As with any movie over half a century old, I was concerned with how this film would hold up. For the most part, I would say the answer is quite well. For the majority of the film, I was totally on board. The premise is a cleverly executed high concept, the dialogue is brilliant, and the performances are top notch. However, things fell apart for me in the final act. It felt rushed, the action/set-piece element is awkward and incredibly dated, and ultimately the payoff to 90+ minutes of build up was very unsatisfying. My expectations, which are undoubtedly influenced by modern filmmaking trends/techniques, are at least partly to blame. I wanted the story to surprise me, and instead I got a conclusion that boiled down to "James Stewart was right about everything".
Despite the underwhelming finale, I still enjoyed the film. The relationship and exchanges between Stewart and Kelly were a standout, providing a unique romantic subplot and a window into mid-20th century gender/relationship dynamics and expectations.
A fun little horror/thriller with an ensemble of almost universally awful, but well realized characters. The dialogue is natural and often darkly hilarious. The performances are strong. There are several absolutely top notch sequences. For example, I loved the confrontation with Lee Pace's character in the gym. At that point in the story the reactions and suspicions of every character were all just on the right side of plausible. Brilliant writing. While I'm sure the writers would have their own opinion on the film's messaging or social commentary, my takeaway was two fold: (1) shared history is the foundation of most friendships, but not a particularly good one; and (2) awful people can have a traumatic or otherwise sympathetic past, and while that past may play a part in their awfulness, it certainly doesn't excuse it.
As far as criticisms go, the movie does fall prey to one of my most hated horror movie clichés: characters making terrible (and illogical) decisions (the classic example being, "let's split up"). I'm sure the writers would justify it by saying that these characters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed under the best of circumstances and were under the influence of alcohol and other substances in a high stress situation. While that explanation isn't completely without merit, it's not enough for me to forgive the groan inducing stupidity on display. Luckily, this issue only pops up in one or two moments and the strong writing outside of those moments was enough to keep me invested.
A solid coming of age story with great dialogue and unique/complex characters. Liam James does an excellent job embodying the awkward teen (perhaps too excellent, as I struggled to make it through some of his cringiest moments). Sam Rockwell is hilarious and wholesome as the mentor. And most surprising of all was Steve Carell. Going into the movie blind, I didn't know what his role was going to be, so the excellent opening scene that establishes him as a total dick and the pseudo villain of the story was a big subversion of what I expected.
I'm a Kid Cudi fan, so when I heard that his new album had an animated companion film I had to give it a try. Unsurprisingly, I quite enjoyed the soundtrack. That said, the film is easily strong enough to stand on its own and be enjoyed by non-Kid Cudi fans. I definitely feel like there is some Into the Spider-Verse inspiration, which is not a bad thing. The animation isn't quite as impressive as what Sony/Marvel can churn out, but the style and creativity is definitely there and I think they make the most of their budget. I specifically enjoyed the instances where they jump into different animation styles for flashbacks. The voice acting is strong, with Kid Cudi showing the chops to carry the central performance. My only real criticism, which is ultimately minor, is that the high level story beats feel somewhat familiar, rubbing shoulders with some rom-com cliches. Luckily, the moment to moment writing/dialogue is enough to forgive that familiarity, with solid humor and relationship dynamics that feel natural. Plus, the side characters/plots are more unique, which also helps.
Pretty impressive for only 55 minutes. The black and white throwback style is unique and well executed. The production design appropriately captures the pulpy horror vibe. The writing/performances are stronger than I've come to expect out of Marvel's recent efforts. I enjoyed Gael Garcia Bernal back in his Mozart in the Jungle days, and he doesn't disappoint in this role either. Even the action has some surprises, being a bit more gruesome and bloody than the sanitized fist fights Marvel typically churns out. As far as criticisms go, I feel a little guilty in admitting that I didn't love the actual design of the titular werewolf. I'm sure it's probably inspired by the classic designs and old school special effects, but even so, it's not my favorite. Still, this is a unique little Marvel experiment that shows that they still have some gas in the tank, especially when they venture outside their standard formula.
It's a rare thing to get a follow-up film within a year of the original, let alone within 6 months. My understanding is that this was filmed back to back with X (2022), which certainly makes sense from a budget standpoint (given the overlapping star actress and primary location). In any case, it's an impressive and appreciated surprise to be able to watch it so soon.
As for the movie itself, it is a well made horror villain origin story. Mia Goth is excellent in the title role, delivering a suitably unhinged performance, and the details of Pearl's history fleshes out the character well. I do think the film isn't quite as well rounded as X, primarily due to the lack of humor and the smaller ensemble. Despite taking place on the same farm, it feels like a much smaller/simpler story. That said, it tells the story well.
