focus and a few lines of dialogue, but that's all this film needs to make them feel real. This is all anchored and elevated by the powerhouse central performance of Stephen Graham. I am so impressed with the writing and execution of this character. It would have been easy to turn him into a very non-sympathetic caricature of the angry chef, but that's not what we get here. Yes, we get some profanity laced outbursts, but we also get heartfelt apologies and acknowledgements of his own responsibility. This is a man whose life is spiraling out of control and he knows exactly who is to blame: himself. This makes his interactions with his staff all the more tragic. Every time they are caught in the fallout of his mistakes he hates himself all the more. It's an effective portrait of someone who is desperately trying to be a good person, but addiction and self-sabotage are making that an impossible task.
My only critiques would perhaps be that the ending felt a little rushed and that the Alastair Sky storyline didn't feel quite as natural as everything else.
I'm impressed with any film that is willing to build itself around young actors/actresses, as I imagine it is much more difficult to find children capable of delivering authentic, believable performances. I think it's this same difficulty that makes the exceptions to the rule stand out (e.g. E.T., The Sixth Sense, the first season of Stranger Things, etc). I think this film's central performance by Mason Thames can serve as another excellent example. Unfortunately, there are some weaknesses elsewhere that prevent the film as a whole from being quite as effective.
Outside of Thames, some of the other younger actors don't come across quite as naturally. Luckily, this is limited to the smaller roles, as Madeleine McGraw delivers a strong performance as the younger sister. Regarding the adults, Ethan Hawke provides an appropriately sinister presence. I've been a James Ransone fan ever since The Wire and Generation Kill, and while I enjoyed his presence here, I was disappointed by how limited it was. It feels like we should have seen more of his plotline play out on screen.
I think my main issue is with the story, which feels somewhat haphazard in its inclusion of supernatural elements. While I typically am a fan of such things being injected without fan fare, this film took that idea a bit too far for me, with characters immediately accepting such elements without so much as a WTF. This sort of structure starts to verge too closely into my least favorite sub-genre of horror; that is, ones involving vague supernatural monsters with ill-defined powers. Such films basically give themselves permission to do whatever they want, unbound by any logic set that an audience could even attempt to follow or predict. Luckily, things aren't quite so bad in this case, as the actual villain isn't supernatural. However, the vague supernatural window dressing is used sprinkle in some meaningless jump scare moments to remind the audience it's a horror film. Ignoring these qualms, the moment to moment execution is solid, delivering a nice little single location thriller with a strong central performance and plenty of tense moments.
I've been a Daisy Edgar-Jones fan ever since Normal People (2020), and I have gone out of my way to watch her follow-up projects (Fresh (2022), Under the Banner of Heaven (2022), and this film). While her performances in all of these have never been lacking (except in the sense that they lack the Irish accent I loved from that first show), none of these projects came together fully for me.
In this case, the story being adapted doesn't have quite enough room to breathe in a feature length film. Where the novel likely had ample time to gradually establish characters, relationships, and backstory, this film ends up feeling a tad too expository, relying on narration to bridge gaps and rushed flashbacks that feel like they are simply checking boxes. Everything just feels a little on the nose, without a lot of subtlety or nuance. At the same time, there is also a pacing problem, with the film dragging in certain segments. This might seem contradictory to my previous critique, so let me try to explain. I think the problem here is that the central external conflict (the murder investigation/trial) doesn't actually get much screen time, being sprinkled amongst a much larger helping of character/relationship focused flashbacks. So, while those backstory segments sometimes felt superficial and rushed, the main plot felt plodding and slow. Additionally, without spoiling anything, the final act was somewhat anticlimactic for me.
Now, these complaints are primarily related to construction. The story itself is compelling and, as previously mentioned, the central performance of Daisy Edgar-Jones is solid, as are the performances of both love interests.
A courtroom comedy that succeeds primarily because of the fantastic central performances of Joe Pesci and Marisa Tomei. It's not a pairing that I would have expected, but that only adds to the charm of their fish-out-of-water schtick. The story is well paced, with just enough of substance to supplement the comedy. Speaking of the comedy, it is plentiful and diverse, including a well balanced combination of clever dialogue, running jokes, and physical gags.
