With a seemingly bottomless amount of content stacking up in my watchlist, I find it hard to justify re-watching anything. As such, I was surprised to discover that my most recent re-watch of this film was in fact my 4th viewing. This may not seem like a lot, but it's actually the second highest of any movie in my Trakt history (member since 2016). I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that, even after three previous viewings, this film absolutely holds up. The clever story provides a strong foundation, but the real selling point is the hilarious performances, with every member of the cast getting a chance to shine. Jesse Plemons and Billy Magnussen were particularly excellent, really nailing their parts and bringing laughs with almost every line. The movie also benefits from some uniquely thematic filmmaking, with establishing shots made to feel like miniatures on a game board. All in all, an easy recommendation and a definite highlight in the action-comedy genre of recent years. Bring on the sequel.
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.
Part 8 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Generally I have not been updating my original scores during this marathon, even in cases when the films didn't hold up, but in this case it's a nonissue because my original score (8/10) still feels appropriate.
THE BAD: No big problems, just nitpicks. I'm not a big fan of Miles' non-traditional venom strike and invisibility powers. They just don't feel very Spider-Man to me (apologies in advance if they are actually comic book accurate powers, but I certainly wasn't aware of them beforehand). That said, I appreciate their importance from a narrative perspective and thought they were used well throughout the movie. While the over-the-top nature of this movie's premise is obviously very intentional and allows for extreme creativity, certain elements just weren't my speed. In particular, the Looney Tunes-esque Peter Porker was not a real value-add for me. There were also certain action sequences (e.g. the cemetery/dragged by train set piece) that were a bit more slapstick/cartoonish than I would like, especially given the darker tone/event that kicked off the plot.
THE GOOD: The most impressive thing about this movie is the fact that it successfully executes such a ridiculously ambitious premise. Interdimensional antics have been a mainstay of comic book storytelling for probably 50+ years, but this film might be the first real success in translating those antics to the big screen. The darker elements of the story are well executed, leading to some very effective emotional beats (including a great Stan Lee cameo, rest in peace). The animation is top tier, with maximum creativity on display in every scene. In particular, the comic book inspired elements (thought bubbles, multi-panel sequences, etc.) are perfect. The soundtrack is killer. The voice acting is top notch. The humor is plentiful, naturalistic, and meaningfully contributes to character development. Jake Johnson's Peter B. Parker is an impressive example of how lean storytelling combined with well known mythos can establish compelling new characters very quickly (this technique was also used to varying degrees of success in Marvel's recent animated What If...? show on Disney+).
And with that, my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon is officially over. Luckily, with No Way Home coming out tomorrow, I won't have to wait long to get another dose of the web-slinger. It's really a testament to the character that even after watching 8 straight films, I'm still excited for more.
Part 6 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. As with all of the others, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (8/10) based on this viewing. However, when it came to the Sam Raimi trilogy and Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2, the reason I didn't want to update my score was because the movies didn't necessarily hold up, and relative to modern standards the scores likely would have needed to be decreased. That was not the case here. In fact, while watching the movie I incorrectly thought that I had originally given it a 7/10. Based on that false recollection, I actually was prepared to increase this movie's score because... what can I say? It's a really great movie.
THE BAD: Not a lot to criticize here, and really all of my critiques are the same ones I remember having back when I saw it in theaters. The early Vulture scene where he disintegrates the original shocker still feels tonally out of place. The final action sequence is kind of a letdown relative to the previous set pieces and even relative to some of the action sequences in Maguire's/Garfield's films. Spider-Man deserves well lit action scenes that highlight his movement and creative web-slinging, not visually muddy night-time scenes on the side of a crashing plane.
THE GOOD: This movie is firing on all cylinders. Casting. Dialogue. Characters. Plot. Humor. Everything is top notch and having just watched the earlier Spider-Man films, this movie's quality is all the more recognizable, easily standing above them in pretty much every metric. Some of this probably has more to do with changes in style than anything, but for me anyway, those changes are all for the better. For example, the larger focus on humor is a big win. Not only is there more of it, but it's also weaved in more naturally and feels right at home coming from high-school sophomore characters played by actors/actresses that actually look the part. The movie also benefits from its connection to the larger MCU, with RDJ's Tony Stark and Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan both providing great supporting roles. The connection also isn't some token element/cameo just to appease the audience. These characters and their relationship with Peter are a driving force, both narratively and from a character development perspective. In theaters, I remember not being all that impressed with the big twist, but for whatever reason, on this viewing everything clicked and I was totally on board. I can't help but feel like Michael Keaton could have been used even more, but he was great in the scenes we had (I just finished Dopesick where he absolutely killed it, so that's probably why I'm feeling like a big Michael Keaton fan).
