SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

Benoit Blanc's second outing is an enjoyable film, but still felt like a step down when compared to the original. It tries to do all of the same things, but none of them are quite as successful. The ensemble isn't as compelling, the humor doesn't land quite as often, and, most critically, the central mystery isn't nearly as clever and satisfying. All of that said, I consider the original film to be an instant classic, so the bar was quite high, and even falling short of that bar, this film has plenty of worthwhile elements. The set-up is fantastic, and I was totally on board with everything up through the hilarious scene where Benoit instantly solves Miles' murder mystery game and wins an iPad. Additionally, even though the humor wasn't quite as consistent, there were still some inspired moments, one of the standouts being when Benoit dabs his eyes with Jeremy Renner's hot sauce. The film also got plenty of mileage out of extravagant billionaire related humor (e.g. the live stream of Serena Williams in the personal gym). There were also plenty of cameos, some of which were used to solid effect, while others felt strangely superfluous (what was the point of Hugh Grant? Was he playing himself, like the various celebrities Benoit was facetiming with in his tub, or was he a character?).

As for my critiques of the central mystery, the plotting just felt a little forced. For example, Benoit's final monologue in which he identifies the culprit hinges on the idea that Miles had been completely ruled out as a suspect on account of his reputation as a genius. However, the decision to rule him out was force fed to the audience and glossed over so quickly that it never really felt right to begin with. As such, this monologue that is positioned as a big reveal, doesn't feel like much of a reveal at all. Also, the bombastic finale dragged on too long and lead to an overly predictable payoff (the glass breaking into fire starting into Mona Lisa burning took forever, and with how often the Mona Lisa security was mentioned/shown, it was obvious what was going to happen). I couldn't help but feel like the movie was missing one extra twist or turn that could have kept things a bit more fresh. In fact, the writing had a set up for one that would have worked with very minimal changes: Whiskey should have been the one to shoot Andi. She thought that Andi killed Duke and had an extended moment near Duke's body where she could have grabbed his gun. This would have made the final cat and mouse more interesting, as Miles would have been able to honestly deny one of the crimes, thus casting doubt on his overall guilt. That's just me spitballing, but I think it would have made for a more interesting third act.

There's a lot to talk about with this film. I mean, how can there not be when it's almost three hours long.

First, I want to discuss two comps. One that might feel obvious, and another less so. That is Watchmen and Dune. There's superficial similarities, such as length, with all three of these films running 2.5+ hours. In the case of Watchmen, you could also point to the narration based on the journaling of a masked vigilante. On top of that, there's the excellent production design, costumes, and cinematography. But the reason I point to these films as comps has less to do with those things, and more to do with the overall approach. All three films are heavily atmospheric. Oozing with style. If I had to label the category, I would call them auteur blockbusters. This is a relatively uncommon pairing due to the fundamental conflict between the risk associated with a singular artistic vision and the expense associated with big budget productions. In the crowded superhero genre, there's a lot of films that feel made-by-committee. Marvel has a reputation for their second unit directors, who film the action sequences for every MCU film. I don't know how accurate that reputation is, but the MCU certainly feels like it's struggled against a same-y quality that results in some of their films not having a lasting impact. The fact that several auteur directors have joined and subsequently abandoned MCU projects (e.g. Edgar Wright with Ant-Man or Scott Derrickson with the Doctor Strange sequel) certainly seems supportive of this conflict. Meanwhile, The Batman (and Watchmen and Dune) feel like they went all in on a singular artistic vision and, for the most part, I think they were better for it.

Getting into the actual film, Robert Pattinson continues to impress in his post-Twilight career, making for both an excellent Batman and Bruce Wayne. That said, I was somewhat disappointed that we didn't get more of the latter. Thinking back to Batman Begins, Christian Bale's portrayal of the playboy billionaire got plenty of screen time, with numerous memorable and character developing scenes. By comparison, Robert Pattinson seems to spend most of his time in the mask. This isn't a major issue, as ultimately we're here to see the caped crusader, but I do wonder how things could have looked with a slightly more balanced ratio. I was also impressed with Paul Dano's Riddler. His costume was suitably creepy, his dialogue suitably psychotic, and his performance suitably chilling.