As an aside, I went into this film with some very incorrect assumptions. I guess I can't see Joe Pesci without thinking Goodfellas, because I thought his character was going to be a mob lawyer, and that the film would be more serious, or at least that the comedy would be darker. Luckily, this didn't detract from the experience. In fact, as always, going in without knowing the true premise made things more enjoyable.
After almost 15 years and 29 films (plus another dozen or so TV series), it's getting to the point where I assume that every big name actor has been offered a role in the MCU. For someone like Christian Bale, it wouldn't surprise me if he had been approached repeatedly over the years. In any case, I can see why the role of Gorr the God Butcher was enough to entice him into making his debut in the universe. It's a juicy villain role with a meaningful arc and satisfying conclusion. While the character does clash tonally with Taika Waititi's generally lighter vibe, that's no fault of the God Butcher and doesn't detract from Bale's excellent performance.
Speaking of the lighter tone, while I'm generally a fan, I found that there were certain elements that crossed a line into being too silly/childish for me to get on board with (e.g. everything with the screaming goats and the finale with the kids all getting juiced up and using a bunch of random debris as weapons). That said, I think things were generally more hit than miss, with Hemsworth and Waititi's Korg both providing a steady supply of worthwhile humor throughout the film (as an aside, no one else in my theater laughed when Hemsworth mounted Stormbreaker like a witch riding a broom and flew off...that shit was hilarious).
The last complaint that I'll mention, which is becoming quite common in my reviews of Marvel media (all media really), is related to the action. It's just not particularly memorable. Nothing that made me say "wow". This is especially true for everything involving the "shadow monsters", which provide yet another source of murky CGI cannon fodder for our good guys to easily dispatch. I think it must be getting harder and harder to come up with new ideas for over-the-top comic book action. There's so much out there and we've seen it all before. It's not that the action isn't serviceable, but it just doesn't add anything on its own. Luckily, this isn't a huge problem when the characters, story, humor, etc are all solid, as they are in this case.
I don't have to be a teenage girl circa 1990 to recognize that Christian Slater's performance in this film probably lead to plenty of posters on walls and celebrity crushes. Slater's character is perhaps the perfectly crafted Hollywood heartthrob; universally appealing, as he simultaneously plays the role of outspoken rebel and bashful bookworm. It's a clever set-up that Slater is able to sell with a standout performance. This is no small task, as large portions of the film are essentially monologues from Slater. As he broadcasts his pirate radio, he spans the emotional spectrum, bouncing seamlessly between high energy humor, righteous anger, juvenile philosophizing, and poignant reflection. It's an impressive performance that carries the film.
I was also impressed that the film doesn't feel dated (outside of some cheesiness here and there). When this film released it was contemporary, but if they were to remake it today as a period piece (which they shouldn't), I don't think it would change all that much. This is a testament to the quality of the filmmaking and a timeless story. Speaking of, the story still feels right at home in our current era. Instead of a period piece, it could easily be reimagined with the pirate radio swapped out for a social media account, twitch stream, or the like.
Overall, I'm surprised that this film hasn't maintained a larger cultural impact, as it feels right at home with the likes of Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club.
Interesting ideas and interesting performances, but not all of it ends up working. First, one superficial complaint: the movie feels a bit cheap at times. Lots of simple sets, lots of tight shots, and lots of Viggo Mortensen just crouching on the ground. As another example, the organic based beds and chairs don't feel quite as real (or disgusting) as what I've come to expect out of Cronenberg's practical prop design. According to Wikipedia, the film was originally set for production back in 2003 with a budget of $35 million. While I'm no expert, I suspect that two decades later the actual budget didn't hit that number.
Story wise, the film hits highs and lows in terms of its reliance on exposition. The opening sequence was fantastic, throwing the audience into an unfamiliar world and letting us decipher things on our own. However, pretty quickly we start to get some heavy handed exposition dumps and audience directed metaphor explanations (e.g. the first scene with Wippet, or Timlin's discussion of the "performance art"). Additionally, the story feels a bit disjointed, with not all threads coming together in cohesive ways or getting satisfying resolutions. In fact, one thread felt like it had no resolution whatsoever, perhaps being left on the cutting room floor (the "inner beauty" pageant that Wippet was running that Viggo's character registers for... did I miss something or did that just not come up again?). Ultimately, I wanted more out of the film's big ideas. It felt like a superficial exploration, presenting a simple binary without enough nuance to keep me thinking.
