SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

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.

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.

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.

Movies based on true stories often struggle to impress me. I think this is mainly due to two interconnected issues: (1) minor knowledge of the true story can make the movie feel predictable or even boring; and (2) those elements of the movie that do manage to surprise often raise alarm bells as I instinctively assume that they are the result of creative liberties or embellishment at the very least (for example, the ridiculously coincidental sequence in which Will Smith intends to shoot his daughter's harasser right as the harasser is the victim of a drive by shooting feels like pure Hollywood fiction). These issues are perhaps even more problematic when the true story is sport based, as sports movies have their own baggage in the form of numerous well worn tropes and clichés.

All of that said, the movie is far from bad. Will Smith plays the complicated father role well. The child actresses, which can often make or break a movie like this, all do a good job. I thought both coach relationships were interesting and well executed. Jon Bernthal in particular seemed to have a lot of fun in his role. There were also plenty of nice tennis history callouts/cameos that I was able to appreciate even as only a passive tennis fan. All in all, probably worth the watch for Will Smith fans, tennis fans, and certainly Venus/Serena fans.

I don't think it's really fair to compare a collection of short films to feature length films. Specifically, I think the difficulty of creating 90-120 minutes of compelling and cohesive story is exponentially higher than creating 5-10 minute vignettes. I think this increased difficulty is largely driven by the connective tissue that is required in a feature length film. That connective tissue comes in the form of balanced pacing to keep an audience engaged for two hours and more complex narratives to sustain that runtime. In comparison, a short film has less moving parts, doesn't need a traditional story arc, and can often be built around a single sequence or idea. As a collection, each short can end whenever is convenient and move on to the next without paying any mind to pacing.

Now, all of that said, I'm going to make the unfair comparison and say that Animatrix is undoubtedly better than every Matrix sequel. While that's not a particularly high bar, this film isn't just a step above them, but rather leaps and bounds. With it's diverse collection of stories and animation styles, I couldn't help but be reminded of the fantastic Netflix series Love, Death + Robots. This is particularly high praise considering that this film predated LD+R by over 15 years. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if LD+R was at least partly inspired by the success of Animatrix.

As for the individual shorts, I'll include some brief thoughts on each below.

Final Flight of the Osiris: Perhaps the most traditional of all of the shorts, with an action focused story that directly connects to the plotlines of the mainline trilogy. Unfortunately this results in a short that feels quite unoriginal compared the rest, especially having recently watched the films. I think I've seen more than enough shooting at sentinels. Overall, inoffensive but nothing groundbreaking.

The Second Renaissance Parts I and II: These documentary-esque shorts provide a history lesson on the relationship between man and machine, a history that is full of interesting beats that meaningfully expand the Matrix lore. I think part one covered more ground and was more compelling than part two, but they both were well done.

Kid's Story: Another direct connection to the mainline trilogy, providing a very cool origin story to a Reloaded/Revolutions character that I didn't think was very compelling in the live action films. Animation style was also suitably unique.

Program: I enjoyed the animation style here, and the action was fun enough, but the story didn't land meaningfully for me.

World Record: The concept behind this segment was very cool. Unfortunately, this was the only short where I didn't really love the animation style.

Beyond: This one is probably one of my top two, as it just felt so unique from the rest. It easily could have been a LD+R episode with no connection to the Matrix and it would have been great in that context too.

A Detective Story: My other favorite of the bunch. This one has a very direct connection to a mainline Matrix character, but the black and white noir style sets it apart in a fantastic way. The animation is top notch, with some very memorable shots.

Matriculated: Towards the lower end for me. I liked the idea, but the execution got a bit too abstract for my tastes.

I don't have a great recollection of the 2nd and 3rd films, but I still feel comfortable saying that this is the weakest of the bunch. Based on reporting, the budget for this entry was significantly reduced compared to the previous films ($85M vs $135/$150/$145), and you can tell. The animation is noticeably less detailed and the absence of the furious 5 was almost certainly a cost cutting measure. However, the lower budget isn't what drags the film down. In fact, I think it makes sense to push back against bloated animation budgets. Do we really think the primarily younger audiences are going to care about the graphical fidelity of the animal fur or how realistic the water simulations are? I think studios are realizing that there are diminishing (perhaps even zero) returns at higher budgets. While I couldn't find any reported numbers, I expect that animation budget for Adam Sandler's recent Netflix film, Leo, was comparatively low, as they leveraged a stylized/simplistic style that still allowed for all sorts of visual creativity. The point being, creative and engaging visuals don't need to be expensive and ultimately it's the story/characters that do the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, that's where this film disappoints. The story is incredibly rushed, at some points feeling like they cut entire sequences (e.g., when Zhen gives Po a cryptic quote about footprints, we cut to him following foot prints through the snow, and then we cut back to Zhen following up on the cryptic quote. The movie feels like it's going through the motions, relying heavily on call back material in lieu of anything more original.