A couple more miscellaneous thoughts/critiques. I thought it was odd that the Spanish Flu, which was brought up frequently throughout the film, didn't end up coming into play in a meaningful way. I assumed it would serve as Pearl's basis for an explanation/cover-up of all the deaths, but that doesn't end up happening, at least not on screen anyway. Finally, a very minor critique regarding Mitzy's death. I thought the framing/physics of the axe swings/hits felt unnatural. A bit of a bummer considering it's the final kill.
What a strange movie. Typical screenwriting advice is that most every scene should be essential. This film begs to differ. In fact, I would wager to say that there's probably 20%+ of the film that could be cut without losing anything critical. Those scenes, and the movie as a whole, is character focused, almost to a fault. So many side plots and compelling threads, but the movie doesn't seem to place much weight on giving them all resolutions, and the resolutions we do get all feel quite reserved. If the movie has an arc, it's a very gentle one, and what little conflict we get is so subdued that it doesn't feel like much of a conflict at all. I found myself speculating about possible intrigue, drama, or twists, but ultimately none of it materialized. All of this said, the character work is strong and ultimately was enough to keep me watching. The main cast is refreshingly quirky, with unique interactions and relationships that result in some hilarious scenes (Mac's drunken proposition to Urquhart toward the end of the film was definitely a standout).
I went into this film virtually blind, knowing only that it was a who-done-it starring Jon Hamm. It seems the who-done-it genre has seen a resurgence of late, with two currently playing in theaters (this film and See How They Run (2022)). I suspect that the success of Knives Out (2019) has something to do with that, as I certainly was hoping this film would scratch the same itch as Daniel Craig's southern drawl detective film. While this film doesn't have quite the same vibe, I still loved it.
The biggest thing to point out is the comedy. I was surprised at how much I was laughing during the first half hour of this movie. The writing is clever and Jon Hamm is absolutely hilarious. Seeing his character bounce off of the consistently quirky ensemble cast leads to some fantastic scenes and exchanges. Detective Monroe and Griz in particular are consistently great. The flighty neighbor also provides an almost slapstick set piece and of course seeing Jon Hamm reunite with his Mad Men (2007) co-star John Slattery was a treat.
Regarding the who-done-it aspect, this film is not as clever as Knives Out (2019), but the mystery was compelling enough to keep me invested, and seeing Fletch problem solve was just another opportunity for comedy. I will say that the ending was a tad underwhelming, but nothing so problematic as to detract from the rest.
As a side note, I didn't learn that Fletch was a pre-existing character until after I saw this film. While I may go back and watch the Chevy Chase originals, I suspect that going into this one blind actually contributed to my enjoyment, as recycled jokes/ideas landed as fresh for me, rather than nostalgia bait callbacks.
I was so impressed with Warren Beatty in The Parallax View (1974), that I had to go back and catch up on his filmography. Unfortunately, I was not particularly impressed with this film, which is one of his biggest and earliest hits.
While some may call it an unfair criticism, my biggest issue with the film was that it shows its age. It is the 1960's version of an action blockbuster, where a significant portion of the screen time is dedicated to extended car chases and shootouts. While those elements may have impressed audiences 50+ years ago, they did very little for me in 2022. It's an unfortunate fact that certain types of films will age more gracefully than others, which is how a more dialogue driven conspiracy thriller like The Parallax View (1974) can blow me away, while this film leaves me bored.
One would hope that the saving grace would be the acting. After all, the film had five performances nominated for Oscars, one of which won. However, the acting can only do so much in a film that is largely driven by action. This isn't to say that the performances are bad. There was plenty to praise. In particular, I thought Gene Hackman injected a lot of life into the script once he and Estelle Parsons came into the picture. But it wasn't enough to save the film for me. This is a simple story, and it didn't leave me particularly invested.
I don't have too much to say about this film. It succeeds on the back of clever, near-future world-building (à la Black Mirror), combined with the excellent dialogue and brilliant performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson. The exchanges feel authentic, and that's about the highest praise I can give it. I will say that the ending, which I was concerned would be unsatisfying in one way or another, ended up going in a direction I didn't anticipate and successfully avoided all of my concerns. It was nice to be surprised, and in retrospect it felt inevitable, as most great endings do.
