Throw Get Out and Cabin in the Woods into a blender and this is the result. Luckily, both of those movies are fantastic, so this film has a solid foundation to work with. I loved the retro style and the production design. On the performance side, John Boyega continues to impress as he takes meatier roles and puts Star Wars far in the rear view. That said, I have to say that Jamie Foxx steals the show, being equal parts magnetic and hilarious. With respect to the story, I do have some complaints. I feel like the movie fails to fully capitalize on an incredibly strong opening and an intriguing premise. It's never bad by any means, but perhaps undercooked, with some rushed/superficial elements. Kind of felt like a lot of good ideas thrown together a little haphazardly. Even so, an enjoyable film that is well worth a watch.
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.
I often claim to be anti-narration, but when the narrator is Nicolas Cage and it's written by the Coen Brothers? Yeah, of course it's going to be fantastic. The opening 15 minutes is a masterclass in filmmaking. The writing. The pacing. The efficiency of storytelling. The visuals. The performances. The humor. 10/10.
So why did I end up only giving the whole movie a 7? Because throughout the film we get some goofier sequences that are just a bit too much for me. This doesn't seem like the kind of story that needed extended chase sequences or fight scenes, and yet we get them anyway. They're not bad per se, but they don't add anything for me. They also drag on way longer than I think was necessary.
All of that said, the movie is still well worth a watch, with consistently hilarious dialogue throughout and memorable performances from both Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter. Not sure why I neglected a Coen Brothers' film for this long. I should know better.
Not perfect, but a breath of fresh air compared to recent Marvel fare and a god damn masterpiece compared to Ant Man Quantummania. The writing is strong, providing a tragic backstory for Rocket, as well as a villain whose motivations feel unique and whose mad scientist brand of menace is brought to life brilliantly by Chukwudi Iwuji's performance. As the movie points out in an almost third-wall breaking dialogue exchange, it's nice to have a villain whose motivation isn't some brand of world/galaxy/universe destruction. With respect to Rocket's story, I was impressed that they played it straight, as the flashback sequences had essentially none of the goofy humor that the Guardians are known for. The tragedy stood apart, which made it all the more impactful.
Speaking of humor, this movie really crams it in, and though there are some jokes/goofiness that I didn't care for (e.g. Cosmo/Kraglin and the whole "bad dog" bit was super weak and the post finale dance party was a bit much), the hit rate was fantastic compared to what I'm used to. Even running gags that I considered stale were able to generate solid laughs, like Drax's whole "taking everything literally" schtick. Add to that a fun cameo from Nathan Fillion and you've got one of the funniest Marvel films is some time.
So we've got story, characters, and humor, but the last ingredient that ties it all together is the action. In that respect, this movie is a somewhat mixed bag. On the one hand, the movie's finale veers into the realm of bland with the ant-like swarm of grotesque monsters attacking Knowhere and an animal stampede that felt a little too kids-movie for my taste. It just feels like needless scope creep, and I think smaller would have been better. On the other hand, we get the extended hallway sequence that was masterfully done. Outside of those lows and highs, the rest of the action tends toward slightly above average, so all in all I'd say more good than bad.
Finally, I'll comment on the "heart" that goes along with the Guardians' humor. I think there's a fair bit of cheese/melodrama in some of the exchanges, coming awfully close to a fast and furious-esque "family" vibe, but the well earned chemistry is usually enough to carry it.
All in all, a much needed return to form for Marvel and a solid conclusion to James Gunn's Guardians trilogy.
A very difficult film to watch, as it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of Charlie's situation. I can see why Brendan Fraser won the Oscar for his performance. He has so many solo scenes where he conveys complex emotion with zero dialogue, providing a powerful glimpse into Charlie's internal anguish. While Fraser is the obvious standout, Sadie Sink certainly holds her own. I was also pleasantly surprised by the complexity of the story. The characters are rich and the writing is strong. In the end, the movie lands an effective emotional punch. Definitely had me on the verge of tears in the finale.