This film slots into a relatively small intersection of genres, the action-rom-com. The action elements were serviceable, but nothing spectacular. The romance was slightly more interesting, as it forms the backbone of the entire premise. However, while I like the idea, the execution was lacking. Specifically, the opening meet-cute/date sequence that sets up the titular ghosting was too slow and the chemistry wasn’t clicking for me. Once the ghosting occurs, things do improve, particularly with respect to Chris Evans and his interactions with his family. Still, the rest of the romance is sprinkled throughout the action set pieces and doesn’t ever feel completely natural. Finally, the comedy is very much hit or miss. The primary source is Marvel-esque quippiness that is getting more tired with every passing year, but there’s plenty that lands well enough to generate chuckles. Some of the funniest moments are surprise cameo sequences that feel a bit like cheap fan service, but they still got a big smile out of me.

It seems like Ana de Armas has become one of the go to female action stars of late, getting big roles in No Time to Die, The Gray Man, and now this film. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of these roles have really given her a chance to stand out in the same way that she has in things like Knives Out and Blade Runner 2049. While I think the writing for her characters in these action films is partly to blame, I also think that the action focus can sometimes pull away from the performance regardless of the writing. It’s a symptom of screen time really. The more over the top the action, the more time we spend with a stunt double or CGI replacement, rather than with the actual actress. It’s trading time that might otherwise provide character development for another gun fight or car chase. All of this is to say, I wasn’t super impressed with Ana de Armas in this film, which was unfortunate.

Chris Evans’ character had a bit more to work with in terms of arc and he definitely benefited from it. I think this is mostly a symptom of him being the fish out of water and proxy for the audience. I also think his comedic chops are a bit more honed.

In the end, I suspect this film will do well with audiences, but I don’t expect it to be anyone’s favorite.

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.

My religious avoidance of trailers has undoubtedly had a positive effect on my film going experiences. Watching trailers creates expectations, both regarding the quality of the film, as well as the story, tone, and style. I have found that removing these expectations leads to a much more satisfying watch, where every plot point can surprise you and pre-conceived notions don't poison your assessment. Unfortunately, even without watching trailers, expectations sometimes are unavoidable. This is certainly the case with The Power of the Dog, where even just the knowledge that it is a Western was enough for me to have expectations. As a simple example, going into a Western, I expect guns to be going off at some point in the film. Well... spoiler alert: that expectation was not met. And that doesn't make this a bad film. In fact, I believe the lack of shoot outs has no bearing on its quality. But, because I had this expectation going in, it created a very real disconnect while I watched.

Moving past my misguided expectations, this Best Picture nominee is an incredibly well made film that just isn't in my wheel house. That said, I had no trouble recognizing and appreciating the quality. The acting is spectacular all around, with Benedict Cumberbatch's performance being absolutely masterful. The film is just dripping with tension, equal parts aggressive and sexual. Every exchange is full of nuance, often with just facial expressions and silent exchanges doing the heavy lifting. The dramatic relationship conflicts at the heart of the story are surprising and the execution unconventional.

As far as criticisms go, the significant shift that occurs in Cumberbatch's character midway through the movie felt oddly rushed. The ending had a similar problem, with plot points feeling forced to manufacture the dramatic resolution. As one last very minor complaint, I was disappointed that Thomasin McKenzie didn't have a larger role. After seeing Last Night in Soho and Leave No Trace, I've definitely become a fan, so to see her relegated to glorified extra felt like a waste of talent.

In recent years I've made a point to watch all 10 Best Picture nominees. It's a relatively achievable goal that forces me to broaden my horizons from the typical blockbuster fare and prepares me both for water cooler talk and future Jeopardy questions. While on the whole it's a worthwhile endeavor, inevitably there are films in this category for which I am definitively not the target audience. West Side Story (2021) is one such film. I don't seek out musicals. I don't have a deep appreciation for extended dance numbers. Romance is not my favorite genre. And I wasn't a particularly big fan of the Shakespeare unit back in English Lit. Absent the Best Picture nomination, the only other motivation I would have to watch this film is the director, which, admittedly, might have been enough. I mean... it's fucking Steven Spielberg.