As for the story, it didn't exactly blow me away, but it gets the job done. For such a long film, the plot actually seemed to move pretty quickly, feeling very comic book-esque as it jumped from one clue to the next as Batman tries to solve Riddler's ultimate puzzle. While I generally enjoyed the detective work, there are plenty of instances where suspension of disbelief is threadbare as some questionable logical leaps take us from one location to the next. Also, the culmination of the story didn't really land for me. Exposition dumps came fast and loose toward the finale, in one instance with contradictory reveals seemingly coming back to back (i.e. a character gives devastating news in one scene, and the very next scene a different character says "nope, that was wrong"). Additionally, Falcone's ultimate villainy felt like something of a false-twist, making the whole rat investigation feel like it didn't go anywhere interesting. Luckily, none of these problems are egregious enough to drag down the solid foundation.

Speaking of the length, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the film was longer than necessary. It's jam packed with lingering shots, to the point where you could probably cut 20 minutes without losing a single line of dialogue or plot point. Now, that's not to say that I would recommend such extreme measures. There's merit in letting certain moments hang, and the cinematography alone justifies plenty of these shots. That said, I still think some were overdone and that prudent trimming could be justified.

Some quick final thoughts. While my typical anti-narration stance remains, I wasn't too bothered by its implementation here. In fact, I thought the opening monologue and set-up with the various criminals all afraid of a potential encounter with Batman was well executed. Finally, regarding the action, I thought the hand to hand combat through most of the film was excellent. However, I do think there were a couple non-hand to hand moments that got a little over the top, such as the Batmobile chase that culminated in ramping off of a truck (although I will acknowledge that the upside down follow up shot, with Batman silhouetted by the explosion as he approached the Penguin, looked badass). Additionally, the finale set-piece with all of the shooters in the stadium rafters was a bit questionable, as it had Batman taking a lot more direct gunfire than you'd expect.

After almost 15 years and 29 films (plus another dozen or so TV series), it's getting to the point where I assume that every big name actor has been offered a role in the MCU. For someone like Christian Bale, it wouldn't surprise me if he had been approached repeatedly over the years. In any case, I can see why the role of Gorr the God Butcher was enough to entice him into making his debut in the universe. It's a juicy villain role with a meaningful arc and satisfying conclusion. While the character does clash tonally with Taika Waititi's generally lighter vibe, that's no fault of the God Butcher and doesn't detract from Bale's excellent performance.

Speaking of the lighter tone, while I'm generally a fan, I found that there were certain elements that crossed a line into being too silly/childish for me to get on board with (e.g. everything with the screaming goats and the finale with the kids all getting juiced up and using a bunch of random debris as weapons). That said, I think things were generally more hit than miss, with Hemsworth and Waititi's Korg both providing a steady supply of worthwhile humor throughout the film (as an aside, no one else in my theater laughed when Hemsworth mounted Stormbreaker like a witch riding a broom and flew off...that shit was hilarious).

The last complaint that I'll mention, which is becoming quite common in my reviews of Marvel media (all media really), is related to the action. It's just not particularly memorable. Nothing that made me say "wow". This is especially true for everything involving the "shadow monsters", which provide yet another source of murky CGI cannon fodder for our good guys to easily dispatch. I think it must be getting harder and harder to come up with new ideas for over-the-top comic book action. There's so much out there and we've seen it all before. It's not that the action isn't serviceable, but it just doesn't add anything on its own. Luckily, this isn't a huge problem when the characters, story, humor, etc are all solid, as they are in this case.

It's crazy to think that film has been around long enough that a remake can arrive almost a century after the original. With a gap that long, it's unsurprising that most younger audiences (including myself) have never seen the 1930 adaptation of this novel. Of course, I like to go into movies blind anyway, so it was my preference to judge the film without any bias driven by comparisons to the Best Picture winning original.

The aspect of the film that I enjoyed most was that it comes from the less explored German perspective. When compared to the Allied perspective that audiences are more accustomed to, there are the obvious high level differences (e.g. driving toward a looming defeat versus a triumphant victory), but there are also many little details that I really enjoyed (e.g. the dog tags that snap in two). The opening was clever and well executed, with the life cycle of a German uniform really driving home the scope and human cost of the war. The filmmaking is also excellent, with plenty of striking visuals and memorable moments. And while it may not be the most elaborate musical motif, the deep, ominous bass riff that repeats throughout was incredibly effective.

Regarding the story, it combines a classic "war is hell" narrative (i.e. naive young soldier joins up with his buddies only to lose them one by one as he discovers that there's nothing heroic about war) with a clever big picture narrative (the pending armistice acting as a ticking clock to the end of hostilities). It's a powerful source of dramatic irony that adds a lot of weight to every death. The central performance by Felix Kammerer was also fantastic, with his eyes and demeanor sinking as the war dragged on.