What a uniquely brilliant film. I wouldn't exactly identify romance as one of my favorite genres, but this film transcends the genre. Yes the subject is love, but not just love between a romantic couple (though it includes that too). This is about every type of love. Love between siblings. Love between friends. Love between father and son. But most importantly, this film is about love of life, whatever that life may look like. Tim's final conclusion about how he's learned to live life just hits hard and really captures the spirit of the entire movie. It's wholesome, uplifting, life affirming, poignant, and on top of all that, quite hilarious at times.
To expand on my point regarding the broader romantic genre, I feel the average romance film has a fairly narrow scope, most commonly exploring a brief stage of a relationship (meet-cute => rocky patch => make-up). By comparison, we see Tim and Mary from meet-cute to marriage to three kids. Actually, now that I think about it, the clever sci-fi premise allows them to give us two meet-cutes, and both are excellent. Then we get a brilliantly executed montage (and a great song!) that shows us the relationship is a success. And then the rest of the film is a perfect mix of big and small moments that give us a window into the longer term relationship. How refreshing is it to see a romance where the conflict doesn't come from the romance itself? There is no rocky patch here. In fact, when the movie hints in that direction, they use it as a clever misdirect and pivot into the next relationship milestone proposal!. Just brilliant writing all around.
Last thing I'll complement is the characters and the performances. They're all fantastic, but the easy favorite for me is Bill Nighy. Great dialogue with plenty of humor combined with quirky speech mannerisms and of course the fact that his wholesome relationship with his son really ends up forming the emotional backbone of the film. But even the minor characters are great. Uncle D's final dialogue about his brother definitely had me choking up.
After watching both Dune's back to back, I had an itching for more epic, desert based cinematography and decided to revisit George Miller's masterpiece. This also makes for an interesting comparison. While I enjoyed my 5+ hour visit to Arrakis, I think this is the stronger movie. The amount of world building it accomplishes in just 2 hours is incredible. Combine that with an elegantly simple story, strong central performances, and jaw dropping action sequences, and you've got a winner. After almost a decade, the action set pieces remain unmatched, and it's honestly not close. Comparing the practical heavy stunt work to the CGI messes that are so common now is night and day.
Holds up surprisingly well for a 25+ year old film. The key is that the most iconic set pieces/sequences didn't require overly ambitious special effects that would date the film as it aged. This is before Tom Cruise's propensity for stunt work drove the series toward big spectacle action. This first outing was a spy film, first and foremost. I mean, the hook of the Langley heist is literally just Tom Cruise hanging from a rope and yet it is just as tense and effective today as it was back in 1996. Of course, the finale does ramp things up and the helicopter sequence certainly shows its age, but even that holds up more than expected. It's a simple thing and probably is completely unrealistic, but the way the speed of the train is shown with Tom Cruise struggling to hold on, flipping and sliding across the top of the train was appreciated and still looks solid. Ironically, I actually wish Dead Reckoning had taken some notes in that respect, as its train-top fight scene felt weightless and glossy in comparison. Beyond the spectacle, the story here is strong, with a brilliant opening that sets the stage for a host of twists and turns. I don't want to continuously bag on Dead Reckoning (I actually did enjoy it), but the dialogue and plotting feel so much more natural here. All in all, Tom Cruise's first stint as Ethan Hunt is a worthy starting place for a franchise that has built itself into an action juggernaut.
I've seen this film many times, but what struck me most during this re-watch was the tension. From the almost inaudible scream of a distant child in the opening to the absence of a barking dog a few scenes later, this movie is just a masterclass in injecting tension in creative ways. The idea that one of the most tense scenes in the film is a sequence where a man watches news footage in a closet is incredible. Of course, you can't talk about this film's tension without heaping praise on the soundtrack, which is equal parts memorable and disquieting. Just brilliant work from James Newton Howard. I'd also point out that the movie knows how and when to give the audience moments of tension release, sprinkling in the perfect amount of humor throughout.
