It's a little too slapstick-y and kid-leaning in its humor to secure a spot among top-tier animated films, but between the stellar cast (Sam Rockwell in particular), the ever reliable heist genre, and the surprisingly solid animation, this was still a very good time that shouldn't have any problem winning over its target audience.
This was a rewatch after only seeing it once 10+ years ago. Initially I was surprised I only gave it a 7, as I was really enjoying the opening act, but then it started to lose me a bit in the back half, with the final conflict feeling too manufactured and over the top. That said, the performances were still excellent and there was plenty of solid humor, so overall still a good time.
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.
I went into this with minimal expectations, as Adam Sandler is not normally my cup of tea. His brand of humor is usually too broad for my tastes, often over-the-top and full of slapstick. This film still has some of that DNA, but not only does it work much better in an animated film (where visuals can be more creative and physical gags aren't limited by something as silly as physics), but its also in service of a story that surprised me with its heart and depth. This is far closer to a Toy Story or Over the Hedge than I ever would have expected out of a Netflix kids movie. It delivers not just one, but a whole collection of positive messages for kids in a package that adults will also enjoy. This movie deserves to stick around as a classic.
I will note that the animation is quite simple, a far cry from Disney or Illumination. But the creators made it work, turning limitations into a stylistic choice that still allowed for creativity and flair - there's a lot of cute animation in this movie (the design for the kindergarteners was hilarious/genius). And while I already commented on the Sandler-esque elements of the humor, the movie also has plenty of more clever dialogue and ideas that had me chuckling throughout.
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.
Even though I've only seen two Miyazaki films before this (Nausicaä and The Wind Rises), I still felt like a I had a pretty good idea of what to expect and thought I would enjoy this one. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Way too abstract for my tastes. Didn't feel like a cohesive story and I didn't connect to any of the characters. You can have the cutest, most impressive animation in the world, but if the story and characters aren't working, it just feels empty. Once we enter the tower, all semblance of relatable story-telling is jettisoned and instead we get a random collection of "wouldn't it be cool if..." visual ideas in service of vague thematic elements. Clearly I'm in the minority here, but this one was just not for me.
These types of character studies succeed primarily due to stellar performances. There is interesting narrative ground explored, but that's not where most of the runtime goes. Instead it feels like we get what amounts to slice-of-life style storytelling that flesh these characters out into real people. I know the slice-of-life characterization feels odd considering the entire movie takes place over a two week span, but that's just how it feels without a propulsive A leads to B leads to C type of story. Luckily, the performances really are strong enough to carry it. Paul Giammatti deserves whatever praise (and nominations) he receives. The production is also top notch, with the retro-style style working well to sell the era. With all of that said, I think this is a film where audience reception will vary depending on how much they relate to the characters and themes being explored. I can recognize that it's all incredibly well executed and I did enjoy it, but I think I'm missing the personal connection that would really sell it.
As an aside, with my brother recently delving into stoicism, the funniest joke in this film for me was probably Hunham using Meditations as a go-to gift for everyone. Hilarious.
I don't know if it's my memory deteriorating or if I just watch too much content, but I went into this musical not only unaware that it was an adaptation of the 2007 film, but also having zero recollection of what that film was about despite having seen it. Admittedly, I probably saw the film about a decade ago, but it seems like I should have at least remembered the premise. In any case, I prefer going into movies blind, so I guess having a terrible memory accomplishes much the same thing.
So, what did I think of this adaptation? It was good enough to overcome my general indifference toward musicals. None of the music felt like instant classics to my ear, but it was catchy enough. I have zero qualifications to judge the quality of the singing, but the performances were strong and there was a surprising amount of solid slapstick-esque humor, with Drew Gehling and Joe Tippett really selling their quirky roles. As for the story, it's an effective feel-good drama about breaking out of a negative rut with the help of found family. Fans of musicals will likely enjoy it and it may win over non-musical folks like myself as well.
Better than most of the sequels, but still not great. It seems like Rocky has been flirting with retirement since 1976, so the overall arc certainly feels familiar, but the time jump gives us a new context that adds emotional weight. Adrian's passing is obviously the biggest change, and the opening act uses this to good effect. The exchange between Rocky and Paulie at the demolished ice skating rink was a highlight. Everything with Rocky's estranged son is less effective and the actual boxing storyline is just more of the same.