Not sure why I took so long to get around to this one, but I was not surprised to discover that it lives up to its reputation. What I was surprised by, was that I somehow hadn't been spoiled on a key component of the central premise, that is the adoption angle. Really, all I knew about the film was that it involved teenage pregnancy and had Michael Cera in it. This was nice because the movie was able to surprise me in both the direction it took, as well as with its talented ensemble. In the end, the film is equal parts hilarious and insightful. Elliot Page's central performance feels authentic (although I'm not really qualified to judge it). While it isn't a critique per se, I was also surprised by how the abortion discussion is quite a small part of the film. Ultimately that's not the story the movie was trying to tell, so they seem to push through it rather quickly. I'm probably being biased by the current news cycle, but I definitely expected it to play a larger role. In any case, the film is certainly deserving of its Oscar nominations and win for writing.
Watching films that are almost half a century old can be a risky proposition. What was once cutting edge may now be painfully dated, what was once culturally acceptable may now be blatantly offensive, and what was once original may now be the most well worn of tropes. However, this makes it all the more impressive when an old film is able to overcome their 50 year disadvantage and hold up in spectacular fashion. This is the case with The Parallax View.
The story and writing is complex and compelling. There is little to no hand holding, with the audience often left to connect the dots in the same way that our protagonist is. This film could easily have had a voice over to keep everyone on the same page, but it's so much more immersive without one. Speaking of immersive, this film makes some ballsy directorial decisions in terms of long takes at critical moments. Watching a flight stewardess pass out drinks has never been so tense. Perhaps most ballsy of all, is the uninterrupted five minute sequence where Warren Beatty's character watches the emotional response slideshow at the Parallax Corporation. Do I think it could have been shorter and equally effective? Yeah, probably. But I respect the hell out of going all in. The movie is just stylish as hell, with unique locations, interesting shot composition, and all around memorable visuals.
Going smaller scale, the dialogue is equally impressive, feeling nuanced and natural. This is of course helped tremendously by Warren Beatty's brilliant performance. I am ashamed to admit that I'm not very familiar with Beatty, having only seen Heaven Can Wait once when I was very young. But after watching this film, I can see why he was a star. He's got the looks. He's got the charisma. He's the classic Hollywood stud and I'm definitely going to catch up on all of his filmography now.
The last thing I'd point out is regarding the ending. Recently I'm finding that the third act is where a lot of films start to lose me, and I was worried that this film may have been going in a similar direction. Luckily, this was not the case, and the finale was able to pull the narrative together in an unexpected, yet satisfying way, all while maintaining the impressive visual flair.
This is B. J. Novak's theatrical debut as a triple threat writer/director/actor. I always take a particular interest in these types of films, as they are probably the closest that Hollywood ever gets to delivering a truly singular artistic vision. So, how successful was Mr. Novak's vision? It's interesting, this was a case where I really think the writing is what carried the day. The story is clever and compelling, with plenty of thought provoking ideas and commentary. The meta aspect of the podcast allows the film to include both self-aware pseudo-intellectual musings, as well as more genuine intellectual musings. In both cases, the dialogue is well written and the performances excellent. The movie's humor is also plentiful and well executed, never feeling out of place with the mystery/thriller elements. As far as story criticisms go, I do think the finale feels a bit too Hollywood, but the execution is good enough that it still works.
Regarding the acting, B. J. Novak was good in the central role, but I really enjoyed the ensemble. Having just watched Boyd Holbrook on Netflix's The Sandman, it was entertaining to see him playing such a different role, and I thought he was excellent. I was also surprised to enjoy Ashton Kutcher's scenes.
Finally, on the direction, my gut reaction is to call it serviceable. I'm no expert, but it just seemed pretty unambitious and straightforward. At the end of the day, it doesn't add or detract from the film. It just captures the story, which is all it needed to do. Regardless, as long as Mr. Novak can keep writing stories this well, I'll keep watching his films.
I watched this film primarily as a fan of Steve Coogan and went into it completely blind. I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but I think it's fair to say that I wasn't expecting this. I didn't know it was based on a true story, and I certainly wasn't familiar with that true story beforehand. As such, it was able to surprise me on more than one occasion with the stranger-than-fiction details of its tragic story. Judi Dench's central performance is excellent, successfully capturing the emotions and contradictions of Philomena, as well as the light hearted quirkiness of an out of touch elderly Irish woman. Steve Coogan doesn't disappoint either, still injecting plenty of the sarcasm and wit that we know and love, but at the same time hitting his mark during the more serious beats of the film.