But tension only gets you so far. This movie ultimately succeeds because the tension is in service of a tightly written story with compelling characters brought to life by brilliant performances. There's not a line of dialogue wasted. Even the most minor characters are memorable additions (i.e. Tracey Abernathy with her confession of cursing or Mr. Nathan with his soda commercial conspiracy). And while I will acknowledge that the final act does move a bit quick to set up its big payoff, I'd argue that the payoff is worth it.
Re-watched this film in anticipation of seeing the follow-up, Missing. I loved it back in 2018 and it absolutely holds up. The opening sequence stands out as a powerhouse proof of concept. It could easily have been released as a short film, packing an emotional punch that proves that the computer screen POV is more than just a gimmick. The movie uses the POV in creative ways that ring true (or true enough anyway - yes, the excessive use of facetime is a crutch, but what do you expect? We obviously need to see our actors). Once the central mystery kicks off, the true power of the POV is revealed, as it allows the audience to be much more involved in the investigation, getting a direct window into our protagonist's train of thought. Honestly, it puts the "detective" work in most mystery movies to shame, which typically have to rely on either narration or some other equally blunt expositional dialogue to catch the audience up. The twists and turns keep the audience guessing, and the final reveal, though straining credulity in certain respects (surviving five days down a ravine still feels like a bit much, even with rain), generally sticks the landing. Finally, John Cho's performance needs to be called out, as he absolutely carries the film and excels despite the unconventional demands of the POV.
Ben Affleck's directorial debut was an instant classic for me. The highlight here is the writing. I haven't read the original novel, so I'm not sure how much credit the Batfleck should get, but in any case, this is a brilliantly paced, hard-hitting mystery. Moral dilemmas in movies often feel superficial, serving more as a plot device for the characters than as a meaningful exploration for the audience. That is not the case here. Thanks to it's clever structure, this movie plants all of the seeds for its moral dilemma without the audience even knowing what the dilemma is. Getting the context before the question makes the finale's reveal that much more effective.
The low level writing is equally brilliant, with virtually every scene packed with memorable moments and dialogue, all of which benefit from fantastic performances. There's multiple darkly comedic exchanges that add a touch of humor to this otherwise heavy story, and the brief moments of action are well staged and punchy. There's also the setting to discuss. From the opening scene, it becomes clear that this depressingly well realized city is as much a character in this story as Patrick Kenzie. I can't speak to how accurate the representation actually is, but it certainly feels real. Also, I might just be a sucker for a Boston accent.
I re-watched this film in anticipation of seeing the sequel next week. Even knowing all of the twists and turns that are coming, this movie was still a masterpiece. As an aspiring screenwriter, this is the type of film that makes me wonder why I even bother. The writing is just brilliant, with a story that is clever as hell, memorable characters, and hilarious dialogue. Combine all of that with an ensemble cast that delivers in every way, and you've got an instant classic. The off type casting of Chris Evans and Daniel Craig was genius, and the both sold the roles. Captain America as the asshole and James Bond as the quirky, verbose detective with a drawl. If the sequel is as great as the original, Benoit Blanc might end up being Craig's best role.
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.
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 don't usually write TV reviews (too daunting of a task, as I watch a lot of TV), but I was so surprised by all of the criticism and lukewarm comments that I felt the need to throw my two cents in. To put it simply, the writing on this show is leaps and bounds above the writing on all other franchise TV released by Disney+ to date (Star Wars/Marvel). Maybe audiences are just used to the blunt force writing we often see in those other shows, where we are spoon fed on the nose dialogue that tells us exactly what is happening and how we should feel about it. I, for one, much prefer some nuance and subtlety in my TV, and that's what this show delivers. We get to piece together Cassian's plan without ever needing the show to spell things out. It's refreshing and engaging.
Moving to the smaller scale writing, I don't know how someone can watch the introduction scene of Syril Karn and Chief Hyne and not recognize the absolutely top notch dialogue, performances, characterization, story telling, etc. It does so many things at once, and it does them all brilliantly. And that's just one scene! The first episode has many that are equally impressive. As far as criticisms go, I will acknowledge that the opening four or five minutes were a little underwhelming. However, once we get to the actual instigating event, which happens around minute seven or eight, we get another example of excellent writing, dialogue, and performances.
All in all, easily the best Star Wars content we've seen since Rogue One.
I was sitting down to watch the new Ghostbusters: Afterlife when I realized that I hadn't seen the original in probably 15 years and had in fact never bothered to see the sequel. So, I changed plans and decided I'd do something of a marathon and watch all three (perhaps even four, as I also haven't seen the reboot from 2016).
