SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

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.

As is expected from Guillermo del Toro, this is an interesting one. The universal positive here is the acting. Bradley Cooper and Rooney Mara are both excellent, as is the entire ensemble, with Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, and David Strathairn being the standouts. Cate Blanchett was perhaps the only one who I was less on board with, but I think that has more to do with the writing than with her performance.

As far as the story goes, this film is divided into two very distinct segments: (1) Stan's life with the carnival; and (2) Stan's life with Molly in the city. For me this structure resulted in what felt like a pacing issue. After moving very quickly through the first segment, with numerous time jumps keeping things progressing, things seemed to slow down in the second segment. This might have to do with the fact that the story narrows significantly. The opening segment was more slice of life; establishing the setting, the characters, and their relationships. Character driven rather than plot driven. The second segment flips this around and becomes very plot focused. I can't help but compare the two segments and unfortunately the second doesn't quite deliver on the promise of the first. Character reversals and reveals felt rushed or unearned (e.g. Cate Blanchett's final scene in particular felt very contrived) and the main conflict itself felt somewhat half baked. At the heart of the story is also the phony mentalism, which started to wear thin for me, as it doesn't exactly make for exciting cinematic material and starts to strain my suspension of disbelief. Luckily, even some of these questionable elements are largely saved by the fact that everything else about the film is so damn good, including not only the aforementioned acting, but also the stellar costumes, set design, directing, dialogue, and pretty much everything else that goes into filmmaking. And beyond that, the movie is also able to steer itself into an appropriately nightmarish ending, tying back to all of the great groundwork from the opening section. I found it quite appropriate that Willem Dafoe's tremendous monologue about recruiting geeks would be the critical building block of the final scene. Plus Tim Blake Nelson does an excellent job in his brief cameo executing the devilish plan Dafoe outlined.

As an aside, soon after finishing this film I learned that it was a remake of an apparently well reviewed 1947 film, which was in turn based on a 1946 novel. While I'm not normally one to watch two versions of the same story back to back, in this case I'm tempted to watch the original, as I'd be interested to see how this story was told back when it was more contemporary (the story takes place from the 1930s-1940s). The period piece elements of this film are so intentional and well realized that I can't help but wonder if the original would feel a bit bland in comparison, as the setting/era might be less of a focus.

While some will undoubtedly criticize the perhaps overly meta set-up that accounts for the first 30 minutes of this film, relative to the rest of the movie, that portion was actually my favorite part and I can't help but wish they had just gone all in on the idea. The story of a game designer who is losing his grip on reality felt fresh and unique. The rest of the movie... not so much. At the conclusion of the original trilogy, the Matrix lore was already an incomprehensible mess, but skipping ahead 60 years and dropping a whole new collection of buzzwords and exposition dumps only made things worse. All the more reason to cut ties with all of that baggage and tell some new story in which the Matrix is simply a series of videos games created by a troubled mind. Alas, that's not the movie we got, and after those first 30 minutes the film turns into an unsuccessful rehash of various elements of previous Matrix films. To make matters worse, the action is also not up to par. Even just finishing the movie minutes ago, I'm having a hard time thinking back to any memorable set pieces or sequences.

Luckily, things aren't all bad. The cast are pretty much universally solid, including both new and returning characters/actors. Jonathan Groff leans into his role as the new Agent Smith, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II sells his version of Morpheus, and Neil Patrick Harris delivers some fun monologues as the Analyst. Unfortunately, great acting can only take you so far, enough to sell hammy dialogue or even save individual scenes, but not enough to save the overall plot.

I've quickly become a fan of the burgeoning "True Corporate" genre (as opposed to True Crime). Between this film, Tetris, and Air, I consider the genre three for three this year. I'm sure the films aren't for everyone, but having worked most of my career at the intersection of legal and finance/accounting, I find the stories fascinating. The case of BlackBerry is even more so given that it took place within my lifetime. Being able to map the events in the film against my own recollection of BlackBerry's prevalence definitely adds something. Combine that with solid writing and fantastic performances from both Jay Baruchel and Glenn Howerton and the end result is an easy recommend.