Certain scenes in the film felt very much like a stage play. While not a good thing or a bad thing necessarily, I would say there were a couple instances where the acting also veered more theatrical/melodramatic, which took me out of the story briefly.
As an aside, this is one of those interesting cases where, despite feeling like I knew the central premise in advance, I actually knew virtually nothing. I knew a single character trait. That's it. In that way, the movie acted as a powerful reminder that people are so much more than a single character trait.
My brother came out of this movie insisting that it was basically a Marvel film, and upon some reflection I tend to agree. Sure it's got a fantasy coat of paint, but at the end of the day, what are D&D adventurers if not the superheroes of the realm. Even the action feels superhero-esque, as Michelle Rodriguez's Fighter (or possibly Barbarian? I haven't cracked open a Players Handbook in a while, so my knowledge of D&D classes is probably out of date) tosses enemies around with superhuman strength. Or maybe she's just got +5 gauntlets of kicking ass, who knows. I'd also call out the final fight sequence against Sofina, which definitely feels like it took inspiration from one of the Avengers fights versus Thanos. In any case, if this film modeled itself after Marvel, the question is, does it feel like a good Marvel movie, or a recent Marvel movie (looking at you Quantummania). All in all, I'd say closer to the former. I don't think it's going to win any awards and I don't know that I would feel the need to re-watch it anytime soon, but it was fun.
Surprisingly, the thing I'd praise most is the story. The writers manage to craft an adventure that somehow feels like a greatest hits of classic D&D while also avoiding being predictable (barring a couple of moments that still worked as payoffs). Specifically, there is some fun magic implementation and problem solving (the use of the portal gun, I mean, hither-thither staff in the heist plan was very clever. The comedy, which also feels quite Marvel-esque, never landed 100% for me, but it wasn't a total miss either. No real laughs, but some chuckles throughout. As far as things that disappointed, I wasn't a big fan of the fat dragon sequence. I'd also say that I wasn't particularly impressed with the performances, with perhaps exceptions for Chris Pine and Regé-Jean Page. Everyone else felt a bit flat. Luckily, this movie doesn't need Oscar winning performances to be entertaining.
This was a re-watch in anticipation of Way of Water. First off, I chose to watch the extended edition, which I had never seen previously. Having now read up on the various additions included in this version, I feel pretty comfortable recommending that people stick with the theatrical. Much of the new content is superfluous and/or awkward exposition (I don't need to hear some half-baked scientific explanation as to why the mountains float, and certainly not one that ends with Jake Sully hand waving it away by saying "...or something").
Now, as for the movie itself... the plot is still as simple as ever, and the spectacle is unfortunately starting to show its age. When this film came out in 2009, it was leaps and bounds beyond what video games could accomplish. But tech has come a long way, and now there are many scenes that feel more like a video game cutscene than James Cameron would probably like. This isn't to say that any of it looks bad, in fact, much of the critical CGI still holds up quite well (i.e. the close-ups on the Na'vi), but as a whole, the film no longer feels groundbreaking. This is a problem, because the spectacle was a large part of the film's success. Without it, we're left with a solid sci-fi action film, but not something that blew me away. The story/characters are simply too one-note to really leave a lasting impression.
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.
Not a lot of substance, but the clever premise is enough to coast along for the brief runtime. Beyond that, the songs were actually surprisingly catchy. The humor on the other hand is less successful. There's only so much mileage you can get out of watching quirky aliens misunderstanding human culture, and the examples here feel pretty low effort.
I went into this one based on the solid IMDB rating and Paul Newman, but other than that I went in blind. This is primarily an interpersonal drama (with some well placed humor throughout) and I wasn't surprised to learn that it was based on a novel. This isn't the type of story to be green lit by Hollywood without having proven successful elsewhere. There's no high concept. No ironic hook. Very little by way of spectacle or set pieces. I just struggle to see how a single sentence log line would ever have gotten producers on board. Luckily, that all speaks to a blind spot in the Hollywood system, and isn't a critique of this movie.