This movie is a classic for a reason and it remains worthy of its reputation. Yes, the effects are incredibly dated, and yes, the ending doesn't quite stick the landing, but neither of those things really matter when Bill Murray is on screen delivering some of the most hilarious and iconic one liners of all time. I also want to complement the brilliantly snappy pacing, from hilarious cold open all the way to marshmallow covered finale, there isn't a wasted moment.
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.
Looking back on my review of the first Spider-Verse film, I see that I described it as ambitious, which it certainly was, but with 20 extra minutes of length and an exponential increase in Spider-Man quantities, the sequel has turned the dial up to 11. And for the most part, the efforts are successful. The movie delivers powerful emotional beats, plenty of great humor, and most impressive of all, a non-stop display of beautiful/creative animation. That said, I did have some quibbles.
By the back half, I was absolutely feeling the movie's length, which was made even worse by the growing realization that the story wasn't working toward an actual conclusion, with the ultimate "to be continued" reveal not really sitting well with me. I think this connects with my feeling that the movie didn't have a strong enough central plot thread. We spend so much time on these admittedly great character moments, that the "big bad" ends up feeling like a B Plot. Maybe even a C Plot by the end. I'd also say that some individual scenes dragged on more than I felt necessary. I think the movie was at it's strongest in the opening act. Some of the emotional beats in the back half didn't feel quite as natural. I also think they spent too much time building up the "Miles is in a different universe" twist, which felt too obvious to warrant that much time.
All of that said, I still really enjoyed the movie. The voice acting is consistently excellent. The new Spider-Man designs are unique and fun. And again, the animation cannot be highlighted enough. Setting the bar high for the entire industry.
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.
This film slots into a relatively small intersection of genres, the action-rom-com. The action elements were serviceable, but nothing spectacular. The romance was slightly more interesting, as it forms the backbone of the entire premise. However, while I like the idea, the execution was lacking. Specifically, the opening meet-cute/date sequence that sets up the titular ghosting was too slow and the chemistry wasn’t clicking for me. Once the ghosting occurs, things do improve, particularly with respect to Chris Evans and his interactions with his family. Still, the rest of the romance is sprinkled throughout the action set pieces and doesn’t ever feel completely natural. Finally, the comedy is very much hit or miss. The primary source is Marvel-esque quippiness that is getting more tired with every passing year, but there’s plenty that lands well enough to generate chuckles. Some of the funniest moments are surprise cameo sequences that feel a bit like cheap fan service, but they still got a big smile out of me.
It seems like Ana de Armas has become one of the go to female action stars of late, getting big roles in No Time to Die, The Gray Man, and now this film. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of these roles have really given her a chance to stand out in the same way that she has in things like Knives Out and Blade Runner 2049. While I think the writing for her characters in these action films is partly to blame, I also think that the action focus can sometimes pull away from the performance regardless of the writing. It’s a symptom of screen time really. The more over the top the action, the more time we spend with a stunt double or CGI replacement, rather than with the actual actress. It’s trading time that might otherwise provide character development for another gun fight or car chase. All of this is to say, I wasn’t super impressed with Ana de Armas in this film, which was unfortunate.
Chris Evans’ character had a bit more to work with in terms of arc and he definitely benefited from it. I think this is mostly a symptom of him being the fish out of water and proxy for the audience. I also think his comedic chops are a bit more honed.
In the end, I suspect this film will do well with audiences, but I don’t expect it to be anyone’s favorite.
In today's environment of bottomless new content competing for my attention, I really struggle to find reasons to re-watch anything. The siren call of the new and unknown, brimming with potential greatness, will inevitably win out over the familiar. However, the one exception to this rule is when I have opportunities to watch things with others. After all, what is the purpose of trekking out into the unknown if I don't share what I discover. With that said, this was a re-watch for me, as my mother was visiting and was looking to watch a movie. This film had really resonated with me and I thought she would connect with its story as well.
I wasn't writing reviews at the time of my first watch, so I figured I'd circle back with a brief write-up. If you're unaware, this film is based on a stage play, so you should be prepared for a very small, dialogue driven story. That said, the clever central conceit (our perspective mirroring the unreliable perception of Hopkins' character as his mind deteriorates with age) provides a backbone of drama and mystery as the story unfolds. It's the perfect blend of high and low concept (a simple narrative twist applied to a dialogue driven character study). Ultimately, the main thing to talk about here is the powerhouse performance of Anthony Hopkins. There's a reason he won an Oscar for this role. His character's arc through the movie feels authentic, with the entire spectrum of human emotions on display. Historically I'm not one to get emotional during movies, but that may be changing, as Hopkins' performance in some of the final scenes of this film definitely had my eyes watering up.