As a tiny little nitpick, I think "save the cat" moment of Mike fixing the buzzing intercom in the opening scene was a bit cliché and ultimately unnecessary. I think the theme/message would have been equally (if not more) effective had he just identified the buzz, given the same commentary about it, maybe even opened it up and tried to fix it, but not actually fixed it. It's just a bit of an eye roll, because I don't buy that thirty seconds and a paper clip is enough to fix much of anything. But I'm not an electrical engineer, so maybe I'm totally off base. In any case, not a big deal, and ultimately the scene works just fine as is, but I would have tweaked it.

Benoit Blanc's second outing is an enjoyable film, but still felt like a step down when compared to the original. It tries to do all of the same things, but none of them are quite as successful. The ensemble isn't as compelling, the humor doesn't land quite as often, and, most critically, the central mystery isn't nearly as clever and satisfying. All of that said, I consider the original film to be an instant classic, so the bar was quite high, and even falling short of that bar, this film has plenty of worthwhile elements. The set-up is fantastic, and I was totally on board with everything up through the hilarious scene where Benoit instantly solves Miles' murder mystery game and wins an iPad. Additionally, even though the humor wasn't quite as consistent, there were still some inspired moments, one of the standouts being when Benoit dabs his eyes with Jeremy Renner's hot sauce. The film also got plenty of mileage out of extravagant billionaire related humor (e.g. the live stream of Serena Williams in the personal gym). There were also plenty of cameos, some of which were used to solid effect, while others felt strangely superfluous (what was the point of Hugh Grant? Was he playing himself, like the various celebrities Benoit was facetiming with in his tub, or was he a character?).

As for my critiques of the central mystery, the plotting just felt a little forced. For example, Benoit's final monologue in which he identifies the culprit hinges on the idea that Miles had been completely ruled out as a suspect on account of his reputation as a genius. However, the decision to rule him out was force fed to the audience and glossed over so quickly that it never really felt right to begin with. As such, this monologue that is positioned as a big reveal, doesn't feel like much of a reveal at all. Also, the bombastic finale dragged on too long and lead to an overly predictable payoff (the glass breaking into fire starting into Mona Lisa burning took forever, and with how often the Mona Lisa security was mentioned/shown, it was obvious what was going to happen). I couldn't help but feel like the movie was missing one extra twist or turn that could have kept things a bit more fresh. In fact, the writing had a set up for one that would have worked with very minimal changes: Whiskey should have been the one to shoot Andi. She thought that Andi killed Duke and had an extended moment near Duke's body where she could have grabbed his gun. This would have made the final cat and mouse more interesting, as Miles would have been able to honestly deny one of the crimes, thus casting doubt on his overall guilt. That's just me spitballing, but I think it would have made for a more interesting third act.

While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.

First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.

When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.

Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.

I was a huge fan of the TV show Mr. Inbetween, so when I learned that Scott Ryan, the writer/star, had created and portrayed the character of Ray Shoesmith 13 years prior in a faux-documentary, I knew that I had to track it down and give it a watch. Ultimately, I think the movie contains glimpses of the future brilliance of Mr. Inbetween, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it on its own. It's a very low budget film that is essentially comprised of a handful of short stories that are intercut with each other and with stand alone tarantino-esque quirky dialogue exchanges. The budget is a tad distracting, with dark scenes (the opening in particular) rendering as mostly indistinguishable blobs of pixels. That said, the dialogue is full of dark humor and a few of the vignettes tell interesting stories. I'd say it's definitely worth a watch if you enjoyed Mr. Inbetween.

On a more meta level, I'm very interested in the story behind how a tiny indie film from 2005 ends up being turned into a high quality FX show 13 years later. Especially considering that the star/creator has done no other film work in the meantime. I don't know what number cruncher/decision maker took that risk, but I would think they deserve some serious credit. Of course, so does Scott Ryan, who not only created this great character, but also did a terrific job portraying them, giving them a unique look, a signature smile, and the perfect reserved yet confident attitude.

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.

About on par with the last couple years of Marvel content, which is to say, serviceable, but unspectacular.

My biggest problem with the film were the antagonists, who were not only underdeveloped, but also a bit too goofy for my liking. I just can't take winged ankles seriously. The blue skinned Aztec people felt similarly odd, and with Avatar: The Way of Water just around the corner, a civilization of water focused blue folks doesn't even land as original. Additionally, the connection between Wakanda and this other vibranium based civilization doesn't really make sense. Why did the same flower have such dramatically different effects for the two groups and Namor himself? That question is posed by two of the characters at one point, but the movie never bothers to provide a satisfying answer. I also thought the tactics of the antagonists were questionable. Given everything we had already heard from Namor, his mid-movie attack on Wakanda felt like convenient plotting. Such a successful attack and the assassination of the queen feels like it wouldn't culminate in a simple withdrawal and ultimatum.