In some ways, it's comforting that nostalgia-bait/excessive fan service isn't a new phenomenon, as the Rocky series is probably a more egregious offender than even the worst modern examples. However, I'm probably not the best judge, because I watched the first five films in the series over the course of a month, whereas they were released over the course of two and half decades. The passage of time is the key ingredient for nostalgia. Without it, it just feels like an unearned rehash of what we've seen before. In any case, this film was definitely my least favorite of the bunch so far, and a lot of that is due to the overall premise/inciting incident (Rocky losing everything and having to move back to where he started), which feels so manufactured/rushed that it really took me out of things. Add on to that a strange arc for Tommy Gunn and an oddly edited street-fight finale and you're left wondering if the Rocky series should have ended at 3, or even 1.
The run times of the Rocky films have an interesting trajectory, with the first and second being approximately 2 hours, but the third cutting 20 minutes and the fourth cutting another 10, down to an incredibly lean 90 minutes. What makes that even crazier, is that each Rocky sequel (up to the fourth anyway, haven't watched the rest yet) has opened with 3-5 minutes that is directly lifted from the previous movie. On top of that, this entry has no less than 3 extended montages that amount to entire music videos, eating up another 15 minutes of run time. Moral of the story is, there isn't much meat on these bones. The story is superficial and rushed and, as with Rocky III, what little dialogue there is, is generally melodramatic and on the nose. The US/Soviet angle is the only unique element, but it's as surface level as the rest of the film, though Dolph Lundgren does deserve some props as the suitably intimidating Ivan Drago.
The cracks in the Rocky formula are starting to show. More and more of the run time is taken up by what amounts to music videos and what little story there is, is underdeveloped and melodramatic (having just finished watching Rocky IV before writing this review, spoiler alert, that problem gets worse). In this case, I actually think the overall premise had potential. Rocky finding out that Mickey was setting him up with lesser contenders is a nice little twist. But the execution is too superficial, with Rocky's arc feeling rushed. Combine that with soapy dialogue (the scene on the beach with Rocky and Adrian in particular), and the movie just doesn't land its punches. On the plus side, Eye of the Tiger is still catchy as hell and Mr. T is pretty fun too.
I didn't love the original Hunger Games books/movies. I had to double check my watch history to even confirm how far into the series I made it. I thought I only saw the first two, but turns out I did see Part 1 of Mockingjay. In any case, they didn't exactly leave a strong impression, feeling like the quintessential blend of young adult dystopian clichés. However, after strong recommendations from siblings/friends who had read this prequel, I figured why not.
Overall, I thought this was an improvement over what I remember from the originals. Not a huge improvement, but an improvement. Tom Blyth seems like a star in the making and a contender to join Timothée Chalamet in the next generation of sharp-jawed heartthrobs. His performance was strong enough to carry a film that is probably a bit longer than it should have been. Unfortunately, Rachel Zegler didn't work quite as well for me. I'm probably not the best judge, but her accent just felt forced and I think they leaned into the singing angle a bit too much. The ensemble has some strong work, with Jason Schwartzman injecting some much-appreciated humor and Peter Dinklage selling his role (though I wished he had more material to work with).
With respect to story, I've always appreciated a prequel that adds context, and I thought this did a pretty good job in that respect. Getting a glimpse into the history of the games and how they've developed over time was compelling. The fact that we leave the Hunger Games behind for the final act was also interesting, and though some of that sequence feels rushed, the ambitious scope is still admirable.
I also have to comment on the budget, which was significantly reduced from Catching Fire/Mockingjay. I don't know that I'd call it out as noticeable, but I will say that the few action set pieces did feel a bit cheap.
Not sure how I missed this one back when it came out, as I still had young siblings at the time, but I'm glad I finally got around to it. The story may be well-explored territory, but execution is everything, and the execution here is top notch. An absolutely stacked cast, creative visuals, a nice sprinkling of humor, and a cute emotional core that ties it all together. Watching it for the first time on Thanksgiving felt like a perfect way to bring in the Christmas season and this absolutely deserves a spot in the holiday rotation.
