SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

Prior to watching this film, I had some catching up to do on the slasher genre, having never seen any of the classics. I stuck to only the originals and watched Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), and Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). While those three didn't exactly win me over on the genre, I was still glad to have watched them, as this film makes numerous direct references to the characters and clichés of these classics. That said, I don't think you need to have seen them to enjoy this film, as the references aren't critical to the plot and can be understood through generous context in any case.

So, how does this meta-slasher stack up against the classics? It's better in pretty much every way. Both the story and the characters have more depth, with meaningful backstories, relationships, and reveals that all tie to the central conflict. Comedic elements actually land, both in terms of dialogue and meta-slasher commentary (Randy's slasher obsessed monologues are a good time, especially when coinciding with clever intercut moments). Finally, the biggest distinguishing success for me was the ending, which not only doesn't fall flat, but in fact lands so successfully so as to retroactively improve my assessment of the rest of the film. For example, some of the acting that I thought was a little too hammy in the first and second acts (Matthew Lillard's portrayal of Stu) is re-contextualized by the finale and feels much more appropriate in retrospect. It's a well-acted, bloody set piece with twists and turns that had just the right amount of bread crumbs to make them feel earned. It turns a would-be slasher into a who-dun-it that you feel like you could have actually solved, which is a nice change of pace from the much more simplistic classics. In the end, unlike in the case of those classics, with this film I'm actually interested in checking out the sequels, which serves as a solid endorsement to its quality.

EDIT: Forgot that I had taken a couple of notes during the movie. First, the cliché scene where a character is in a bathroom stall and overhears people talking about them was surprisingly solid. And two, being a big fan of Peaky Blinders, it's always fun to hear a soundtrack that includes "On a gathering storm comes a tall handsome man, in a dusty black coat with a red right hand". And given the killer's black costume, it's even somewhat relevant.

I am sometimes tempted to put Gerard Butler's recent career in the same bucket as that of Nicolas Cage and Bruce Willis, who both have been known to act in c-level schlock for a paycheck. However, looking back on Butler's filmography of late, I really think I'm not being fair to old Leonidas. While his recent films could be described as schlocky for sure, none of them are really comparable to the true garbage you might see if you watch every film that has Willis' face plastered on the poster (no offence intended, I'm sure if I was in Willis' shoes I'd do the same). In any case, this movie corrected my misjudgment. It's good. Really good in fact. With a little more money behind it, I think it actually had the potential to be great. The writing might be the stand-out here, with a set-up that is so simple and effective that, as an audience member, you are immediately excited to see how things play out. The pacing keeps that excitement building, ramping up appropriately throughout the lean runtime. While there are definitely some over-the-top/cliché elements toward the end, none of them are deal-breakers. The acting is also strong across the board. Toby Huss has a ton of fun in his role and while Gerard Butler's performance is very much on brand for him, it's a brand that he excels at and it's entertaining as ever. There's also some solid humor sprinkled in throughout.

While I wasn't able to find any info or estimate regarding the budget for this film, Joe Carnahan's previous film, Boss Level, had a reported budget of $45 million. I haven't seen that film, so I can't directly compare, but I suspect that Copshop was made for significantly less than that and unfortunately the limited budget is recognizable at various points throughout the film. Some effect work is a bit rough and the filming of certain scenes seemed detrimentally budget driven. The handful of night scenes also stood out in a bad way, all looking like they were done with a night filter of some sort (this could be a stylistic choice, but it looked odd and cheap to my eyes). Luckily, none of these issues were major enough to meaningfully detract from the film's successful elements and at the end of the day I'd recommend this to anyone looking for a solid action/thriller.

Part 8 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Generally I have not been updating my original scores during this marathon, even in cases when the films didn't hold up, but in this case it's a nonissue because my original score (8/10) still feels appropriate.

THE BAD: No big problems, just nitpicks. I'm not a big fan of Miles' non-traditional venom strike and invisibility powers. They just don't feel very Spider-Man to me (apologies in advance if they are actually comic book accurate powers, but I certainly wasn't aware of them beforehand). That said, I appreciate their importance from a narrative perspective and thought they were used well throughout the movie. While the over-the-top nature of this movie's premise is obviously very intentional and allows for extreme creativity, certain elements just weren't my speed. In particular, the Looney Tunes-esque Peter Porker was not a real value-add for me. There were also certain action sequences (e.g. the cemetery/dragged by train set piece) that were a bit more slapstick/cartoonish than I would like, especially given the darker tone/event that kicked off the plot.