While the antagonists weren't my favorite, I did generally enjoy all of our heroes. Shuri's emotional arc was quite strong, and the use of Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger was an excellent way to punctuate it. That said, Marvel's reputation for avoiding darker turns deflated the arc somewhat, as I was quite confident that things wouldn't go in the more extreme direction that was hinted at (although I kind of wish they had, as the set-up was solid).

Getting into some smaller thoughts/critiques, I thought the action was a mixed bag, with some of the smaller scale fights being well choreographed and weighty, where as the bigger moments and set pieces feeling a bit too CGI-packed and cheesy (the aforementioned ankle wings definitely didn't help). Also, it may have just been my theater, but I found that certain scenes felt too dark, to the point that I was straining to make out details (e.g. during the first attack at the vibranium drill site in the ocean).

As one final positive note, the Marvel logo tribute to Chadwick Boseman was a touching gesture. His gravitas/presence was definitely missed.

I've been putting off writing this review because I don't really have much to say. It's been just over a month since I watched the film and I'm struggling to remember even the basic plot points, let alone any memorable scenes. It was decidedly forgettable. The entire process felt like a box checking exercise by someone trying to make a globe-trotting, treasure hunter film. We've got maps, we've got keys, we've got booby traps, we've got ancient ruins buried in modern cities, we've got predictable betrayals, etc. It's all been done before, and it's all been done better (shout out to the first National Treasure, which feels like the last film that really succeeded in this genre). The clue following and the mystery solving are token at best, with some combination of hand wave-y exposition and straight up stupid solutions (Tom Holland using both keys to "triangulate" the true treasure location on the map had me laughing in the theater with how absurd it is). The comedy mostly missed, with Tom Holland not able to successfully pull off the Spider-Man style quips with this character (mostly a writing issue I think). The action was unimpressive, with the climactic finale being so eye-rollingly unbelievable that it puts even the most ridiculous video game set pieces to shame. All in all, about what we've come to expect out of video game adaptations. That is to say, a disappointment.

There's a lot to talk about with this film. I mean, how can there not be when it's almost three hours long.

First, I want to discuss two comps. One that might feel obvious, and another less so. That is Watchmen and Dune. There's superficial similarities, such as length, with all three of these films running 2.5+ hours. In the case of Watchmen, you could also point to the narration based on the journaling of a masked vigilante. On top of that, there's the excellent production design, costumes, and cinematography. But the reason I point to these films as comps has less to do with those things, and more to do with the overall approach. All three films are heavily atmospheric. Oozing with style. If I had to label the category, I would call them auteur blockbusters. This is a relatively uncommon pairing due to the fundamental conflict between the risk associated with a singular artistic vision and the expense associated with big budget productions. In the crowded superhero genre, there's a lot of films that feel made-by-committee. Marvel has a reputation for their second unit directors, who film the action sequences for every MCU film. I don't know how accurate that reputation is, but the MCU certainly feels like it's struggled against a same-y quality that results in some of their films not having a lasting impact. The fact that several auteur directors have joined and subsequently abandoned MCU projects (e.g. Edgar Wright with Ant-Man or Scott Derrickson with the Doctor Strange sequel) certainly seems supportive of this conflict. Meanwhile, The Batman (and Watchmen and Dune) feel like they went all in on a singular artistic vision and, for the most part, I think they were better for it.

Getting into the actual film, Robert Pattinson continues to impress in his post-Twilight career, making for both an excellent Batman and Bruce Wayne. That said, I was somewhat disappointed that we didn't get more of the latter. Thinking back to Batman Begins, Christian Bale's portrayal of the playboy billionaire got plenty of screen time, with numerous memorable and character developing scenes. By comparison, Robert Pattinson seems to spend most of his time in the mask. This isn't a major issue, as ultimately we're here to see the caped crusader, but I do wonder how things could have looked with a slightly more balanced ratio. I was also impressed with Paul Dano's Riddler. His costume was suitably creepy, his dialogue suitably psychotic, and his performance suitably chilling.