Better than Fallen Kingdom, but that wasn't exactly a high bar to clear. I was surprised to enjoy the first half more than the back half, as there were at least some action scenes that weren't nostalgia bait rehashes. Unfortunately, once we get to the new dinosaur park reserve, the movie starts to really bang us over the head with the greatest hits (e.g. Chris Pratt sticks out his hand at dinosaurs, Sam Neill/Laura Dern stare in awe at dinosaurs, Jeff Goldblum distracts dinosaurs, bad guy gets sprayed by dinosaurs, etc.). Some of these moments play just fine, and I was even okay with how they brought back Sam Neill's and Laura Dern's characters. They got more than just a glorified cameo, and there was some decent character moments in there. But at the end of the day, copying your older siblings homework can only take you so far.
The big problem here is the story. It's just not very good. The motivations are forced, the contrivances are plentiful, and the overall setup of the final act doesn't do anything to distinguish itself from Jurassic Park. In fact, all of the new elements introduced or further developed in this movie are paper thin and uncompelling (referring mainly to the locust problem and the continuation of the clone plotline from Fallen Kingdom). To the film's credit, the pacing is such that I was never bored, and I think the movie is perfectly serviceable as a mindless action blockbuster. But as a worthy successor to Jurassic Park? Far from it.
Despite maintaining the top notch performances and production, I felt this film was a step down from the original. My only real critique of the first film was that its scope was constrained by its screen time. Unfortunately this issue is even more pronounced in the sequel. Although it tacks on an extra 27 minutes, that runtime is now split between two stories, both of which are left feeling less developed than the original. The origin story of Vito Corleone in particular just doesn't have much to it (other than the aforementioned powerhouse performance of Robert De Niro). As an added downside, the intercutting of the two stories comes across as arbitrarily disjointed, as there is no direct connections to motivate the cuts.
Now, all of that said, there is still plenty to enjoy in the movie. To reiterate, Al Pacino's performance alone is worth the price of admission, and there are a handful of absolutely masterful scenes between him and Kay/Connie. As one final point of praise, the flashback final tag of Vito's birthday is a brilliant example of what I think these films have done best, capturing a naturalistic slice of the Corleone family.
I feel a lot of pressure writing a review for a film as universally acclaimed as this one (currently the #2 rated movie of all time on IMDB). This is for two very different reasons. First, on the positive side, what can I say that hasn't been said a thousand times already? The acting is absolutely phenomenal, with naturalistic/subtle performances that deserve every award given. The story successfully captures an ambitious decade spanning epic. The music is iconic. The production design and attention to detail is unsurpassed. Suffice it to say that virtually every aspect of this film is worthy of praise.
This brings us to the second reason why I feel pressure writing this review, and that is the inclusion of the word "virtually" in that last sentence. Despite thinking the movie was great, I did have issues that prevented it from being the 10 out of 10 perfect film that many others have deemed it to be. I can't help but feel like I'm committing cinephile sacrilege when I only say the movie was an 8 out of 10 for me. So, what were the things that held the film back?
The main issue is actually connected to one of the film's strengths, that is the epic scope of the story. This film covers a lot of ground, and even with three hours to do it, certain segments aren't left with enough screen time to land effectively. Compare the opening sequence, Connie's wedding, to the the sequence of Michael in Italy. The former gives us 26 minutes of screen time for a single evening. It throws us into the deep end of the Corleone's world, with character introductions and world building galore, all while giving plenty of room for the story to breathe. On the other hand, the Italy sequence comprises less than 20 minutes, yet it attempts to tell the story of an entire romance playing out over multiple years. Compared to what we get elsewhere in the film, it just felt rushed and underdeveloped. If this story was being adapted in today's world, I am quite confident that it'd be done via a miniseries, with potentially 6 or 8 hours to work with, which would alleviate this issue.
The only other issue I'd point out is much more minor and many would argue unfair, but I have to say that the film does show its age in certain respects. In particular, the violence that should be the dramatic punctuation marks on the story fall a little flat due to the dated special effects.