And really, that idea is my big takeaway from this movie. Spielberg doesn't make bad movies, so even though this one isn't my type, I can still recognize how incredibly well made it is. The direction, cinematography, and production design are absolutely top notch. And even as an uncultured layman, I couldn't help but be impressed by the dance numbers. Unfortunately, the music still didn't do anything for me, even though I'm sure it was also well done. I'm used to musicals full of pop sounding tracks that are trying to (and sometimes succeeding) in becoming radio hits. This certainly isn't that. I heard someone explain that the soundtrack/lyrics are more operatic in nature, which makes sense to me, as they generally seemed to be overly dramatic and on the nose. That said, some songs/sequences still landed quite effectively, with Tony and Riff's fight over the gun being a standout for me.

Finally, regarding the story, I was surprised to find that it kept me invested despite the film's length. Having never seen any previous rendition of West Side Story, my only prior knowledge was that it was a take on Romeo and Juliet. This ended up adding to the experience, as I was kept curious as to how certain story elements would be handled and was pleasantly surprised by the ending.

I have a hard time calling this movie bad given that so much of the "badness" is so obviously intentional. This is a lovingly crafted b-movie that doesn't shy away from being utterly ridiculous. In fact, being utterly ridiculous seems to be the main intention. While I don't think that intention generally merits a feature length film, they pull it off here thanks to an aggressive pace and a short runtime that recognizes the lack of substance. Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti are game for some delightfully hammy dialogue and performances. Combine that with the juvenile, over-the-top action sequences and off-beat humor, and it was enough to keep me watching. Where else would I get the chance to see a carrot used to fire a submachine gun?

Now, all of that said, I have an equally hard time calling this movie good. Not all of the over-the-top moments land, and for every scene that had me laughing at the absurdity of it all, there was another that had me rolling my eyes and wondering why I wasn't watching something with higher aspirations. There's also the issue of special effects, with dated CGI roaring its ugly head and handicapping some of the most ridiculous scenes. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out that there's plenty of practical effect work to appreciate, with blood squids galore. In fact, I couldn't help but wonder how much more CGI this movie would have if they made it today? I suspect, to its detriment. The camera work was another black mark, with action often being lost in a whirlwind of excessive cuts.

All things considered, I don't regret the watch, but I probably wouldn't recommend it.

In today's environment of bottomless new content competing for my attention, I really struggle to find reasons to re-watch anything. The siren call of the new and unknown, brimming with potential greatness, will inevitably win out over the familiar. However, the one exception to this rule is when I have opportunities to watch things with others. After all, what is the purpose of trekking out into the unknown if I don't share what I discover. With that said, this was a re-watch for me, as my mother was visiting and was looking to watch a movie. This film had really resonated with me and I thought she would connect with its story as well.

I wasn't writing reviews at the time of my first watch, so I figured I'd circle back with a brief write-up. If you're unaware, this film is based on a stage play, so you should be prepared for a very small, dialogue driven story. That said, the clever central conceit (our perspective mirroring the unreliable perception of Hopkins' character as his mind deteriorates with age) provides a backbone of drama and mystery as the story unfolds. It's the perfect blend of high and low concept (a simple narrative twist applied to a dialogue driven character study). Ultimately, the main thing to talk about here is the powerhouse performance of Anthony Hopkins. There's a reason he won an Oscar for this role. His character's arc through the movie feels authentic, with the entire spectrum of human emotions on display. Historically I'm not one to get emotional during movies, but that may be changing, as Hopkins' performance in some of the final scenes of this film definitely had my eyes watering up.

I think slice-of-life films have a disadvantage over those that are structured around more linear and external dramatic narratives. In murder mysteries for example, the plot alone might be enough to keep viewers invested, as they try to anticipate the twists and turns and identify the culprit. On the other hand, in films like The Tender Bar, there isn't necessarily an "A leads to B leads to C" plot progression, with many scenes feeling more like independent vignettes than pieces of a whole. As a result, characters and dialogue, rather than plot, have to do the heavy lifting. Luckily, this film knocks it out of the park in both of those areas.