The subject of this movie has a lot of natural overlap with Adam Driver's 2019 film, The Report. When I saw that film a couple years back, I didn't come away with a super high opinion. I thought the story didn't translate to the screen in a compelling way, resulting in a dry experience that made me wish I had just read the Wikipedia article instead. Luckily, this film does not suffer from the same problem. The key difference is that we now get the POV of a character who is going through this awful experience first hand, rather than just seeing things through the lens of an investigator years later. It's a much more emotionally and narratively compelling perspective. Of course, this is largely thanks to Tahar Rahim, who delivers a spectacular performance as the titular Mauritanian. In the midst of such dehumanizing conditions, Rahim makes sure that the audience still sees Slahi's humanity. While the legal drama outside of Guantanamo feels a bit manufactured at times, it ultimately does its job and certainly doesn't detract from the powerful story at the center of this film.
I can recognize when a documentary is well made, while still not loving a lot of common elements of documentary film making. That is certainly the case here, as the duo behind Free Solo do an excellent job bringing this crazy true story to life, while having to lean on reenactments and some overly dramatic interview segments to keep the drama level up. That doesn't mean it isn't effective, as the film lands plenty of powerful/poignant moments, but in most cases the story itself is doing the heavy lifting and the visuals are just sort of there as window dressing. That is to say, reading a Wikipedia summary could easily be just as powerful to me. And that's one of the other problems I often have with documentaries (especially ones that explore an event that isn't even that old): I already know most of the story. It would seem that my aversion to spoilers does not discriminate between fiction and non-fiction. I like to be surprised by a film, and that unfortunately doesn't happen much in cases such as this.
I didn't know this film was co-written and co-directed by Stanley Tucci until I got to the opening credits, which was a nice surprise, as I'm a big fan of the singular vision films that can come from triple threat writer/direct/actors. This film definitely is a good example, as it really succeeds in every area. The writing and performances are top notch. These are complex characters portrayed by actors who are up to the task. The dialogue has a naturalist feel, with every pause and subtlety helping to make these characters feel real. I will acknowledge that I have no idea what authentic Italian or Italian accents sound like, so that's an area where I can't be a good judge, but it didn't raise any issues for me. Regarding the story, I really enjoyed the small scope. Being able to wring so much drama out of what ultimately amounts to a dinner party is an impressive display of writing.
When I recommended this movie to my brother, I told him it was not that great, except for where it mattered. What I meant by that was that, at the end of the day, I came into this looking to watch some crazy Predator fights, and in that area, the movie delivers. Yes, it takes a little too long to get to the good stuff, and the human drama that gets in the way is chock-full of clichés and not particularly compelling or revolutionary, but from the mid-point on, our favorite mandibled alien takes the center stage and starts wrecking people's day. The action is well shot, creative, and suitably gruesome. There are plenty of fun moments, and they do a good job making each action sequence feel unique. Realism aside, I particularly enjoyed that they didn't make things too one sided. Even in one of earliest Predator sequences they have him take some damage, which makes for more interesting fights. As far as critiques of the action, I did think the finale fell a bit flat and had some less than compelling elements (the mechanics of the homing bolts and targeting lasers don't make a whole lot of sense, i.e. why would the Predator even shoot them if they only fly toward a laser target that he knows is not on his target? Also, it's a small thing, but I really don't like the "strap sharp sticks to a tree because maybe the Predator will jump on it later". Felt out of place and even more unrealistic than everything else).
A couple other miscellaneous thoughts in no particular order.
First, I saw that they released a version of the film dubbed in Comanche, which I thought was a cool idea, but after watching the film (in English) I can't help but think they should have gone the Apocalypto route and actually filmed in Comanche. I just think the dialogue was not one of the film's strong suits, feeling a touch too modern and not quite capturing the gravitas that I feel like they were going for. When films use English as a proxy for a foreign language, sometimes they'll stylize it, either with accents or Shakespearean writing in order to still give it a foreign feel (e.g. Chernobyl or most swords and sandals epics). This film didn't go that route, and so the English dialogue just felt flat and out of place.
Regarding music, I strongly suspect that the composer(s) of this film were at least partially inspired by and trying to capture the epic feel of The Last of the Mohicans soundtrack. Unfortunately, inviting comparisons to that masterpiece of orchestration puts you in a tough spot, and despite the music here being totally serviceable, during many of the sweeping nature shots I couldn't help but wish I was listening to Promentory.