I believe there is a fantastic 15 minute short film that is buried in this film, but at its current length, I have a hard time recommending it. So many good ideas overstay their welcome, and when you're going the "no dialogue" route, what was already a slow paced film can start to feel glacial. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I struggled to stay awake. And I wasn't watching late. I was drifting off before 8 PM to these trippy visuals.
Speaking of the visuals, they are legitimately fantastic. Watching The Assassins boots as he takes his first steps out of his drop pod had me thoroughly engrossed. The level of detail is ridiculously impressive, and the creativity on display in the various character, creature, and set designs is absolutely top tier. But all the visual creativity in the world won't get you too far in a narrative driven medium. There just wasn't enough story for me. And what little story there was seemed to pride itself on being opaque, as if begging to be the subject of some 10,000 word deconstruction by the next generation of film snobs.
As of the date of this review, there are only 1,231 movies on IMDB that have a 7.0 rating or above with 100,000 votes or more. Of those, I have seen 711, or approximately 58%. Of this subset, 98% of my personal ratings were 6 or above. The point of this analysis is to demonstrate the reliability of a sufficiently supported consensus opinion. For movies with this level of acclaim, historically speaking there is only a 2% chance that I come away with a negative opinion. Unfortunately, Labyrinth happens to fall within that 2%.
I don't think this is a "me" problem either. I have a hard time seeing this film have success with any uninitiated modern audience. Of course, that is somewhat expected when watching a film decades after its release. All of the non-practical special effects serve as painful reminders of the film's age. On top of that, the star power that may have gotten people in the door and on board back in 1986 (i.e. David Bowie performing strange, pseudo music videos throughout the film), doesn't have the same sway that it once did.
Those same musical segments also relate to one of my higher level critiques, which is that the film seems like a mish mash of ideas that don't come together in a cohesive way. The basic story is quite threadbare, with the majority of the scenes feeling like stand alone segments rather than parts of a whole.
Despite all of my critiques, the film certainly deserves some props for its unbridled creativity. Henson's signature puppetry is featured in full force, and while it doesn't necessarily do anything for me, I recognize the behind the scenes artistry involved.
I'm quite enjoying the new basketball era of Adam Sandler's career. So far he's two for two, with both this film and Uncut Gems being worthy additions to the library of basketball focused cinema. But that's not to say that the movies are similar. They could not be more different, which gives Sandler a chance to really show some range between the two. In that first outing, Sandler played a manic, desperate sports gambler, with the story tracking his depressing downward spiral. This film instead tells a more traditional feel-good sports story, with Sandler's character playing a talent scout who risks it all to champion an unknown international player. We get all of the classic sports movie clichés, with training montages galore and our star bouncing back and forth between being in the zone and having the yips whenever the plot demands (we also get the up and coming cliché of social media/viral videos being an important plot point).
Now, pointing out clichés often has a negative connotation, but that's not the case here. This is another film that really demonstrates that the oldest formulas can still lead to great films. The familiarity of high level plot points is a sin easily forgiven if the moment to moment writing, performances, and filmmaking are all excellent, as they are in this film. It also helps if a movie can find small ways to twist the formula and keep things at least a little bit fresh, which this movie also does. In particular, the film's focus on the draft/combine is a nice change of pace from most sports films. Instead of having the tension driven by the score line in a "big game", this film leverages the smaller stakes of simply performing well in training and practice. Another big plus is the generous presence of legit NBA talent. The use of real players, past and present, grounds the movie in reality and makes for a fun watch for the fans. And, while I'm no basketball expert, I think it's safe to say that that presence also improved the quality of the basketball footage in the film.
Bob's Burgers has been one of my go to lunch break TV shows for some time now. It's light. It's wholesome. It's funny. It fills a niche that I really have not found in any other animated comedy, as it somehow avoids feeling like a kids show despite not really being an adult show either. It's just a happy medium that I quite appreciate. Given this appreciation, I was excited to go support the Belcher's theatrical debut and I was thrilled when the movie successfully captured everything I love about the show.
I think a common concern with this type of film is that characters and formulas that work for a 22 minute show, may feel like they overstay their welcome at feature length. Luckily, this was not the case here. While some may feel that the murder based premise of the film is too much of a departure from the types of plots we get in the TV episodes, I think it is exactly this departure which makes the movie work. They needed to tell a more serious story to sustain the run length, and it is a change that pays off.