Every character in this film feels real. Of course, it is based on a true story, so naturally you would hope that would be the case, but I've watched enough movies to know that it's easier said than done. The central relationships are unique and well established. Not often do we get to see an uncle/nephew relationship take the center stage. I've always had a soft spot for Ben Affleck, and the unconventional role model character was perfect for him. Child actors are always a risky play, but Daniel Ranieri does a fantastic job as the precocious JR. Christopher Lloyd is the perfect crotchety grandpa with a heart of gold. One of my favorite sequences in the film was when he takes JR to the fathers' and sons' breakfast. Such a wholesome moment that almost singlehandedly fleshes out an otherwise one note character, giving him virtues to go along with his flaws.

As far as potential critiques go, I don't have too much to say. Narration has always been a tough sell for me, but its use was fairly minimal and it ultimately didn't meaningfully detract. I also thought that the intercutting of scenes with JR on the train to Yale didn't really add much.

Some final positives. The soundtrack is killer. The dialogue is clever. The sets and costumes are stylish. Beyond that, it was thought provoking, uplifting, and just generally a well made film. As one final note, I should acknowledge that I'm probably biased in my enjoyment of this film, as my own writing aspirations gave me a natural connection to JR's story. Despite this acknowledgement, I'm still surprised at the film's less than positive critical reception.

After watching this film, the phrase that comes to mind is "less than the sum of its parts". There were plenty of fun ideas and sequences, but as a whole the movie was a bit disjointed. After a cliché, but effective opening, the film moves at a quick pace, with several time jumps to progress through its historically based narrative beats and make the most of its WWI backdrop. While these time jumps may have been necessary, and some were even well executed (the time lapse of a European landscape turning into trench warfare was certainly effective), ultimately it felt like the movie was checking boxes without meaningfully progressing the central conflict. I think these structural problems may be driven by the attempted reversal of one of the key moments from the original Kingsman, i.e. instead of having a father/son (mentor/mentee) relationship that is disrupted midway through the film by the surprise death of the mentor, this film has it be disrupted by the surprise death of the mentee. The moment still works alright, providing a much needed jolt of surprise to reenergize the plot, but ultimately I think the original film's setup creates a more compelling narrative thread.

Beyond the structure, I think this film's role as an origin story for "The Kingsman" agency was also somewhat limiting. The elements related to the "network of spies" were almost purely expository and/or montage driven, and were generally the weakest parts of the film. In particular, the initial reveal scene of the secret door and conspiracy wall covered command center strained my suspension of disbelief, as we are supposed to believe that three people are somehow operating any sort of meaningful operation. It also felt out of the blue and very much at odds with what was seen previously of Ralph Fiennes' character. In addition, the film tries to replicate the odd tonal balance of the original Kingsman film, which is a tough sell. Mixing extreme violence with elements of whimsy is a dangerous game, and the original Kingsman's success has proven tough to reproduce. My recollection is that the sequel, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, suffered similarly.

However, as noted above, the film has plenty of successful elements. The action is generally fun and well executed, with plenty of impressive choreography and direction (e.g. even though the premise of the no man's land encounter is ridiculous, it's still a clever idea and nice set piece). The acting was solid all around. Ralph Fiennes is dependable and Djimon Hounsou, though underutilized, is always a treat. Having Tom Hollander play King George, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas is a fun idea, although it wasn't used very effectively in my opinion. Despite 1917 and They Shall Not Grow Old bringing it some recent attention, WWI remains an underrepresented historical setting in recent film, so to see another film take a stab at it is always appreciated. At the same time, this also naturally results in comparisons to 1917, which, as one might expect, are not exactly favorable for this film (Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins are on another level).

As some final notes, Charles Dance is really going to struggle to overcome his days as Tywin Lannister, as I waited patiently throughout this film for his inevitable betrayal (I won't spoil you by saying whether it came or not). And finally, the central villain, who I was quite certain was going to be David Tennant based on his voice, was in fact, not David Tennant, which was a nice twist (note that this is not a spoiler, as David Tennant is not in the film at all).

Coming-of-age is an interesting genre, as it often attempts a delicate balancing act of drama, comedy, and romance. This film certainly fits that description. In this case, the comedy is probably the strongest element, though it arrives primarily via the veteran supporting cast rather than the leads. Martin Starr, Bill Hader, and Kristen Wiig are all hilarious, often times performing what amounts to stand alone sketch comedy throughout the film (the unrefrigerated corn dog bit was a highlight). Additionally, the film gets plenty of comedic mileage out of the budget amusement park setting.