I'm sure if I googled around for a minute I'd be able to find an established term that describes the style/vibe of this film, but instead I'm going to reinvent the wheel and describe it myself. It exists in a heightened version of reality. All of the ideas are familiar, and are grounded conceptually in the real world, but they're turned up to 11 in absurdist ways that are used to add humor and/or visual style. If I had to guess what the established term is, it would probably be some distant relative of fantasy or an offshoot of magical realism or the like. Regardless of what it's called, I'm a fan. I was on board with the quirky sense of humor and, with only one exception, I enjoyed the caricature-esque portrayals from the cast. That exception is Jennifer Jason Leigh's portrayal of Amy Archer. I don't think this has anything to do with the performance, which is probably great. The problem is that the accent and character are just too tied to the cliché for me to disconnect them (I blame the reporter character in one of the later seasons of BoJack Horseman). In any case, I don't know that any portrayal of this type of character will ever feel convincing to me, because I inherently associate it with over the top acting. Aside from that, my one other big critique is the film's third act, which felt rushed and also leaned a bit too much on the fantasy relative to the rest of the film. Despite those two issues, I still have no problem recommending the film, thanks primarily to Tim Robbins' fantastic central performance and the clever writing typical of the Coen brothers.
I went into this one with fairly low expectations. Netflix's mid-large budget action movies have developed a less than stellar reputation in my mind, often characterized by uninspired storytelling, cheap CGI, bland action, and phoned in performances. Luckily, this film avoids at least one of those issues, which is just enough to smooth over the rough patches caused by the others.
First, regarding the rough patches. The story is definitely uninspired. The impetus of the entire plot feels like something we've seen dozens of times in better secret agent films a secret agent unknowingly is tasked with killing one of his fellow agents. The central MacGuffin is somehow even more bland and meaningless than your typical MacGuffin, perhaps because they devote so much exposition trying to justify its importance. Just call it kompromat and be done with it. The archetypes represented by the various characters feel very well trod. Realism and logic are seemingly jettisoned entirely through large swathes of both action and plot, with the film leaning on a break neck pace to hand wave away the ridiculousness of what is happening on screen. Suffice it to say, this feels a lot closer to Marvel or late stage Fast and Furious than it does to James Bond or Jason Bourne. Regarding the action, there are times when things are entirely serviceable, but during the large, CGI-heavy set pieces, things tend to devolve into a muddy, indecipherable mess.
So, what saves the film? Well, Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans mostly, with the former bringing charm and humor, and the latter delivering hammy villainy. The performances are good, but I'll also credit the dialogue. It just goes to show that there are two very distinct elements of writing, and they succeed or fail completely independently of one another. In this case, the high level writing was bland and uninspired, but the low level writing, the character work and the dialogue, had plenty to like and was enough to hold together an otherwise subpar film. Finally, the one other element of plot/writing that I'd complement is the subplot involving Billy Bob Thornton's niece. It's not exactly revolutionary stuff, but it is well executed and gives the movie a solid emotional core.
I'm impressed with any film that is willing to build itself around young actors/actresses, as I imagine it is much more difficult to find children capable of delivering authentic, believable performances. I think it's this same difficulty that makes the exceptions to the rule stand out (e.g. E.T., The Sixth Sense, the first season of Stranger Things, etc). I think this film's central performance by Mason Thames can serve as another excellent example. Unfortunately, there are some weaknesses elsewhere that prevent the film as a whole from being quite as effective.
Outside of Thames, some of the other younger actors don't come across quite as naturally. Luckily, this is limited to the smaller roles, as Madeleine McGraw delivers a strong performance as the younger sister. Regarding the adults, Ethan Hawke provides an appropriately sinister presence. I've been a James Ransone fan ever since The Wire and Generation Kill, and while I enjoyed his presence here, I was disappointed by how limited it was. It feels like we should have seen more of his plotline play out on screen.
I think my main issue is with the story, which feels somewhat haphazard in its inclusion of supernatural elements. While I typically am a fan of such things being injected without fan fare, this film took that idea a bit too far for me, with characters immediately accepting such elements without so much as a WTF. This sort of structure starts to verge too closely into my least favorite sub-genre of horror; that is, ones involving vague supernatural monsters with ill-defined powers. Such films basically give themselves permission to do whatever they want, unbound by any logic set that an audience could even attempt to follow or predict. Luckily, things aren't quite so bad in this case, as the actual villain isn't supernatural. However, the vague supernatural window dressing is used sprinkle in some meaningless jump scare moments to remind the audience it's a horror film. Ignoring these qualms, the moment to moment execution is solid, delivering a nice little single location thriller with a strong central performance and plenty of tense moments.
I've been a Daisy Edgar-Jones fan ever since Normal People (2020), and I have gone out of my way to watch her follow-up projects (Fresh (2022), Under the Banner of Heaven (2022), and this film). While her performances in all of these have never been lacking (except in the sense that they lack the Irish accent I loved from that first show), none of these projects came together fully for me.