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 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.
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.
While the original three Indiana Jones films are hardly a bastion of realism, they might as well be a documentary compared to the late fourth entry, which features some of the most ridiculous set pieces imaginable. I feel like the nuke-proof fridge gets a lot of flak, but the worst moment for me was undoubtedly Shia LaBeouf's Tarzan imitation, somehow catching up to speeding jeeps by swinging from vine to vine. It's the kind of sequence that makes you scratch your head and wonder what these Hollywood folks are thinking. Another puzzler is the surprisingly selective magnetism of these alien artifacts. I suspect these otherworldly properties are in fact powered by screenwriting contrivances. These kind of critiques can feel a bit nit-picky, but the sheer volume of these issues makes them hard to ignore. I'd also point out that if the movie logic hand waving was in service of an otherwise great film, I think everyone would have less of a problem suspending their disbelief. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Despite my issues with the original three films, at the very least they contain numerous iconic moments. This film on the other hand is largely forgettable, and the parts you might remember will not be for a positive reason. I'm not going to update my legacy score of 6/10, but I would knock this down to a 5, possibly even a 4 based on this re-watch.
With all that said, shoutout to the only line that got a laugh out of me: when Shia LaBeouf gets spooked by a spider web and reassures himself by saying "It's just a thing". For some reason that really got me.
I was a bit wary during the opening sequences of this film. First, the submarine sequence, which was difficult to appreciate given the audience's lack of context as to its importance. However, the inherent tension was ultimately enough to sell it and the idea of a mcguffin being intentionally buried at sea in a ghost submarine is compelling. However, then we come to Tom Cruise’s first action scene: the horse/dessert sequence. I was not a fan. Other than the dust storm, there wasn’t much to set this apart from gun fights in a million other movies, and even the dust storm felt uninspired given that we had a great dust storm sequence in Ghost Protocol. All in all, not the best first impression.
However, the movie turns it around once we learn of the central conflict/antagonist, which feels like a new step for Mission Impossible, veering almost into science fiction. It allows for some fun twists and turns and puts our heroes on the back foot in some creative ways throughout the film. It helps that Gabriel gives a viscerally sinister performance to back up the more ethereal threat of the rogue AI. Hayley Atwell’s character also made a nice addition to the team and I was impressed with how quickly they established her character. I think it’s largely due to some strong dialogue and Cruise’s natural chemistry with pretty much everyone.
Of course, for Mission Impossible, story and conflict is somewhat secondary. The real draw here is the action/stunts. In that respect, other than the aforementioned opening, the rest of the movie’s action did not disappoint. We get a well balanced buffet of driving, jumping, running, falling, and fighting, with plenty of memorable/creative moments and some solid humor interspersed throughout.
As an aside, I did find it interesting how much the promotion of this movie pushed the motorcycle BASE jump. Maybe I’ve just been desensitized and or am struggling to appreciate the practical element, but on the screen it didn’t exactly blow me away (I felt similar to the side of the plane stunt in Rogue Nation). Alas, I don’t want to discourage Tom Cruise from continuing his grand spectacle practical stunts, so it still gets two thumbs up from me.
EDIT: After seeing this for a second time, I have to acknowledge some shortcomings that I overlooked initially. The exposition dumps are hard to ignore and the dialogue in general was stuffed with cheesy on the nose exchanges. While I still appreciate the high-level premise, the actually plotting is quite thin. Yes, the action is fun and saves things for the most part, but I still have to pull back my initial 8/10, because the rest of it isn't there.
Close to perfect. While there isn't a single performance that disappoints, at the end of the day the movie rests on Jude Hill. It appears to be his first role and the kid just absolutely nails it. His adorably innocent and earnest perspective provides a strong contrast to the scary period in Irish history that is depicted. And it's that same contrast that overflows throughout the film. This is a family and a community that pushes through hard times with whatever positivity they can muster. In this way, the movie is able to be poignant and powerful, while still somehow feeling light and optimistic. I was surprised by how funny the movie was, with hilarious scenes sprinkled throughout (from the children's discussion of recognizing Protestants/Catholics by their name to the numerous quick witted one liners from Grandpa). I know I already praised all of the performances, but I'd be remiss not to specifically call out Judi Dench and Ciarán Hinds, who deliver some of the most powerful dialogue in the film.