The romance and drama elements of the film are very intertwined. Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart share plenty of cute scenes, and I think they work well together as a somewhat awkward, unconventional pairing (the fact that they later starred together in American Ultra suggests that they may enjoy working together and have some natural chemistry, which is always nice to see). The dramatic elements to the romantic story are a little bit tougher to pull off. Unlike your typical rom-com, this film's romantic conflict doesn't come from some benign misunderstanding or "will-they won't-they" element, but rather incorporates some more serious drama. While these elements are perfectly serviceable, they didn't quite mesh with the rest of the story for me. This really stood out toward the end of the film, as it took some predictable turns, weaving toward a cliché finale. It also felt somewhat rushed and unearned, as the dramatic fallout of characters' bad decisions was relatively short-lived, being quickly swept aside to make way for an optimistic conclusion.

As a side note, I always find it interesting when plot threads are seemingly left hanging. In this case, the lack of resolution, or even acknowledgement of Mr. Brennan's presumed alcohol problem definitely stood out. Makes me wonder if there was ever the thought to add something more there, or if it was always going to be a silent acknowledgement.

I want to preface my review by acknowledging that I am definitely not the target audience of this film. I don't know that I've ever even seen a Gucci product, let alone purchased one, and I certainly didn't have any interest in the history of the brand. I watched this as a fan of Ridley Scott, Adam Driver, and Lady Gaga (who I have been excited to see expand her filmography after really enjoying A Star is Born (2018)).

When I reviewed King Richard a couple of months back, I pointed out two consistent issues that I have with movies based on true stories: (1) minor knowledge of the true story can make the movie feel predictable or even boring; and (2) those elements of the movie that do manage to surprise, often raise alarm bells as I instinctively assume that they are the result of creative liberties or embellishment. Luckily, House of Gucci suffered from neither of these problems. Unluckily, it raised a far more fundamental issue: sometimes true stories just don't translate into compelling films. To illustrate this point with a hypothetical, if a screenwriter set out to write a fictional film about the drama of a wealthy fashion family, I don't think the final product would look anything like House of Gucci. Without the restrictions of the real world, there would be more drama, more conflict, more substance. What we got instead, was over two and half hours of inoffensive but unexciting relationship drama that feels better suited to a simple Wikipedia article than it does to a Ridley Scott directed film.

Despite this quite significant critique, the movie is still entirely watchable. While I can't speak to the authenticity of the Italian accents, none of the performances stuck out in a negative way and the production design and costumes were excellent to my admittedly fashion-illiterate eyes. As one final point of interest, while watching the movie I would have bet the farm that the eccentric, balding Paolo Gucci was played by Jeffrey Tambor. To say that I was surprised when I learned that it was in fact Jared Leto (presumably under a metric ton of makeup), would be a massive understatement.

The third classic slasher on my list and easily the best so far. Production value was notably higher. Doing some quick Googling, it looks like estimates put the budget of this film two to three times higher than the budgets of Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980), and the extra money definitely translated onto the screen, with more locations, higher quality/quantity of special effects, and just generally better production design. In particular, the dream sequences that seamlessly transition between different locations to evoke the twisted domain where Freddy rules were very well done. Moving on to the story, the premise of this film was also a nice step up, forgoing the overly simplistic killer setup. Here we have an explicitly supernatural horror, with both the characters and the audience slowly unraveling how things work together. Again, this is a huge improvement from Michael Myers' and Jason's first movies, as the characters actually participate in the plot rather than just waiting for their turn to die. I think the critical change is the fact that the characters all learn of each death in advance of the next, whereas with Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980), all of the deaths were pretty much hidden to the characters until the "final girl" stumbles across all of the bodies. That setup gave tension only to the audience, whereas this setup allows the tension to build within the characters too. Nancy Thompson is frightened to go to sleep, not just in the final act, but throughout this entire movie, and I think that makes for a more compelling story. Additionally, the acting was much improved from the aforementioned classic slashers. Now, despite all of these improvements, the movie unfortunately didn't quite stick the landing for me. Both the pseudo-ending and the sequel-bait switch out felt unearned and anticlimactic.

To end on a couple of positive notes: (1) the opening sequence showing Freddy craft his signature finger blades was a very strong start; and (2) as with the previous two slashers I watched, I was once again pleasantly surprised to be unspoiled about any of the details of this movie. As such, Tina's death took me very much by surprise, as I had assumed she would be the "final girl".

Horror films, and more specifically slasher films, have never been a high priority for me. In fact, until this week, I don't think I had seen a single slasher film. So, in recognition of the iconic reputation held by some of the classics of the genre, I am now setting out to remedy this gap in my film history. This film was the second in my journey, following Halloween (1978). Unfortunately, two movies in, I'm already starting to remember why these movies weren't a high priority.

