SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm starting to think that the MCU's expansive success has some downsides, such as when they need to add on fresh new characters. I can't help but wonder if every new MCU superhero will either have a post-Thanos origin or will have a conversation like the one we see in this film where someone asks "Why didn't you help with Thanos?". It starts to feel restrictive, like the writers have to be careful to color within the lines so as not to step on the toes of any other films. In addition, I can't help but think of Obi-Wan's line in Phantom Menace: There's always a bigger fish. This relates to power creep and the need to ramp up the stakes. One villain threatens the city, the next the world, then the universe, then the timeline, then all universes and all timelines. If you think too much about everything we've seen so far in the MCU, you quickly start to wonder how some of these elements and characters can coexist. And even if they can coexist, they still might retroactively diminish the weight and stakes of previous films. This was kind of the case with the Eternals and the introduction of Celestials and the literal birth of the universe.

Moving past how it fits within the MCU, Eternals is not a bad film. It is perhaps overly ambitious, with quite a large ensemble for an introductory film. The runtime matches this ambition, attempting to give all of the characters room to breathe. This is done to varying degrees of success, but luckily no outright failures. The humor from Kumail Nanjiani and his valet was appreciated. While I've never been a huge Jolie fan, I thought the conflict surrounding her character was interesting and her relationship with Ma Dong-seok's Gilgamesh was a nice element. I would say the weakest link would be Lauren Ridloff's Makkari, and not from an acting perspective, but because her character seemed to be the only one who doesn't have any real arc. Overall, it's not the expansive cast that drags things down to middling, but rather the muddy plot and less than compelling lore (e.g. everything toward the end about the uni-mind and sharing power was pretty eye roll inducing). Some of the conflict between the characters also feels forced and the merits of the dispute between the Eternals isn't exactly compelling. The action is generally solid and might be the biggest beneficiary of the expansive cast, as the diverse power set on display is a nice way to spice up the set pieces.

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

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

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

All in all, a surprisingly worthwhile belated sequel.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Over the last two weeks I re-watched all 8 previous Spider-Man films in preparation for this one. That's Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire's trilogy, Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2 with Andrew Garfield, Homecoming/Far From Home with Tom Holland, and finally Into the Spider-Verse. It was quite the marathon and having just gotten out of the theater from seeing No Way Home I can now confidently say that it was totally worth it. However, I will note that Into the Spider-Verse was not directly referenced, with only a very minor line of dialogue that could be considered an indirect shoutout, so if you're also considering going back to do some re-watching you can probably skip that one (although it's still fantastic and well worth a watch). As one final side note, for the last five or so years I have gone out of my way to avoid trailers. I think this always results in a better film going experience, but in this case I think it was a particularly beneficial decision, as I was genuinely surprised by characters/scenes that were undoubtedly spoiled in the trailers.

So... No Way Home. This is kind of a tough movie to rate because it is very much a mixed bag. It hits some home runs in certain areas, but there are some elements that fail to live up to the strength of Homecoming and Far From Home.

THE BAD: The instigating event with Dr. Strange (memory erase/obliviate spell) is a tonally weird scene. What ultimately turns into a crucial/deadly mistake is played as an extended joke, which was a bit off putting. In general, the humor has more misses than the previous films. Still plenty of hits, but just not quite as high of a percentage. Some of the emotional beats and dialogue feel more ham-fisted than I'd like. The pacing felt a bit off, with numerous scenes that seemed to drag unnecessarily. Some of that probably has to do with the need to establish a lot of new (or rather old) characters, which leads to lots of extended dialogue sequences. I feel like an extra action sequence or at least some trimming here and there could have been beneficial. Finally, I was very disappointed/frustrated with the post-credits scene. In fact, to even call it a post-credits scene is disingenuous. It was literally a trailer for the next MCU movie, which is not how post-credits scenes have typically been used and I definitely prefer them to be self-contained scenes rather than montages/clips from a future film (especially considering the fact that I avoid trailers).

THE GOOD: I recently wrote a review praising Into the Spider-Verse for successfully bringing the interdimensional antics of comic book storytelling to the big screen, so when this film attempts that same premise in live action, without the benefits and limitless possibilities of animated storytelling, it is frankly even more ambitious/impressive. And, despite all of my critiques, this film succeeds in that attempt. This is peak fan service. The callbacks. The cameos. The costumes. It's all there, and as an audience member all I could do is smile. The plot isn't anything to write home about, but it gets the job done in terms of setting up all of the types of big payoff moments that we were all hoping for. The highlights for me (all of which were big surprises) were definitely Charlie Cox's return as Matt Murdock/Daredevil, the reveal of Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield's dive to save MJ, giving him a chance to prevent a fellow Peter Parker from experiencing the same loss he did.

All things considered, this is a must watch for any Marvel/Spider-Man fan, and a solid enough film on its own merits, although perhaps not quite as well rounded as Tom Holland's previous two outings as the webslinger.

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 7 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Unlike all of the others, I did update my original score for this movie based on this viewing, increasing it from a 7 to an 8. While I still think it isn't quite as strong as Homecoming, I don't think it deserves a full point less.

THE BAD: As with Homecoming, no major problems, just nitpicks. The metallic Spider-suit used in the early scenes with the Iron Man/Starlord style automatic helmet just doesn't feel like Spider-Man, due in part to the more obvious CGI nature of it. Luckily that's the only place it's used and the movie quickly manufactures a reason to get Peter back into a more standard costume with a traditional mask. The twist reveal scene is a ham-fisted exposition dump with forced/unnecessary tie-ins to past MCU films. The technology/mechanics behind the villain don't really hold up to scrutiny and knowing the details on re-watch really strained my suspension of disbelief, leaving me scratching my head as to how it could all possibly work in numerous places. Luckily, it all looks great on screen and the movie happily and effectively sweeps the details under the rug so they don't get in the way of the compelling plot/characters and exciting action. While all of the major elements that worked in Homecoming continue to work here, I will say that some don't work quite as well. The humor has a few more misses. The plot a few more overly convenient elements (e.g. Peter turning EDITH over to Mysterio so quickly was a bit of an eye-roll inducer).