After recently seeing The Fabelmans and Babylon, I thought it was interesting that this movie also has a pronounced focus on the impact of film/television/theater. Even more interesting was the fact that I think this movie was the most effective of the three in its use of that element. I think this was because film/tv/theater acted as a very real form of escapism, giving the characters a reprieve from the tension of their normal life. The clever use of color also didn't hurt. This also ties to the overall excellent production/direction throughout the entire film. The movie certainly deserved all seven of its Oscar nominations and I might have even given it a couple more wins to go along with best original screenplay.
As far as critiques go, I really don't have much to say. The only quibble I have might be that the final riot/confrontation scene was a bit overly stylized and dramatic for my taste. But ultimately that didn't detract much at all. An easy recommend and one of my top movies from recent years.
A childhood favorite that holds up incredibly well on re-watch. Now, don't judge me, but I'm going to repurpose a portion of my recent review of The Princess Bride, because it is equally relevant here (just the first paragraph below).
Before we started the movie, I was surprised to see its length: less than 90 minutes! I was incredulous. How could the countless incredible scenes that I remember from my childhood be packed into such a small package. I soon found out the answer. The entire movie is just those incredible scenes. There is no filler. It cuts from one highlight to the next without a superfluous scene, dangling plot thread, or wasted line of dialogue in the entire film. It puts on a clinic in terms of efficiency of storytelling and other than one character doing an unnaturally rapid double 180 toward the end (When Dean goes from okay with Giant, to scared of Giant, to okay with Giant in a matter of 15 seconds, which just so happens to correspond with an equally rapid weather change for cinematic snowfall. Notably, even this sequence was barely a hiccup), the pacing never feels like a problem. It just feels like masterful writing.
Beyond the writing, you've also got top tier voice acting with memorable deliveries of quotable lines in virtually every scene (or at least me and my siblings quote them, e.g. anytime one of us is looking for attention the default response is an unenthused "we're watching, we're watching" in the style of Dean on his lawn chair at the lake). The film also manages to be something that kids can enjoy, while not feeling like it was made for kids, which is a difficult balance. All in all, a ridiculously impressive film. It's got humor. It's got heart. And it's got Vin Diesel.
As a final positive, the last 15 minutes were pure joy for my 8-year old self. What other animated kids movie has well directed military action sequences with jeeps, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines!
Having watched Glass Onion and this film in quick succession, I think it is safe to say that the original Knives Out remains the film to beat when to comes to the modern who-dun-it. Whereas Benoit Blanc's first outing had the benefit of a fiendishly clever central mystery, this film tries to earn its cleverness points with a tongue-in-cheek meta set-up. While these efforts aren't entirely wasted (Adrien Brody pitching his action packed finale was hilarious, and the payoff, though predictable, was still a fun moment), there's diminishing returns on every fourth-wall breaking wink at the audience. Beyond that, the ensemble of suspects feels underdeveloped, which is possibly a symptom of a runtime that left things feeling a tad rushed. At the end of the day, the entire who-dun-it element doesn't leave much of an impression, with all of the detective work feeling fairly straightforward. Luckily, the central performances from Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan were enough to keep me invested, as they both bring their comedic chops and sell their quirky, odd-couple partnership.
I was due for a re-watch of this film, having originally seen it about 8 years ago. It was one of the first foreign films that really impressed me and definitely helped open my eyes to the wider world of cinema. As such, I had kind of put it on a pedestal in my mind, so I was a bit worried about how it would hold up on a re-watch. Luckily, my original assessment was 100% accurate, this film is great! Aksel Hennie's central performance is excellent, absolutely nailing this unconventional lead role. In fact, none of the cast disappoints, with Hennie's wife and Jaime Lannister both standing out as well. Beyond that, the story is clever and well executed, keeping the audience on their toes with plenty of twists and turns that all feel earned. The movie really subscribes to the writing advice of putting your protagonist through a meat grinder of misfortune, and Hennie sells the extreme emotion that you would expect in this kind of wild scenario. The action and set pieces are visually impressive and the effects all hold up. The film also manages to balance the intense thriller plot with elements of dark humor throughout. All in all, a brilliant Norwegian film that can go toe to toe with anything that Hollywood can produce.
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.