As for the story, it didn't exactly blow me away, but it gets the job done. For such a long film, the plot actually seemed to move pretty quickly, feeling very comic book-esque as it jumped from one clue to the next as Batman tries to solve Riddler's ultimate puzzle. While I generally enjoyed the detective work, there are plenty of instances where suspension of disbelief is threadbare as some questionable logical leaps take us from one location to the next. Also, the culmination of the story didn't really land for me. Exposition dumps came fast and loose toward the finale, in one instance with contradictory reveals seemingly coming back to back (i.e. a character gives devastating news in one scene, and the very next scene a different character says "nope, that was wrong"). Additionally, Falcone's ultimate villainy felt like something of a false-twist, making the whole rat investigation feel like it didn't go anywhere interesting. Luckily, none of these problems are egregious enough to drag down the solid foundation.

Speaking of the length, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the film was longer than necessary. It's jam packed with lingering shots, to the point where you could probably cut 20 minutes without losing a single line of dialogue or plot point. Now, that's not to say that I would recommend such extreme measures. There's merit in letting certain moments hang, and the cinematography alone justifies plenty of these shots. That said, I still think some were overdone and that prudent trimming could be justified.

Some quick final thoughts. While my typical anti-narration stance remains, I wasn't too bothered by its implementation here. In fact, I thought the opening monologue and set-up with the various criminals all afraid of a potential encounter with Batman was well executed. Finally, regarding the action, I thought the hand to hand combat through most of the film was excellent. However, I do think there were a couple non-hand to hand moments that got a little over the top, such as the Batmobile chase that culminated in ramping off of a truck (although I will acknowledge that the upside down follow up shot, with Batman silhouetted by the explosion as he approached the Penguin, looked badass). Additionally, the finale set-piece with all of the shooters in the stadium rafters was a bit questionable, as it had Batman taking a lot more direct gunfire than you'd expect.

A not-so original sci-fi feature that punches above its weight class in terms of spectacle and world building, but is lacking in the writing department more often than not. Way too many examples of ham-fisted, on-the-nose dialogue, as characters bluntly tell the protagonist how high the stakes are, how important the child is, or any number of other expositional dumps. The high-level story is also rife with clichés, with the central arc feeling familiar to the point of predictability. Now, there are moments that land effectively. I would specifically call out the early interactions between Joshua and Alphie as being among the strongest of the film. But those moments are few and far between, as a lot of the more ambitious emotional beats feel rushed and/or forced. On top of that, it seems like delivering spectacle was perhaps overly prioritized, as many sequences don't hold up to even the most surface level logical scrutiny, resulting in a lot of eye-rolling, head scratching, and ultimately the death of suspension of disbelief (e.g., suicide bomb robots seem silly when you've got a massive tank shooting precise missiles that are shown to be more effective, or standby mode somehow fooling an army of scientists, or Nomad seemingly being in multiple places at once in the final sequence). Admittedly, those types of complaints are nitpicky, and if the dialogue and big picture story had landed better, I think they would be easily forgiven. Not to mention, as I said initially, the visuals are fantastic. The Nomad's eerie beam of blue light is unique and memorable. The contrast of futuristic robots in a rural Asian setting offers plenty of striking visuals. I have no doubt that Gareth Edwards got incredible bang for his buck, stretching his $80 million budget to look on par with films that cost twice that. But in the end, the whole is less than the sum of its parts, with all of the fantastic visuals and handful of strong ideas combining into a package that was just okay.

I don't usually write TV reviews (too daunting of a task, as I watch a lot of TV), but I was so surprised by all of the criticism and lukewarm comments that I felt the need to throw my two cents in. To put it simply, the writing on this show is leaps and bounds above the writing on all other franchise TV released by Disney+ to date (Star Wars/Marvel). Maybe audiences are just used to the blunt force writing we often see in those other shows, where we are spoon fed on the nose dialogue that tells us exactly what is happening and how we should feel about it. I, for one, much prefer some nuance and subtlety in my TV, and that's what this show delivers. We get to piece together Cassian's plan without ever needing the show to spell things out. It's refreshing and engaging.

Moving to the smaller scale writing, I don't know how someone can watch the introduction scene of Syril Karn and Chief Hyne and not recognize the absolutely top notch dialogue, performances, characterization, story telling, etc. It does so many things at once, and it does them all brilliantly. And that's just one scene! The first episode has many that are equally impressive. As far as criticisms go, I will acknowledge that the opening four or five minutes were a little underwhelming. However, once we get to the actual instigating event, which happens around minute seven or eight, we get another example of excellent writing, dialogue, and performances.