An incredible true story that doesn't lend itself very well to a movie adaptation. Watching someone play a video game is not a cinematic visual, so everything up through the online qualifier didn't do much for me. The creators do their best to mitigate the issue, adding an almost certainly manufactured running-late/ticking-clock component and throwing in some superfluous CGI overlays to the video game sequences, but these aren't enough to save the unavoidably bland/predictable scenes. It doesn't help that the movie really leans on ham-fisted expository dialogue, with characters constantly verbalizing the stakes at every opportunity. Things do improve once our gamers actually get into race cars, but the on-the-nose Hollywood style storytelling persists, to the point that it makes you question how true elements of the story actually are. On the positive side, the central trio of Archie Madekwe, David Harbour, and Orlando Bloom are all solid, doing their best to sell the often cheesy lines.
A definite step down from the first. The set-up starts strong, feeling a bit more slice of life in terms of exploring Rocky's life and struggles after "retirement". Rocky being terrible at finances, driving, and acting all fit perfectly with the character and add some fantastic humor. But once the movie starts driving toward the rematch things don't work nearly as well. The emotional ups and downs feel rushed and superficial, with the final rematch feeling far more Hollywood than the original film. On top of that, boxing just doesn't offer all that much variety in terms of visuals, so even though this is only the second in a nine-film series, the actual fight sequences are already feeling overly familiar and less-than compelling.
Up until this week there was a Sylvester Stallone sized gap in my viewing history, as I somehow had never seen the triple Oscar winning (with 7 more nominations) film that rocketed him to stardom. I finally sought this out because I saw an interview Stallone did on BBC back in 1977. In the interview, he described his background and motivations. He was well spoken and as an aspiring screenwriter, I found it incredibly relatable and inspiring. So, with that as the backdrop, does the almost 50 year-old classic hold up? Absolutely*!
The story is tight as can be, with interesting characters, strong dialogue, and, of course, an iconic theme song. Stallone absolutely sells the role. One of my favorites scenes was probably when Mickey comes to Rocky's apartment to offer his services. Just an excellent set-up and Stallone delivers a raw/powerful emotional performance. I was also surprised at how funny the movie was at times, albeit always with a dry, almost Coen brothers humor. I'm not even sure how intentional it was, but something like Rocky asking Paulie half a dozen times if Adrian knew he was coming on Thanksgiving was hilarious. Then there's the ending, which even though I knew the result was coming (hard to avoid spoilers this old), the movie still surprised me with the execution in the final moments. The way the announcer and fight result is so out of focus to almost be lost is such an effective punchline. Just quality stuff.
*There is one exception. A component of the film that absolutely will not hold up for modern audiences is Rocky and Adrian's first date (specifically once they get back to his place), which watches like an uncomfortable compilation of problematic male behaviors of yesteryear. It's crazy to think there was a time when the line, "I'm going to kiss you, but you don't have to kiss me back", delivered while Rocky has Adrian literally cornered between his arms, was considered to be any kind of romantic/acceptable.
I was recommending this movie to my brother and, after I started describing it, he said, "Oh, I think I saw the trailer. It honestly just looked like a bunch of hitman clichés". Honestly, he isn't wrong. This movie hits a lot of ideas that we've seen before, from things like Dexter on TV, to even the Meet the Sniper promotional trailer for Team Fortress 2. And the familiarity of the concept isn't the only thing that was a potential turn off. There's also the heavy reliance on narration, which can often feel like a stilted, storytelling crutch. However, the film overcomes both of these issues through sheer quality of execution. This is David Fincher after all. The production, writing, and performances are all top notch. The simplicity of the narrative was also appreciated, with more effort put into building a world that feels real. A simple story in a complex world is much preferred over a overly ambitious story in a world that feels empty. Here we just watch a master of his craft move from A to B to C, being presented with interesting problems and finding creative solutions. Michael Fassbender is excellent, selling the role and the narration. The Tilda Swinton scenes were the other highlight. My only real critique is that the ending didn't quite land for me, feeling a bit rushed.
Went into this one completely blind. Zero familiarity with the games and lore. Overall, I found it to be a serviceable light-horror, that hangs its hat on strong production design and creepy visuals, while generally missing the mark in terms of dialogue/characters. I've always had a soft spot for Josh Hutcherson (shout out to Future Man), and I think he does an admirable job making the less-than-stellar material work. I even liked some of the ideas being explored (e.g., dream therapy). But the overall story felt pretty undercooked in the end. Things move quick, which helps to mask a narrative that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny. All that said, making a video game movie that the fans love is a rare accomplishment, so props to the creators for that. Unfortunately, I don't expect the film to win many new fans.