All of that said, I think I've become a bit numb to the actual war sequences that comprise the major beats of the story. Especially with 1917 being only a couple years old, the spectacle of trench warfare just didn't hit as hard. There's only so many ways to show soldiers charging through no man's land, or getting evaporated by artillery shells, or run through by bayonets. That's not to say the movie does a bad job with any of these things. I think it's all visually and technically well executed. But it all feels familiar. The movie was at its best outside of those moments, with trips to steal a goose or eggs standing out above the actual fight on the western front.

I know a horror movie is well made when I have to pause it multiple times to give myself a break from the tension. Although, in this film's case, I'd also point out that the movie itself did an excellent job of providing those tension release moments. I still ended up supplementing them with some pauses of my own, but I really enjoyed the structure. The transition and new character introduction after the first major horror beat was fantastic and the build up to having his story intersect with the central horror plot was brilliant writing. In fact, I'd complement virtually all of the writing. The top level premise is clever and well executed, and the moment to moment dialogue is strong, even delivering a few great humorous moments (the whole scene with Justin Long busting out the measuring tape was great). It also doesn't hurt that the three central performances are all excellent.

As far as minor criticisms go, the movie does have its fair share of groan inducing decision making by characters that clearly have never seen a horror movie themselves. There's also the completely implausible superhuman strength of the monster. Finally, I was a bit disappointed in the ultimate direction that Justin Long's character took. There were a few ham fisted dialogue exchanges that sacrificed any potential nuance in favor of making him a cartoon villain. That said, the execution is so strong that none of these issues/moments detracted meaningfully.

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.

I went into this film totally blind and had a blast. An over the top action film with a Guy Ritchie-esque story and style? Sign me up. The writing was clever, there were plenty of genuine laughs, the performances were solid, and the action scenes that tied it all together were creative and fun. Brad Pitt was dependable as always, but the real standouts for me were Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon. Their hilarious duo provided the most entertaining and fully fleshed out B-Plot, with stellar performances and humor/style to spare.

I did have some small issues with the film, especially in the final act. The big action set piece was way too much for my tastes, crossing the line into over the top Marvel-esque action that clashed with the rest of the film. I have to believe they could have come up with a clever, smaller scale finale that wouldn't need to resort to such a meaningless CGI fest (and save millions in the process). Additionally, and perhaps relatedly, the dialogue and performances during that portion of the film weren't quite as solid as everything prior. I don't know if it was the writing or the performances, but even Brad Pitt felt flat with some of his deliveries in the last 20 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

Part 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.

I'm a bit surprised by how universal the praise is for this movie, and I say that as someone who enjoyed it quite a bit myself. It just strikes me as a film that would be a bit more divisive, as it feels like an unconventional amalgamation of genres that don't always have overlapping audiences. It is simultaneously an arthouse film, a kung fu film, a sci-fi film, and a family drama, with some slapstick-esque comedy thrown in for good measure (although that element could be lumped in with kung fu films, i.e. the comedy in old school Jackie Chan films). In any case, it seems modern audiences are more accepting of the experimental than I give them credit for.

All of that said, the film has a lot going for it, so maybe I shouldn't be that surprised. The biggest strength here is the acting. Without downplaying the performance of Michelle Yeoh, who was excellent, I was actually most impressed with Ke Huy Quan, whose seamless transition between the meek, thoughtful Waymond and the badass, kung fu, Alpha Waymond was consistently impressive and fun. Beyond the acting, the movie also benefits from the raw creativity that the premise injects. This creativity is at its best during the brief snippets of strange alternate universes and the clever action sequences. It also doesn't hurt that the action is very well shot. These days it's just nice to see action scenes that don't feel like a CGI fest.

Of course, with extreme creativity, there is always the risk of leaning too heavily on the quirky/weird. It's a very fine line to walk, and undoubtedly a subjective one. While I think this film generally stays on the right side of that line, there were still certain elements that didn't work for me, particularly with the "jump pad" gimmick where the characters need to do something incredibly random in order to leverage the skills of their alternate selves. Using randomness as a proxy for humor is a dangerous game. I also could have done without the hotdog finger universe.