THE GOOD: The most impressive thing about this movie is the fact that it successfully executes such a ridiculously ambitious premise. Interdimensional antics have been a mainstay of comic book storytelling for probably 50+ years, but this film might be the first real success in translating those antics to the big screen. The darker elements of the story are well executed, leading to some very effective emotional beats (including a great Stan Lee cameo, rest in peace). The animation is top tier, with maximum creativity on display in every scene. In particular, the comic book inspired elements (thought bubbles, multi-panel sequences, etc.) are perfect. The soundtrack is killer. The voice acting is top notch. The humor is plentiful, naturalistic, and meaningfully contributes to character development. Jake Johnson's Peter B. Parker is an impressive example of how lean storytelling combined with well known mythos can establish compelling new characters very quickly (this technique was also used to varying degrees of success in Marvel's recent animated What If...? show on Disney+).

And with that, my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon is officially over. Luckily, with No Way Home coming out tomorrow, I won't have to wait long to get another dose of the web-slinger. It's really a testament to the character that even after watching 8 straight films, I'm still excited for more.

Part 6 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. As with all of the others, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (8/10) based on this viewing. However, when it came to the Sam Raimi trilogy and Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2, the reason I didn't want to update my score was because the movies didn't necessarily hold up, and relative to modern standards the scores likely would have needed to be decreased. That was not the case here. In fact, while watching the movie I incorrectly thought that I had originally given it a 7/10. Based on that false recollection, I actually was prepared to increase this movie's score because... what can I say? It's a really great movie.

THE BAD: Not a lot to criticize here, and really all of my critiques are the same ones I remember having back when I saw it in theaters. The early Vulture scene where he disintegrates the original shocker still feels tonally out of place. The final action sequence is kind of a letdown relative to the previous set pieces and even relative to some of the action sequences in Maguire's/Garfield's films. Spider-Man deserves well lit action scenes that highlight his movement and creative web-slinging, not visually muddy night-time scenes on the side of a crashing plane.

THE GOOD: This movie is firing on all cylinders. Casting. Dialogue. Characters. Plot. Humor. Everything is top notch and having just watched the earlier Spider-Man films, this movie's quality is all the more recognizable, easily standing above them in pretty much every metric. Some of this probably has more to do with changes in style than anything, but for me anyway, those changes are all for the better. For example, the larger focus on humor is a big win. Not only is there more of it, but it's also weaved in more naturally and feels right at home coming from high-school sophomore characters played by actors/actresses that actually look the part. The movie also benefits from its connection to the larger MCU, with RDJ's Tony Stark and Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan both providing great supporting roles. The connection also isn't some token element/cameo just to appease the audience. These characters and their relationship with Peter are a driving force, both narratively and from a character development perspective. In theaters, I remember not being all that impressed with the big twist, but for whatever reason, on this viewing everything clicked and I was totally on board. I can't help but feel like Michael Keaton could have been used even more, but he was great in the scenes we had (I just finished Dopesick where he absolutely killed it, so that's probably why I'm feeling like a big Michael Keaton fan).

Part 4 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Once again, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (7/10) based on this viewing.

THE BAD: At release, this film was criticized for being too rapid of a reboot, coming only five years after Tobey Maguire's last outing. Personally, I don't think that should be held against it, as it's kind of a meta criticism, but I will say, having just marathoned Sam Raimi's trilogy, I definitely understand where the criticism is coming from. I think the big issue is the origin story. While the movie tries to shake things up, all of the main ingredients are identical (Oscorp, spider bite, Uncle Ben, etc.). And unfortunately, some of the new elements don't exactly land. The overly ambitious attempt to tie Peter's parents to the plot through some larger conspiracy feels misguided at best. This is especially true nine years post, when we know that all of this ambitious world-building doesn't culminate in anything, having been scuttled due to the less than record breaking, and in fact diminishing box office returns of Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2. While most of the intentional cheesiness of the Sam Raimi films has been jettisoned, there are still some eye-rolling scenes (e.g. the crane operators saving the day near the finale). The main villain is underwhelming, especially compared to Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. Peter's whiplash change of heart at the end is pretty bad, going from "I promised your dead dad I would stay away from you to keep you safe" to "lol, jk" in less than 4 minutes.