Strong production design, solid acting, and some gruesome kills aren't enough to save the predictable story. This is a twist that most audiences will see coming a mile away. The overall premise was also too inexplicable/supernatural for my tastes, with a lot of logistical details being swept under the rug (e.g., how does this small town survive if kids are getting picked off by the dozens every year?).
As someone who didn't grow up as a horror fan, my gateway into the genre was horror-comedy, and this film shines in that role. It succeeds for two reasons: (1) the clever cliché-reversing premise; and (2) the performances of Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk. There's a lot of humor in the set-up and these two have the comedy chops to make it work, both in terms of physical gags (use of beer as cure-all was a highlight) and hilarious dialogue ("we've had a doozy of a day, officer"). Now, I will say, the film does lose a lot of momentum in the back half, with the comedy getting more sparse as the plot runs its course. The production also felt a bit cheaper than I remember. Not sure if it's the color grading or what, but it looks a little TV-movie at times. Luckily, its lean 90 minute run time saves the day and the positives easily outweigh the negatives.
It's an oft-used, often mis-used, phrase in cinema discourse, but I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think Megamind is underrated. I will never understand how Despicable Me launched a billion dollar tentpole franchise with spin-offs and merch galore, whereas Megamind seems to have been largely forgotten. Actually, I kind of do understand. Despicable Me was much more targeted toward younger kids (i.e., kid protagonists, fluffy unicorns, Minions, etc.). But still, Megamind deserved better. An absolutely stacked cast, clever premise, and hilarious writing. I've never been a huge Will Farrell fan, with his comedy often being too over-the-top for me, but he was the perfect choice for this role.
Watched this with my niece and nephew after not having seen it in at least a decade. While it may warrant an anti-bullying discussion for modern kiddos (which probably applies to all Charlie Brown specials), it still holds up as a Halloween classic with a cute story, consistent humor, and timeless animation.
Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is expectedly excellent. The heartbreaking true crime story is devastatingly compelling. Those two elements alone are enough for me to recommend the film. That said, the glacial pacing was excessive in my opinion. I read somewhere that Martin Scorsese referenced the pacing of Ari Aster films as an inspiration (e.g., Hereditary, Midsommar), and as someone who isn't the biggest fan of "elevated" horror, that inspiration isn't a plus in my book. It often results in unnaturally slow/stilted dialogue or sometimes no dialogue at all. I recognize that these performers are capable of delivering a lot of emotion with facial expressions alone, but I could have done with a bit more dialogue and a bit fewer extended/silent close ups. My brother came out of the film claiming that it could have been an hour shorter without losing anything critical. While I think that might be an exaggeration, I definitely noticed the length. To be clear, even if arguably unnecessary, everything in the film is incredibly well executed. It is Scorsese after all.
A couple of other minor thoughts: (1) John Lithgow and Brendan Fraser felt a bit superfluous/wasted as practically cameos in the final act; (2) I quite enjoyed the live radio broadcast, both for being an effective epilogue as well as being an interesting window into a historical entertainment medium.
Jamie Foxx sells the movie, with his opening scene (which happens to be delivering an opening argument) being my favorite of the film. Unfortunately, that means that the film peaked early. The true story lawsuit that forms the backbone of the film didn't really work for me as a story engine. It just felt like we were getting a superficial telling of what I'm sure was a much more complicated/legally technical case. Luckily, the performances were strong enough to keep me watching and I would still recommend the film to anyone looking for a solid courtroom drama.
Re-watched this for the first time since seeing it in theaters 10 years ago. The book is one of my childhood favorites, so I'm in the classic position of wanting the film to be good, but also holding it to perhaps unreasonably high standards. In the end, I think this is a respectable attempt to adapt a book that in many ways is ill-suited for adaptation (and perhaps may have worked better as a series). I say ill-suited because relying on children protagonists to pull off weightier story elements and themes is much easier to do on the page than on the screen. Aging up the children was the bare minimum, but even young teenagers are tough to sell in these roles. That said, the acting was actually not a huge problem for me. My biggest complaint was the pacing, as the story felt incredibly rushed and doesn't earn most of its big moments. It's hard to say for sure, but it does feel like it would have worked better if they had 6-10 episodes to work with. As far as positives go, they certainly didn't skimp on the budget. I was surprised to enjoy the film's depiction of the Mind Game and thought that the hyper condensed version actually worked reasonably well. I enjoyed the battle room design and only wish we could have seen more actual battles. While the command school "simulations" were also clearly high budget, I was less of a fan of the design. I just think they overdid it with the bugger swarms, to the point where it is both unrealistic and too visually muddy to even appreciate what is going on. As with everything else, the ending definitely feels rushed, with Ender's internal emotional conflict relying on some forced dialogue and feeling superficial as a result. I thought the decision to have a live bugger with the hive queen egg was an understandable addition that worked. It's hard for me to judge the movie in a vacuum and I'd definitely be interested to know what uninitiated audiences thought of it. As for me, it was just okay.