I was also concerned about how B and C stories would be integrated into the film, as that is one area where the TV show sometimes suffers, i.e. when the side stories feel completely removed and have virtually no intersection with the main story. But again, the movie does well to avoid this issue, weaving story arcs for every Belcher kid in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow. I also think the movie benefits by making these arcs relate to fundamental character traits, rather than just being superfluous comedy bits. This is especially true of Louise, whose bunny ear based story line feels like it deserves a feature length film.
Finally, as someone who has never had a particular affinity to the musical portions of the show, I was glad to see that the film didn't overdo that element. I was worried they might try to go full musical, but there really were only 3 or 4 songs throughout. Just like the show, it was a tolerable inclusion that didn't detract in a meaningful way.
I think I let my expectations get ahead of me on this one. I was looking for something more than the original; something fresh and new. Instead, they chose to go the same route as The Force Awakens, leaning into the nostalgia and making a film that closely follows the original formula. Clearly it was the right call, as the movie is breaking records like crazy, but I can't help but be disappointed that a $150+ million dollar sequel had to borrow the structure of the 36 year old original. This borrowing has the added effect of creating a very predictable film. Many of the beats can be seen coming well in advance, which can take a bit of the oomph out of otherwise fun/exciting moments.
Now, that said, the movie is still an improvement on the original. The fact that the second act training sequences have a well defined objective that ties in to the final third act action sequence is a big improvement from the generic and somewhat meaningless training exercises from the original film. It allows that whole portion of the film to maintain much higher stakes, rather than leaning on the low stakes of bragging rights in an educational pilot competition.
That said, this pro is somewhat offset by a minor con related to the specifics of the mission. When they have their introductory briefing, I couldn't help but roll my eyes as they described a dangerous trench run culminating in shooting a proton torpedo missile into at an impossibly small target to destroy the Death Star nuclear facility. I was waiting for Miles Teller to tell us that it was just like his days shooting womp rats out on Tatooine. I understand that there really aren't that many options when it comes to exciting parameters for fighter jet missions, but it was still a tad disappointing for it to feel so familiar.
The movie also suffers from some corny dialogue, which again seems to hearken back to the original film. Additionally, the last couple action beats really throw suspension of disbelief out the window, feeling like they would be more at home in a Fast and Furious film.
To leave off on a positive, despite the familiarity/predictability of the plot, there are still plenty of make-you-smile moments, my favorite being when, after being fired/discharged, Maverick pops up on radar to prove that the mission can be flown within the original time limit. It's the writers giving the audience exactly what they want, i.e Maverick gets to prove that he's the best.
I'm a couple of hours away from seeing Top Gun: Maverick, and I wanted to write my review of the original beforehand, so that there would be no risk of having my perception colored by comparing it to the new one. I re-watched it last week, as I have only ever seen it once, and that was probably close to a decade ago.
The first phrase that comes to mind after watching this film is the oft repeated refrain of cinephiles everywhere: "they don't make them like this anymore". However, unlike it's typical usage, in this case that phrase actually came to mind for some negative reasons. This movie's plot is incredibly simple. Combine that with an aggressive pace and you get an experience that just feels shallow compared to what I expect out of a film. And that's not to say that shallow/simple movies aren't being made today. They most certainly are. But I'm not sure that new films of this type are ever going to have the massive cultural impact that Top Gun has secured over the last 36 years. All of this is to say, I think modern movies that want to secure a place in the cultural zeitgeist may have to aim a bit higher, which I'm hoping/expecting the sequel to do.
To the original movie's credit, it does feel cognizant of that fact that it is telling a very simple story. It's not like it tries and fails to be some more ambitious, multifaceted thought provoker. Nope. It's just Tom Cruise doing Tom Cruise things (although looking slightly more baby faced than I'm used to). He flies jets. He plays volleyball shirtless. He wins over the girl.
Despite all of these critiques, the movie is far from bad. There's plenty of fun to be had, with one liners aplenty and enough fighter jet action to keep most viewers engaged.