THE GOOD: Lagging behind Homecoming in certain categories is really more a testimony to the quality of Homecoming than a critique of this film. Everything here is at least good, and more often great. Tom Holland and Zendaya play the budding Peter/MJ relationship perfectly and are cute as hell together. As with Amazing Spider-Man, I enjoy the decision to have secret identities shared sooner rather than later. As expected, Jake Gyllenhaal is great in his first superhero role, with a character that gives him a chance to show off some range. The action is all visually impressive and engaging, with the projection sequences providing nice opportunities to be more creative. And finally, J.K. Simmons' return as J.J. Jameson is much appreciated.

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 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.

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.

Part 3 (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.

Spider-Man 3 is the first of the bunch that I really didn't remember too much about (other than emo-Peter and his finger guns, who could forget that). I've probably only seen it two or three times, with the most recent viewing being at least 10 years ago. As such, relative to 1 and 2, this movie benefited from feeling less like a re-watch of something familiar and more like a fresh viewing. Despite the remaining 5 movies being newer, I expect they will all receive the same benefit as I believe I have viewed them all just the one time in theaters.

THE BAD: The comic book inspired writing continues to stand out, and not in a good way. I have a hard time believing selective amnesia is going to be a compelling plot point in any medium ever again. The pacing cranks up to 11 in the lead up to the finale and the writing feels quite forced as a result. The critical moment that highlights this is the initial team up scene between Venom and Sandman, which feels completely unmotivated and contrived. The Peter/MJ relationship drama continues to be a mess.

THE GOOD: Despite having what are perhaps the most egregiously hammy scenes in Sam Raimi's entire trilogy (aforementioned finger guns and the disturbing dance number with Gwen Stacy), somehow this movie feels less cheesy than the first two. I think this is probably because the extreme cheese is motivated by a plot element, albeit not a particularly strong one. Regardless, this allows the movie to wink at the audience and acknowledge the cheese for what it is. I appreciated the ambitious three villain setup and despite being less than compelling from a motivation standpoint, the 2v2 team-up finale made for a great action set piece. In fact, most of the action and set-pieces in the film are well done. This is thanks in large part to Sam Raimi's direction, which continues to impress, with unique and memorable action sequences that still feel impressive 10+ years later. Even the overly coincidental/eyeroll moments, such as Gwen Stacy's high rise photo shoot being interrupted by a malfunctioning crane, are enjoyable thanks to the stylish action.

Part 2 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. As with the first, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (8/10) based on this viewing, despite many elements not holding up.

THE BAD: As with the first, this movie has more than its fair share of cheese. Of course, most of the cheese is likely just a symptom of trying to mirror the comic book story telling of the source material, i.e. the dialogue is simple, the relationships are simple, the character arcs are simple, everything is simple. This isn't an insurmountable flaw and the intentionality of it certainly helps (plus the performers are all game to ham it up), but compared to the more ambitious storytelling in modern superhero media (e.g. Logan or even Infinity War/Endgame), everything on display here starts to feel very Saturday morning cartoon (or rather, old Saturday morning cartoon, as even animated shows these days have stepped up their game, e.g. Harley Quinn or Arcane). Beyond the cheese, most of my critiques from the first movie also return. The relationship with MJ is still a mess. Tobey Maguire still doesn't feel quite right as Spider-Man (although I think his performance is an improvement over the first, mainly because his arc allows him to display a bit more range). Watching back to back with the first also highlighted how Doc Oc's origin is largely a rehash of the Green Goblin's (overly ambitious but not evil man is corrupted by uncontrolled technology that takes over his mind, to the point where they both talk to themselves). Final action set piece was perhaps a bit overly ambitious for the technology available at the time and looks quite dated in several places.

THE GOOD: Every scene with J.K. Simmons. The train sequence and really all action sequences involving Doc Oc. More humor. The lost powers plotline, while undoubtedly contrived, does make for some fun moments. The direction is impressive and often memorable. I know this good list feels a bit short, but... it's a Spider-Man movie. The webslinging is more than enough to make up for my nitpicks and at the end of the day its still a good time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With one significant exception, I thought Shawn and Gus's third film was a big step up from the prior two. The biggest success was the humor, which landed more often and with a nice balance of successful callbacks, running jokes, meta humor, and standard Psych hijinks. James and Dulé really carry the movie and have slipped back into these goofy roles seamlessly. While most of the standard Psych cast make appearances as well, they all feel a bit token, with several side stories feeling very much incomplete (Woody and his legal trouble, Carlton and his unresolved case, Henry and his baby crib, Karen and her family vacation, Juliet/Shawn and the children question). I suppose some of them were intended as cameos rather than side stories, but regardless it felt a bit odd. Luckily, that didn't detract from the movie too much, as Psych has always been primarily the Shawn and Gus show. The story presents a serviceable mystery for Shawn to solve that is very personal to Gus, which is a good set up as it gives us more time with the stars. Ultimately, the ending was the only thing that really dragged the movie down, as I thought it veered too far into the absurd/silly. Psych has always walked a fine line in that respect, but for me this one ended up on the wrong side of it. This may have also contributed to the conclusion feeling a bit rushed. In any case, conclusion notwithstanding, this one is definitely worth the time for any Psych fans looking for more of Shawn Spencer and his partner Birdinahand Andabush.

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.