THE GOOD: Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are a nice change of pace over Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. They both just seem to be having fun, which helps sell the characters and the moments of humor. On the character side, the Peter/Gwen relationship is much more palatable than the strange and messy Peter/MJ relationship we saw before. The quick reveal of Peter's secret identity also helps avoid treading the same boring ground. The non-organic web-shooters are appreciated, as are the creative uses incorporated into the action sequences. The web-swinging is top notch.

After hearing good things about this final entry, I went back and watched the previous two films in preparation (re-watch for the original but first time seeing #2). You can find those reviews on this website, but overall I enjoyed both and was left excited to see the third. Unfortunately, my expectations were not met and I came away from this film disappointed. Everything about it feels undercooked, especially when compared to the prior two. Everything feels superficial and rushed, from the story to Robert McCall's central character arc of falling in love with a small Italian town. This film is the shortest of the bunch, so perhaps an extra 10-20 minutes would have helped, but it's hard to say. The villains are paper thin and don't have nearly the presence of Marton Csokas in the first film. The same can be said for all of the supporting cast, with no one really standing out (Dakota Fanning and David Denman just felt like they didn't do much of anything). Even the action feels like a dramatic step down, as the final assault can hardly be described as a set piece, lacking both in terms of spectacle and originality. This also connects with a generally cheaper feel than the first two, with certain decisions feeling like short cuts to save money. I'll have to read some of the positive reviews to see what I might be missing, but on first blush, this one just didn't work for me.

The overall concept here makes sense. Weird Al is known for parody. So naturally, his biopic film should be a parody of the entire biopic genre, rather than some ho-hum, by the numbers biopic. Unfortunately, as a parody target, the biopic genre didn't work quite as well for me as the top billboard hits that Weird Al made his career parodying. The main difference being, the top billboard hits were exactly that, they were hits. They were catchy songs that everyone already knew and loved. By comparison, I never had much appreciation for the biopic genre, which often produces bland movies that leave me wishing I had just read the Wikipedia article. As such, even a tongue in cheek deconstruction wasn't able to overcome my lack of enthusiasm for the structure.

All of that said, there were plenty of solid bits and even some moments of genius that were enough to keep me watching. The highlight for me was the reversal they pulled with Michael Jackson's "Beat It". Clever and hilarious. The frequent cameos also offered some chuckles here and there. However, those cameos, along with the segmented structure of the film, gave off an extended YouTube/SNL skit type feel. Unfortunately, that type of humor is more palatable in short form, so the 110 minutes we got here definitely overstayed its welcome for me.

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.

After watching this film, I was very surprised to learn that it was an Oscar winner. Admittedly, it was for Best Special Effects, which is a very contextual award that is difficult to judge fairly 30 years later. That said, the award kind of embodies my problem with the movie as a whole. The entire premise felt like a gimmick designed specifically to showcase a handful of cutting edge (at the time) special effects. I imagine the pitch for this movie may have been hyper focused on a few special effects scenes, with the rest of the story taking a back seat (i.e. "Wouldn't it be really cool for Meryl Streep to have her head on backwards and for Goldie Hawn to have a hole in her torso??"). As you might expect, this approach doesn't make for a very well rounded film (although interestingly enough, this was allegedly how The Matrix was pitched, so what do I know).

The structure of this film also felt very strange and oddly disjointed. I actually quite liked the relentlessly paced opening, with its multiple 7 year jumps to get through a whole lot of setup in a hyper-efficient way. That said, there was so much setup to get through that when the main premise/gimmick finally came around, it felt like it was a little late to the party. The conflict also felt like it didn't have a strong through line. The competition between the two female leads is essentially (and abruptly) resolved before act three, leaving the rest of the film to awkwardly pivot focus onto the hapless Bruce Willis. Ultimately this lead to an ending that felt rushed and unearned.

Despite these issues, there are still some positives to point out. As I said, the opening was actually quite fun. The performances are strong, with Meryl Streep and Bruce Willis both really selling their characters. There's plenty of quirky humor. Unfortunately, all of these positive elements are let down by a jumbled story that just didn't work for me.

Part 5 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Once again, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (7/10) based on this viewing.