In this case, the story being adapted doesn't have quite enough room to breathe in a feature length film. Where the novel likely had ample time to gradually establish characters, relationships, and backstory, this film ends up feeling a tad too expository, relying on narration to bridge gaps and rushed flashbacks that feel like they are simply checking boxes. Everything just feels a little on the nose, without a lot of subtlety or nuance. At the same time, there is also a pacing problem, with the film dragging in certain segments. This might seem contradictory to my previous critique, so let me try to explain. I think the problem here is that the central external conflict (the murder investigation/trial) doesn't actually get much screen time, being sprinkled amongst a much larger helping of character/relationship focused flashbacks. So, while those backstory segments sometimes felt superficial and rushed, the main plot felt plodding and slow. Additionally, without spoiling anything, the final act was somewhat anticlimactic for me.
Now, these complaints are primarily related to construction. The story itself is compelling and, as previously mentioned, the central performance of Daisy Edgar-Jones is solid, as are the performances of both love interests.
Despite maintaining the top notch performances and production, I felt this film was a step down from the original. My only real critique of the first film was that its scope was constrained by its screen time. Unfortunately this issue is even more pronounced in the sequel. Although it tacks on an extra 27 minutes, that runtime is now split between two stories, both of which are left feeling less developed than the original. The origin story of Vito Corleone in particular just doesn't have much to it (other than the aforementioned powerhouse performance of Robert De Niro). As an added downside, the intercutting of the two stories comes across as arbitrarily disjointed, as there is no direct connections to motivate the cuts.
Now, all of that said, there is still plenty to enjoy in the movie. To reiterate, Al Pacino's performance alone is worth the price of admission, and there are a handful of absolutely masterful scenes between him and Kay/Connie. As one final point of praise, the flashback final tag of Vito's birthday is a brilliant example of what I think these films have done best, capturing a naturalistic slice of the Corleone family.
I feel a lot of pressure writing a review for a film as universally acclaimed as this one (currently the #2 rated movie of all time on IMDB). This is for two very different reasons. First, on the positive side, what can I say that hasn't been said a thousand times already? The acting is absolutely phenomenal, with naturalistic/subtle performances that deserve every award given. The story successfully captures an ambitious decade spanning epic. The music is iconic. The production design and attention to detail is unsurpassed. Suffice it to say that virtually every aspect of this film is worthy of praise.
This brings us to the second reason why I feel pressure writing this review, and that is the inclusion of the word "virtually" in that last sentence. Despite thinking the movie was great, I did have issues that prevented it from being the 10 out of 10 perfect film that many others have deemed it to be. I can't help but feel like I'm committing cinephile sacrilege when I only say the movie was an 8 out of 10 for me. So, what were the things that held the film back?
The main issue is actually connected to one of the film's strengths, that is the epic scope of the story. This film covers a lot of ground, and even with three hours to do it, certain segments aren't left with enough screen time to land effectively. Compare the opening sequence, Connie's wedding, to the the sequence of Michael in Italy. The former gives us 26 minutes of screen time for a single evening. It throws us into the deep end of the Corleone's world, with character introductions and world building galore, all while giving plenty of room for the story to breathe. On the other hand, the Italy sequence comprises less than 20 minutes, yet it attempts to tell the story of an entire romance playing out over multiple years. Compared to what we get elsewhere in the film, it just felt rushed and underdeveloped. If this story was being adapted in today's world, I am quite confident that it'd be done via a miniseries, with potentially 6 or 8 hours to work with, which would alleviate this issue.
The only other issue I'd point out is much more minor and many would argue unfair, but I have to say that the film does show its age in certain respects. In particular, the violence that should be the dramatic punctuation marks on the story fall a little flat due to the dated special effects.
I'm quite enjoying the new basketball era of Adam Sandler's career. So far he's two for two, with both this film and Uncut Gems being worthy additions to the library of basketball focused cinema. But that's not to say that the movies are similar. They could not be more different, which gives Sandler a chance to really show some range between the two. In that first outing, Sandler played a manic, desperate sports gambler, with the story tracking his depressing downward spiral. This film instead tells a more traditional feel-good sports story, with Sandler's character playing a talent scout who risks it all to champion an unknown international player. We get all of the classic sports movie clichés, with training montages galore and our star bouncing back and forth between being in the zone and having the yips whenever the plot demands (we also get the up and coming cliché of social media/viral videos being an important plot point).