On the topic of fighter jet action, I do have one final critique. The dogfights that comprise the majority of the films runtime did outstay their welcome for me. I just think it's an inherent difficulty with the subject matter. It's tough to create visually engaging and distinct scenes when all you've got to work with is characters in cockpits and footage of jets against various sky backdrops. It just all starts to feel very same-y. As such, I think everything outside of the action (plot/characters/etc.) has to carry more weight than your typical action blockbuster. In this film, those elements were passable, but only just. Hopefully the sequel will find ways to improve in every respect.
I'm a bit surprised by how universal the praise is for this movie, and I say that as someone who enjoyed it quite a bit myself. It just strikes me as a film that would be a bit more divisive, as it feels like an unconventional amalgamation of genres that don't always have overlapping audiences. It is simultaneously an arthouse film, a kung fu film, a sci-fi film, and a family drama, with some slapstick-esque comedy thrown in for good measure (although that element could be lumped in with kung fu films, i.e. the comedy in old school Jackie Chan films). In any case, it seems modern audiences are more accepting of the experimental than I give them credit for.
All of that said, the film has a lot going for it, so maybe I shouldn't be that surprised. The biggest strength here is the acting. Without downplaying the performance of Michelle Yeoh, who was excellent, I was actually most impressed with Ke Huy Quan, whose seamless transition between the meek, thoughtful Waymond and the badass, kung fu, Alpha Waymond was consistently impressive and fun. Beyond the acting, the movie also benefits from the raw creativity that the premise injects. This creativity is at its best during the brief snippets of strange alternate universes and the clever action sequences. It also doesn't hurt that the action is very well shot. These days it's just nice to see action scenes that don't feel like a CGI fest.
Of course, with extreme creativity, there is always the risk of leaning too heavily on the quirky/weird. It's a very fine line to walk, and undoubtedly a subjective one. While I think this film generally stays on the right side of that line, there were still certain elements that didn't work for me, particularly with the "jump pad" gimmick where the characters need to do something incredibly random in order to leverage the skills of their alternate selves. Using randomness as a proxy for humor is a dangerous game. I also could have done without the hotdog finger universe.
Beneath all of the quirky, multiverse-spanning antics, the movie effectively explores Evelyn's relationships with her daughter and her husband, as well as with her own ambitions. While some of this exploration is a bit on the nose, the stellar acting and creative backdrop are enough to smooth over any such bumps. The weaving of strange alternate universes to help guide Evelyn to the realizations she needed leads to multiple heartstring tugging moments and memorably poignant dialogue.
Before watching this film, I had to go back and watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which I understood to be the spiritual predecessor. You can read my review of that separately, but suffice it to say that I do recommend it. While the plots are in no way connected, they both take place in the same universe, and there are a handful of cameos/references that you'll get to appreciate if you've seen it.
This film did not disappoint. It took the genius high concept premise of Roger Rabbit and expanded/evolved it to the modern day, adding CGI, puppets, and claymation characters to the mix while incorporating our tech/social media fueled modern culture. As before, the film is perhaps most impressive from a licensing perspective (I would love to hear the story behind the inclusion of Ugly Sonic, which is doubly impressive given that he is only a couple years old). The scope of characters that make appearances has increased dramatically. Eagle eyed viewers will have no shortage of fun cameos to pick out amongst the crowded shots of classic characters.
As with the best kids movies (and with Roger Rabbit), there is plenty here for an adult to enjoy. Even though its told through the POV of two chipmunks and obfuscated by clever writing and humor, the story is surprisingly adult. A twisted criminal kidnapping ring being lead by a classic Disney character is not necessarily what you'd expect out of Disney. But, it's good. Great even. The pacing is snappy, the action scenes are creative, the writing is fiendishly clever/hilarious, and most importantly, the voice acting is all around excellent thanks to an absolutely stacked cast. Of course, things aren't perfect. Not every joke lands and there are some elements that might be leaning too heavily on younger internet/meme culture for me (the rapping sequence was a bit much). But even these elements are done with creative flair and usually sneak in some laughs for older audiences to appreciate.
One thing to note, I have absolutely no prior exposure to Chip 'n Dale. Honestly, I wasn't entirely sure they even were real legacy characters. Point being, this movie completely stands on its own and you don't need to know anything about these characters to enjoy it.