To put it simply, this movie just doesn't have much to it. Most of the characters are lacking in meaningful development, and even in the cases where an attempt is made, the characterization doesn't end up mattering, with no connection to the plot, narratively or thematically. At the end of the day, the characters only purpose seems to be to die, which doesn't make for all that compelling of a film.

As with Halloween (1978), this movie undoubtedly inspired any number of tropes/clichés, and while credit should be given for introducing such elements, at the end of the day, they don't hold up. The final segment of the film is the worst offender, with the "final girl" walking away from an incapacitated (but still very much alive) villain, not once, but three times. That whole sequence was unbelievably hard to swallow.

As the only other slasher I have seen, I can't help but to compare and contrast this film to Halloween (1978). This film's soundtrack was not as effective for me. The villain didn't have as much of a presence throughout, which took away from the tension. On the plus side, I think the acting on display in this film was slightly better over all. The kills were also a bit more visceral (although still pretty tame to a modern audience).

Finally, as with Halloween (1978), I was pleasantly surprised that I was unspoiled as to the plot of such an iconic movie, totally unaware of the origin story of Jason Voorhees and the fact that he wasn't the killer. Also, I was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of Kevin Bacon, who I had no idea was in this. Mr. Bacon's less than graceful dive into the lake was probably the most unintentionally hilarious scene in the movie for me.

Prior to watching this, I went back and re-watched both of the originals from the '80s. Overall, I'd say that decision was 50% worthwhile, as the plot of this movie is very connected to the plot of the original, so if you haven't seen it recently, I'd definitely recommend a re-watch. However, you can absolutely skip the sequel, which, as far as I could tell, was not referenced at all in this movie.

This movie was a pleasant surprise. The premise might be the biggest strength, as it provides meaningful connections to the original, while at the same time building out a strong new cast of characters with emotional depth. The young performers are all quite excellent, with Mckenna Grace doing most of the heavy lifting and stealing the show. The other three don't have quite as much to do in the story, but Logan Kim and Finn Wolfhard still provide solid comedic relief. Unfortunately, Celeste O'Connor ends up feeling underused. Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd are both expectedly solid.

From a story perspective, the film starts strong. The pacing is snappy, the humor is generally on point, and the characters are all well established. However, once the central conflict starts ramping up around the halfway mark, things start to lose steam. After Carrie Coon's and Paul Rudd's characters are turned into the gatekeeper and the keymaster, the story ends up on autopilot, moving in a very predictable fashion toward the conclusion. None of it is particularly bad, but it's not great either. Luckily, the emotional payoff still lands well enough to carry the finale. I do think that introducing the original cast to the film sooner rather than later could have helped make up for the absence of Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd during the last 30-45 minutes.

All in all, a surprisingly worthwhile belated sequel.

Part 1 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Because this is the first, in this post I'm going to include a bit more background. I saw the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films plenty of times growing up, as we owned them both on DVD. Plus they, along with X-Men, were the first big superhero films of my life time. The other six movies (Spider-Man 3, Amazing 1 & 2, Homecoming, Far from Home, and Into the Spiderverse) I've probably only seen once or twice. As such, I expected these first two to be the most nostalgic experiences, which certainly proved to be the case here. So.... how did it hold up?

Well, it was a mixed bag. Before I get into the details, I'll say that I'm not updating my score based on this viewing. When I first joined Trakt (or more accurately, IMDB) I gave all movies I had seen previously scores from memory, and for this movie that score was an 8/10. This movie is a product of its time and so even though I certainly don't think it's as good as a modern movie that I would score an 8, it still deserves a huge amount of credit and so I wouldn't feel right lowering its score. Now, for my brief takeaways.

THE BAD: Lots of cheese. Rapid pacing takes away from dramatic moments (i.e. flashbacks to scenes that happened less than five minutes ago). Love triangle and everything to do with MJ was kind of a mess. Tobey Maguire unfortunately has to do a lot of heavy lifting in the acting department, and for me not enough of it lands.

THE GOOD: Willem Dafoe absolutely kills it. His green goblin laugh is iconic. J.K. Simmons absolutely kills it. Everything he says is iconic. Surprisingly, some of the effects hold up well enough. There's some PlayStation 2 level graphics on display here or there, but once Spidey gets his proper suit, the webslinging and fight sequences look quite solid, even leaving me impressed in a couple of moments.

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.

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.