All in all, easily the best Star Wars content we've seen since Rogue One.

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.

The premise of this film had lots of potential. I love the idea of taking a small slice of a larger story and expanding it into its own thing, and a classic like Dracula seems ripe for such an exercise. Unfortunately, the execution doesn’t capitalize on the potential, delivering an uninspired horror film, where the horror elements are bland and repetitive, and the human drama outside of the horror is too paper-thin to carry the film on its own (there also just wasn’t enough of it). The end result is a slog, where I wasn’t able to get invested in either the plot or the characters.

As an aside, I saw this film in a pre-screening a full 12 months prior to its ultimate release, so the version I saw was still a work-in-progress, with plenty of unfinished CGI throughout. Despite the potential for improvements, my primary critiques are high level, and I don’t see how much can be done to correct them between now and final release. If the movie ends up getting positive reviews (which I don’t suspect it will), my curiosity may compel me to give it another chance just to see what the filmmakers were able to change in that time.

One more specific critique, the opening I saw featured a text crawl and flashforward that I think were entirely unnecessary and could have been replaced by a prologue scene involving the preparation for the shipment. They already have a focus on the crates and use the fear of the shipping folk to nice effect, but they could have started a bit further back and come up with a horror beat that could have hinted at elements to be revealed later in the film (such as the crates with townsfolk for Dracula to feed on).

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.

It's crazy to think that film has been around long enough that a remake can arrive almost a century after the original. With a gap that long, it's unsurprising that most younger audiences (including myself) have never seen the 1930 adaptation of this novel. Of course, I like to go into movies blind anyway, so it was my preference to judge the film without any bias driven by comparisons to the Best Picture winning original.

The aspect of the film that I enjoyed most was that it comes from the less explored German perspective. When compared to the Allied perspective that audiences are more accustomed to, there are the obvious high level differences (e.g. driving toward a looming defeat versus a triumphant victory), but there are also many little details that I really enjoyed (e.g. the dog tags that snap in two). The opening was clever and well executed, with the life cycle of a German uniform really driving home the scope and human cost of the war. The filmmaking is also excellent, with plenty of striking visuals and memorable moments. And while it may not be the most elaborate musical motif, the deep, ominous bass riff that repeats throughout was incredibly effective.

Regarding the story, it combines a classic "war is hell" narrative (i.e. naive young soldier joins up with his buddies only to lose them one by one as he discovers that there's nothing heroic about war) with a clever big picture narrative (the pending armistice acting as a ticking clock to the end of hostilities). It's a powerful source of dramatic irony that adds a lot of weight to every death. The central performance by Felix Kammerer was also fantastic, with his eyes and demeanor sinking as the war dragged on.

All of that said, I think I've become a bit numb to the actual war sequences that comprise the major beats of the story. Especially with 1917 being only a couple years old, the spectacle of trench warfare just didn't hit as hard. There's only so many ways to show soldiers charging through no man's land, or getting evaporated by artillery shells, or run through by bayonets. That's not to say the movie does a bad job with any of these things. I think it's all visually and technically well executed. But it all feels familiar. The movie was at its best outside of those moments, with trips to steal a goose or eggs standing out above the actual fight on the western front.

I know a horror movie is well made when I have to pause it multiple times to give myself a break from the tension. Although, in this film's case, I'd also point out that the movie itself did an excellent job of providing those tension release moments. I still ended up supplementing them with some pauses of my own, but I really enjoyed the structure. The transition and new character introduction after the first major horror beat was fantastic and the build up to having his story intersect with the central horror plot was brilliant writing. In fact, I'd complement virtually all of the writing. The top level premise is clever and well executed, and the moment to moment dialogue is strong, even delivering a few great humorous moments (the whole scene with Justin Long busting out the measuring tape was great). It also doesn't hurt that the three central performances are all excellent.

As far as minor criticisms go, the movie does have its fair share of groan inducing decision making by characters that clearly have never seen a horror movie themselves. There's also the completely implausible superhuman strength of the monster. Finally, I was a bit disappointed in the ultimate direction that Justin Long's character took. There were a few ham fisted dialogue exchanges that sacrificed any potential nuance in favor of making him a cartoon villain. That said, the execution is so strong that none of these issues/moments detracted meaningfully.