Now, pointing out clichés often has a negative connotation, but that's not the case here. This is another film that really demonstrates that the oldest formulas can still lead to great films. The familiarity of high level plot points is a sin easily forgiven if the moment to moment writing, performances, and filmmaking are all excellent, as they are in this film. It also helps if a movie can find small ways to twist the formula and keep things at least a little bit fresh, which this movie also does. In particular, the film's focus on the draft/combine is a nice change of pace from most sports films. Instead of having the tension driven by the score line in a "big game", this film leverages the smaller stakes of simply performing well in training and practice. Another big plus is the generous presence of legit NBA talent. The use of real players, past and present, grounds the movie in reality and makes for a fun watch for the fans. And, while I'm no basketball expert, I think it's safe to say that that presence also improved the quality of the basketball footage in the film.
Bob's Burgers has been one of my go to lunch break TV shows for some time now. It's light. It's wholesome. It's funny. It fills a niche that I really have not found in any other animated comedy, as it somehow avoids feeling like a kids show despite not really being an adult show either. It's just a happy medium that I quite appreciate. Given this appreciation, I was excited to go support the Belcher's theatrical debut and I was thrilled when the movie successfully captured everything I love about the show.
I think a common concern with this type of film is that characters and formulas that work for a 22 minute show, may feel like they overstay their welcome at feature length. Luckily, this was not the case here. While some may feel that the murder based premise of the film is too much of a departure from the types of plots we get in the TV episodes, I think it is exactly this departure which makes the movie work. They needed to tell a more serious story to sustain the run length, and it is a change that pays off.
I was also concerned about how B and C stories would be integrated into the film, as that is one area where the TV show sometimes suffers, i.e. when the side stories feel completely removed and have virtually no intersection with the main story. But again, the movie does well to avoid this issue, weaving story arcs for every Belcher kid in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow. I also think the movie benefits by making these arcs relate to fundamental character traits, rather than just being superfluous comedy bits. This is especially true of Louise, whose bunny ear based story line feels like it deserves a feature length film.
Finally, as someone who has never had a particular affinity to the musical portions of the show, I was glad to see that the film didn't overdo that element. I was worried they might try to go full musical, but there really were only 3 or 4 songs throughout. Just like the show, it was a tolerable inclusion that didn't detract in a meaningful way.
I think I let my expectations get ahead of me on this one. I was looking for something more than the original; something fresh and new. Instead, they chose to go the same route as The Force Awakens, leaning into the nostalgia and making a film that closely follows the original formula. Clearly it was the right call, as the movie is breaking records like crazy, but I can't help but be disappointed that a $150+ million dollar sequel had to borrow the structure of the 36 year old original. This borrowing has the added effect of creating a very predictable film. Many of the beats can be seen coming well in advance, which can take a bit of the oomph out of otherwise fun/exciting moments.
Now, that said, the movie is still an improvement on the original. The fact that the second act training sequences have a well defined objective that ties in to the final third act action sequence is a big improvement from the generic and somewhat meaningless training exercises from the original film. It allows that whole portion of the film to maintain much higher stakes, rather than leaning on the low stakes of bragging rights in an educational pilot competition.
That said, this pro is somewhat offset by a minor con related to the specifics of the mission. When they have their introductory briefing, I couldn't help but roll my eyes as they described a dangerous trench run culminating in shooting a proton torpedo missile into at an impossibly small target to destroy the Death Star nuclear facility. I was waiting for Miles Teller to tell us that it was just like his days shooting womp rats out on Tatooine. I understand that there really aren't that many options when it comes to exciting parameters for fighter jet missions, but it was still a tad disappointing for it to feel so familiar.
The movie also suffers from some corny dialogue, which again seems to hearken back to the original film. Additionally, the last couple action beats really throw suspension of disbelief out the window, feeling like they would be more at home in a Fast and Furious film.
To leave off on a positive, despite the familiarity/predictability of the plot, there are still plenty of make-you-smile moments, my favorite being when, after being fired/discharged, Maverick pops up on radar to prove that the mission can be flown within the original time limit. It's the writers giving the audience exactly what they want, i.e Maverick gets to prove that he's the best.
I'm a couple of hours away from seeing Top Gun: Maverick, and I wanted to write my review of the original beforehand, so that there would be no risk of having my perception colored by comparing it to the new one. I re-watched it last week, as I have only ever seen it once, and that was probably close to a decade ago.
The first phrase that comes to mind after watching this film is the oft repeated refrain of cinephiles everywhere: "they don't make them like this anymore". However, unlike it's typical usage, in this case that phrase actually came to mind for some negative reasons. This movie's plot is incredibly simple. Combine that with an aggressive pace and you get an experience that just feels shallow compared to what I expect out of a film. And that's not to say that shallow/simple movies aren't being made today. They most certainly are. But I'm not sure that new films of this type are ever going to have the massive cultural impact that Top Gun has secured over the last 36 years. All of this is to say, I think modern movies that want to secure a place in the cultural zeitgeist may have to aim a bit higher, which I'm hoping/expecting the sequel to do.