I respect the high-concept/no-dialogue attempt, but for me it ultimately was a failed experiment. I already have a bad track record with "elevated" horror, a genre which seems to pride itself on having far less dialogue than is realistic, so turning that element up to the max was unlikely to win me over. I will give it credit for having the lack of dialogue actually make sense for the most part (i.e., the film is 95% solo scenes), whereas some of these other films will have multiple characters sit in silence when they have a million things that they should be talking about (like perhaps whatever horror is trying to kill them). But even if the lack of dialogue is more realistic here, it still results in a less than engaging film. It doesn't help that the silence is ultimately filled with near constant non-verbal noises (panting, whimpers, grunts, cries, etc.) that quickly became grating. It reminded me of one of the reasons I dislike anime, where every facial expression or emotion seems to come paired with an over-the-top audio cue. Loosely connected to that is one of my least favorite horror/action tropes, where a character crawls on the ground for an extended sequence before getting up and running moments later. I think that anyone who can get up and run would do so immediately.
This review is feeling rather nitpicky and probably more negative than my actual opinion on the film. The production is strong, with fun creature design and generally impressive VFX (especially for a reported budget of $23 million). There were story ideas that I quite liked (having her kill an alien early on was a nice surprise). The biggest issue for me was that there wasn't enough to it, even for a lean 90 minute film. A lot of same-y feeling running and hiding. The traumatic character backstory that serves as the only non-alien related plot point was working for me initially, but the payoff didn't land. I'm sure the creators have some explanation for why things play out the way they do, but on the surface it just feels rushed and superficial, taking the frustrating "elevated" approach of hiding behind ambiguity and not worrying about whether things come together in a satisfying logical way.
I'm a sucker for time travel, so the premise here was enough to coast on, but the execution was only serviceable. A little too tongue-in-cheek for my tastes. While they don't quite break the fourth wall, the constant meta references and the film's self-awareness of its place in the time travel genre just feels played out, almost leaning on it as an excuse to cut corners and not offer anything particularly fresh (the biggest hand wave of all is the science fair origins of the time travel device itself, which feels like something out of a Disney original, rather than an R-rated horror comedy). The main source of humor is the clash of a modern teen in 1987. While that set-up has potential, the execution feels superficial, with the jokes mostly being obvious and on-the-nose. The actual slasher/horror moments definitely don't bring anything new to the table and there's some noticeably cheap production that distracts in some of those moments.
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.
I haven't seen a live production of Hamilton and, considering its widespread cultural impact that verges on omnipresence, have had surprisingly little exposure to the soundtrack. As such, when the filmed version dropped on Disney+ back in 2020, I was excited to watch it effectively blind. My main takeaway then, and my takeaway now after my first re-watch two years later, was quite simple: Hamilton 100% deserves its lofty position in our cultural zeitgeist. It's got everything going for it. Clever lyrics, memorable songs, excellent performances, poignant emotional beats. All wrapped in a surprisingly educational package that will undoubtedly increase the average knowledge base of U.S. history for generations to come. Calling out a few highlights: (1) Leslie Odom Jr - probably my favorite performance; (2) Helpless/Satisfied - so much storytelling packed in these and I always love a good perspective change/reframe; (3) Jonathan Groff - just hilarious; (4) Cabinet Battles - all politics could be improved with rap battles; (5) It's Quiet Uptown - definitely had me choked up. Those are just the few that come to mind, but really enjoyed virtually every song/scene. The only exception might be the semi a cappella finale, which didn't quite work for me. Just felt a bit more melodramatic/forced than some of the rest.