After seeing a glowing review for Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers, which referred to it as a worthy sequel/successor to this film, I decided to go back and do my homework. I'm very glad I did. This film has an absolutely genius high concept premise. It's clever. It's funny. It's ambitious. One of the most impressive things about it is just the licensing arrangements that must have been necessary to pull it off. This is an idea that easily could have been a missed opportunity had it used unlicensed characters, but instead we get cameo after cameo featuring the greatest hits of animated characters. Just like we've seen recently in things like Ready Player One or Free Guy, having this kind of licensing power behind a film really adds a lot of value and helps sell the premise (i.e. it feels more like our world with a tweak, rather than some totally unfamiliar world).
Of course, even outside those fanservice-y elements, this film still packs a punch. The way it layers a classic noir detective murder mystery onto a PG film full of cartoons is masterful. I almost have a hard time even calling this a family/kid movie given how many adult elements are weaved into the story. It's a combination that you don't really expect to see, and it pulls it off in style. Of course, this is due in no small part to the stellar talent on both sides of the camera. Bob Hoskins is perfect as the jaded gumshoe and the production is all top notch, including both animated and live action elements.
Unfortunately, despite everything that it has going for it, the movie didn't stick the landing for me. The entire final set piece was a pretty big disappointment. It dragged on longer than I would have liked and relied on some questionable writing and hokey/unearned reveals. But even here, the ending isn't necessarily bad, it's just a couple steps down from the brilliance of the rest of the film.
As an aside, I've definitely seen the cover of this film over the years and, let me tell you, I had no interest in watching it based on that cover. Now, I imagine this kind of film is hard to advertise, and I certainly don't have any better suggestions, but it just goes to show how impactful advertising can be.
Despite being very far removed from the target demographic, I found the original film to be a totally serviceable distraction. Unfortunately, that is not the case the second time around. The story was not as cohesive, with the human characters taking much more of a back seat in order to make room for two classic sonic characters (Tails/Knuckles). Given that I have no legacy attachment to these characters, their mere presence wasn't enough to win me over. Ultimately, I found their characters and arcs too childish and simplistic to enjoy. The same thing applies to the central plot element of the "Master Emerald". I much preferred the smaller scope of the first film to this all powerful proxy infinity stone. While Jim Carrey's Robotnik and his assistant Agent Stone still inject some fun moments, it doesn't feel quite as natural as what we saw of them in the first film. Overall, I'm sure kids will still have a good time, but there was very little for an adult, non-Sonic fan to enjoy.
A hilariously clever/meta setup for an Indiana Jones-esque adventure story that I enjoyed more than the most recent blockbuster that attempted a more straight forward take on the genre (looking at you Uncharted). Combine the great premise with the comedic chops of Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum, and you've got a recipe for success. Beyond the two stars, Brad Pitt's role was also a hilarious surprise and Daniel Radcliffe has a lot of fun as the villain. Now, all of that said, the movie is far from a masterpiece. The actual archeological adventure side of things is token at best, and the entire final act fell flat for me. Additionally, the humor doesn't all land, leaning on juvenile elements more often than I would like.
This movie had potential. It's a simple disaster movie premise with some surprises up its sleeves and some solid actors to boot. Unfortunately the writing just wasn't there. Once the "moonfall" begins, almost every major plot point feels forced and nonsensical. There's a timing disconnect, with the escalation in disaster level happening in a way that feels like things are on fast forward (i.e. Patrick Wilson shows up at a hotel for a meeting with the conspiracy theorist, and suddenly the hotel is being flooded). The movie also tries to get a lot of mileage out of the lower gravity caused by the moon getting closer, but it's a trick that gets old after the second or third time it's used. Perhaps the most egregious contrivance in the writing was in the moments leading up to the shuttle takeoff. In a matter of minutes, (1) the mission is cancelled due to an engine failure; (2) everyone is sent home; (3) the aforementioned lower gravity saves the day and the mission is back on; and (4) all of the main characters get to go on the trip because the qualified folks were conveniently sent home. It's almost laughable. On top of all of this, the conclusion rests on a clunky exposition dump to introduce an even clunkier deus ex machina. Also... there's a lot of questionable CGI.