To the original movie's credit, it does feel cognizant of that fact that it is telling a very simple story. It's not like it tries and fails to be some more ambitious, multifaceted thought provoker. Nope. It's just Tom Cruise doing Tom Cruise things (although looking slightly more baby faced than I'm used to). He flies jets. He plays volleyball shirtless. He wins over the girl.
Despite all of these critiques, the movie is far from bad. There's plenty of fun to be had, with one liners aplenty and enough fighter jet action to keep most viewers engaged.
On the topic of fighter jet action, I do have one final critique. The dogfights that comprise the majority of the films runtime did outstay their welcome for me. I just think it's an inherent difficulty with the subject matter. It's tough to create visually engaging and distinct scenes when all you've got to work with is characters in cockpits and footage of jets against various sky backdrops. It just all starts to feel very same-y. As such, I think everything outside of the action (plot/characters/etc.) has to carry more weight than your typical action blockbuster. In this film, those elements were passable, but only just. Hopefully the sequel will find ways to improve in every respect.
Before watching this film, I had to go back and watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which I understood to be the spiritual predecessor. You can read my review of that separately, but suffice it to say that I do recommend it. While the plots are in no way connected, they both take place in the same universe, and there are a handful of cameos/references that you'll get to appreciate if you've seen it.
This film did not disappoint. It took the genius high concept premise of Roger Rabbit and expanded/evolved it to the modern day, adding CGI, puppets, and claymation characters to the mix while incorporating our tech/social media fueled modern culture. As before, the film is perhaps most impressive from a licensing perspective (I would love to hear the story behind the inclusion of Ugly Sonic, which is doubly impressive given that he is only a couple years old). The scope of characters that make appearances has increased dramatically. Eagle eyed viewers will have no shortage of fun cameos to pick out amongst the crowded shots of classic characters.
As with the best kids movies (and with Roger Rabbit), there is plenty here for an adult to enjoy. Even though its told through the POV of two chipmunks and obfuscated by clever writing and humor, the story is surprisingly adult. A twisted criminal kidnapping ring being lead by a classic Disney character is not necessarily what you'd expect out of Disney. But, it's good. Great even. The pacing is snappy, the action scenes are creative, the writing is fiendishly clever/hilarious, and most importantly, the voice acting is all around excellent thanks to an absolutely stacked cast. Of course, things aren't perfect. Not every joke lands and there are some elements that might be leaning too heavily on younger internet/meme culture for me (the rapping sequence was a bit much). But even these elements are done with creative flair and usually sneak in some laughs for older audiences to appreciate.
One thing to note, I have absolutely no prior exposure to Chip 'n Dale. Honestly, I wasn't entirely sure they even were real legacy characters. Point being, this movie completely stands on its own and you don't need to know anything about these characters to enjoy it.
After seeing a glowing review for Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers, which referred to it as a worthy sequel/successor to this film, I decided to go back and do my homework. I'm very glad I did. This film has an absolutely genius high concept premise. It's clever. It's funny. It's ambitious. One of the most impressive things about it is just the licensing arrangements that must have been necessary to pull it off. This is an idea that easily could have been a missed opportunity had it used unlicensed characters, but instead we get cameo after cameo featuring the greatest hits of animated characters. Just like we've seen recently in things like Ready Player One or Free Guy, having this kind of licensing power behind a film really adds a lot of value and helps sell the premise (i.e. it feels more like our world with a tweak, rather than some totally unfamiliar world).
Of course, even outside those fanservice-y elements, this film still packs a punch. The way it layers a classic noir detective murder mystery onto a PG film full of cartoons is masterful. I almost have a hard time even calling this a family/kid movie given how many adult elements are weaved into the story. It's a combination that you don't really expect to see, and it pulls it off in style. Of course, this is due in no small part to the stellar talent on both sides of the camera. Bob Hoskins is perfect as the jaded gumshoe and the production is all top notch, including both animated and live action elements.
Unfortunately, despite everything that it has going for it, the movie didn't stick the landing for me. The entire final set piece was a pretty big disappointment. It dragged on longer than I would have liked and relied on some questionable writing and hokey/unearned reveals. But even here, the ending isn't necessarily bad, it's just a couple steps down from the brilliance of the rest of the film.
As an aside, I've definitely seen the cover of this film over the years and, let me tell you, I had no interest in watching it based on that cover. Now, I imagine this kind of film is hard to advertise, and I certainly don't have any better suggestions, but it just goes to show how impactful advertising can be.