THE BAD: The backstory of Peter's dad and his connection to the spider that created Spider-Man continues to be overly convoluted and not particularly engaging. In particular, the cliché conspiracy wall scene, the short-lived false condemnation of Peter's parents, and the ultimate vindicating discovery of the secret subway tunnel all feel forced both narratively and emotionally. The attempt to establish Peter's childhood friendship with Harry Osborn is awkward. I think they either needed an alternative connection/introduction or he should have been included in the first film. While the film has some fresh ideas about the Harry/Norman Osborn relationship and the origin of the Green Goblin, ultimately the portrayal doesn't live up to Willem Dafoe's original. While I don't necessarily have a problem with including multiple villains, the movie did feel needlessly overstuffed in other ways. The biggest example would be the strange air traffic control/plane collision disaster that felt completely unnecessary and was just there to artificially add stakes (even though literally none of the characters in the movie were aware that it was happening).

THE GOOD: I actually rather liked Jamie Foxx's portrayal of the strange Max Dillon character. It was different from what we've seen before and it should get points for that. While the ultimate motivation for him to turn villain, and more specifically his anti-Spider-Man motivation doesn't feel earned, it still gets the job done. The Peter/Gwen relationship continues to provide the best character moments in the film. They're cute and funny together and the back and forth of their. relationship still feels much more natural than what we saw of Peter/MJ in the Sam Raimi trilogy.

This had been on my list for a while, but after being impressed by Thomasin McKenzie in Last Night in Soho, I decided to finally give it a watch.

Overall, I was impressed. The acting was generally strong, but what I enjoyed most about this movie were the small details. Whether it was wilderness survival elements or small character moments, the movie just really nailed the little things that make the story/relationships feel real. A couple favorites come to mind: (1) establishing how the characters say I Love You without ever having to explain it; (2) Will taking the true or false test; and (3) the scene where Tom asks if she can keep the necklace that she found on the trail. None of these moments were big plot moments, yet they left a lasting impact. In fact, that's a running theme for the whole movie. This was a unique slice of life story that is more concerned with atmosphere and character than it is with plot. It even feels a bit episodic at some points. I was reminded of Nomadland on more than one occasion, which is certainly a compliment in my opinion. All of that said, the slow/meandering style certainly won't be for everyone and I think the movie struggles to find a satisfying conclusion because of this style. Luckily, this wasn't a deal breaker for me. In the end, a worthwhile watch.

I dragged my whole family to this on Christmas, and even though they're not the most adventurous film goers (probably the first foreign film most of them have seen in theaters), they all had a good time. This is an old-school crowd pleaser that deserves all the love it's receiving. You might be able to tell where the story is going well in advance, but that's exactly where you want it to go and you can't help but smile as it takes you there. I don't know if the budget numbers floating around are accurate, but if this was made for $20 million, Hollywood needs to get their head out of their ass, because this would have cost them five times that and it probably would have looked worse. Talking about the film with my brother afterwards, we started to realize that there are plenty of potential nitpicks and extreme gloss overs, but the movie swept me up enough that they didn't bother me in the moment. Watching my sister in the seat next to me get pumped as the soundtrack kicked in during the final confrontation is what the movie going experience is all about. In fact, I just pulled up that song while I'm writing this review because we could all use that level of hype in our lives.

Other than knowing it was directed by and starred Bradley Cooper, I went into this completely blind, to the point that I wasn't even aware that it was biopic until 20 minutes before the showtime and I certainly had no preexisting knowledge about Leonard Bernstein. But having quite enjoyed Cooper's first directorial effort (A Star is Born (2018)), I was still quite excited to see his second. Luckily, it lived up to that excitement.

Recently I've complained about slice-of-life movies where the slices are too thin to draw me in, or don't provide enough connective tissue for a cohesive narrative, but this movie avoids that completely. It not only delivers perfectly sized slices of the Bernsteins' life, but also perfectly chosen slices, with each helping to capture the nuance and complexities of their relationship. I can't speak to the accuracy of the portrayals, but I thought the performances were brilliant. I'd also credit the writing, as the dialogue was consistently thought provoking, but not unrealistically so. It's still rare for emotional beats to really land with me, but this film's final act certainly did, getting me watery-eyed in the theater.

With all of this said, I do think I'm somewhat predisposed to the subject matter. Not the world of classical music and conducting, which actually doesn't do anything for me at all (I definitely would have trimmed the extended conducting performance near the end), but the broader exploration of the troubled creative-type. As an aspiring screenwriter who is still crossing my fingers for a call up to the metaphorical Carnegie Hall, I certainly found elements of the story relatable.