Beneath all of the quirky, multiverse-spanning antics, the movie effectively explores Evelyn's relationships with her daughter and her husband, as well as with her own ambitions. While some of this exploration is a bit on the nose, the stellar acting and creative backdrop are enough to smooth over any such bumps. The weaving of strange alternate universes to help guide Evelyn to the realizations she needed leads to multiple heartstring tugging moments and memorably poignant dialogue.

Coming-of-age is an interesting genre, as it often attempts a delicate balancing act of drama, comedy, and romance. This film certainly fits that description. In this case, the comedy is probably the strongest element, though it arrives primarily via the veteran supporting cast rather than the leads. Martin Starr, Bill Hader, and Kristen Wiig are all hilarious, often times performing what amounts to stand alone sketch comedy throughout the film (the unrefrigerated corn dog bit was a highlight). Additionally, the film gets plenty of comedic mileage out of the budget amusement park setting.

The romance and drama elements of the film are very intertwined. Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart share plenty of cute scenes, and I think they work well together as a somewhat awkward, unconventional pairing (the fact that they later starred together in American Ultra suggests that they may enjoy working together and have some natural chemistry, which is always nice to see). The dramatic elements to the romantic story are a little bit tougher to pull off. Unlike your typical rom-com, this film's romantic conflict doesn't come from some benign misunderstanding or "will-they won't-they" element, but rather incorporates some more serious drama. While these elements are perfectly serviceable, they didn't quite mesh with the rest of the story for me. This really stood out toward the end of the film, as it took some predictable turns, weaving toward a cliché finale. It also felt somewhat rushed and unearned, as the dramatic fallout of characters' bad decisions was relatively short-lived, being quickly swept aside to make way for an optimistic conclusion.

As a side note, I always find it interesting when plot threads are seemingly left hanging. In this case, the lack of resolution, or even acknowledgement of Mr. Brennan's presumed alcohol problem definitely stood out. Makes me wonder if there was ever the thought to add something more there, or if it was always going to be a silent acknowledgement.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

A movie with sit-com sensibilities, as it isn't too concerned about having a propulsive central thread and focuses instead on humorous interactions involving funny people. And who could be funnier than one of sit-com's GOATs, Julia Louis-Drefus. From Seinfeld to Veep, she has mastered comedic timing and just nails every delivery. And opposite good old Elaine Benes, we have Tobias Menzies, who holds his own. He had a dryly comedic bit part in Catastrophe (2015), which is one of my favorite comedies of the last decade, so it was nice to see him in a similar role here. In fact, I enjoyed pretty much the entire ensemble. The only exception might be the son, who I felt didn't get much to work with in terms of material and ultimately served more as a plot device to draw a parallel that was a bit on the nose for my taste. This ties into a broader criticism that the final act fell a bit flat, as the titular theme never really landed as much more than a vehicle for humor. Luckily, the humor was enough, delivered in a tight 90 minute package with interesting characters, solid bits throughout, and just enough of a through line to tie it all together. As an aside, one bit that really got me was the very underplayed moment when the two sisters get ice cream and we cut to them exiting the store. Just clever/subtle writing. On the other hand, you've got the blatant Seinfeld Easter egg about the diner that I can appreciate for the exact opposite reason.

I'm not going to lie...the Trinity test left me a little underwhelmed. Which is a bit of a problem, because that was the payoff to the first two hours of build up. Overall this movie's structure and pacing were just a bit odd to me. Everything leading up to the test feels primarily character driven, almost slice of life-esque. And for such a long movie, the slices are actually quite thin. Things move fast, with whirlwind character introductions that don't leave much of an impression in many cases. Only a couple of character names stuck with me, which did raise some issues in later sequences when characters are being referenced by name alone. Of course, that doesn't apply to Oppenheimer himself. Cillian Murphy doesn't disappoint, delivering an incredible performance. In fact, all of the performances are excellent, benefiting from strong dialogue that kept me engaged even through the sections when the conflict felt somewhat thin. There's only so much tension that can be extracted from the actual efforts of the Manhattan project, as the conclusion is largely known to the audience. Yes, there are secondary/tertiary conflicts throughout the opening hours, interpersonal and political, but they don't drive the story. It's not until the final hour when Nolan reveals that the movie will have an antagonist and more traditional conflict after all. It's set up as a twist of sorts and for the most part it works. I do think I enjoyed the final hour more than the first two. Technically speaking Nolan never disappoints. The production design is excellent and the cinematography/directing includes some fantastic shots. I probably won't go out of my way to re-watch this anytime soon, but it was still an engaging watch built on a central performance that will likely be an Oscar contender.

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.