The film isn't trying to be a blockbuster. It's just compelling characters, unique relationship dynamics, and quality dialogue. Specifically, I really enjoyed how the "small town" element interacts with and disrupts what otherwise might be cliché character interactions. At the end of the day, Newman's character has a wholesome camaraderie with everyone, including the proxy antagonist of the story (Newman's scenes with Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith were undoubtedly the highlights for me).
As far as critiques go, the ending fell a bit flat, with certain scenes slipping into melodrama. In particular, the big moment with Newman's grandson felt forced. That said, there was nothing so problematic as to spoil the movie and I would still give it a solid recommendation.
Loved the opening sequence. Loved Daniel Kaluuya's performance. Loved the almost Tarantino-esque backstory behind Steven Yeun's character. Loved Brandon Perea as the conspiracy theory Fry's employee and Michael Wincott as the auteur cinematographer, who both are worthwhile sidekicks to the Haywoods. I was a little less enthused with Keke Palmer's character, although her frustrating qualities were mostly intentional and therefore well performed. Regarding the plot, while I was totally on board for the ride, I didn't end up loving the way things played out in the end. The movie tries to set up and pull off a big reversal/reveal (the fact that it was an alien animal rather than a UFO), but it didn't really work for me because: (1) it felt contradictory to what we had already learned (how does an animal generate a cloud that holds perfectly still? And how does it knock out all electricity? Definitely sounds like something tech based, not organic); and (2) it just didn't seem to practically matter all that much to the story, with the attempts to thematically tie things together coming across as superficial/forced (i.e. the whole taming/breaking discussion and the idea that not looking at a creature that doesn't even have discernible eyes would somehow change its behavior). This carries over into the spectacle/visual reveal during the finale, which also fell flat for me. When something is so out of left field that that audience couldn't possibly have predicted it, then the specifics start to matter less and less.
All of that said, I still had a good time. The filmmaking is expectedly excellent, and while the storytelling decisions didn't all land for me, they were still well executed, with plenty of highlight moments.
I don't have to be a teenage girl circa 1990 to recognize that Christian Slater's performance in this film probably lead to plenty of posters on walls and celebrity crushes. Slater's character is perhaps the perfectly crafted Hollywood heartthrob; universally appealing, as he simultaneously plays the role of outspoken rebel and bashful bookworm. It's a clever set-up that Slater is able to sell with a standout performance. This is no small task, as large portions of the film are essentially monologues from Slater. As he broadcasts his pirate radio, he spans the emotional spectrum, bouncing seamlessly between high energy humor, righteous anger, juvenile philosophizing, and poignant reflection. It's an impressive performance that carries the film.
I was also impressed that the film doesn't feel dated (outside of some cheesiness here and there). When this film released it was contemporary, but if they were to remake it today as a period piece (which they shouldn't), I don't think it would change all that much. This is a testament to the quality of the filmmaking and a timeless story. Speaking of, the story still feels right at home in our current era. Instead of a period piece, it could easily be reimagined with the pirate radio swapped out for a social media account, twitch stream, or the like.
Overall, I'm surprised that this film hasn't maintained a larger cultural impact, as it feels right at home with the likes of Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club.
Bill Burr Monologue - 6/10
Gümdrop - 6/10
Long Distance - 7/10
Bill Burr Monologue - 7/10
Stuck - 7/10
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.
With one significant exception, I thought Shawn and Gus's third film was a big step up from the prior two. The biggest success was the humor, which landed more often and with a nice balance of successful callbacks, running jokes, meta humor, and standard Psych hijinks. James and Dulé really carry the movie and have slipped back into these goofy roles seamlessly. While most of the standard Psych cast make appearances as well, they all feel a bit token, with several side stories feeling very much incomplete (Woody and his legal trouble, Carlton and his unresolved case, Henry and his baby crib, Karen and her family vacation, Juliet/Shawn and the children question). I suppose some of them were intended as cameos rather than side stories, but regardless it felt a bit odd. Luckily, that didn't detract from the movie too much, as Psych has always been primarily the Shawn and Gus show. The story presents a serviceable mystery for Shawn to solve that is very personal to Gus, which is a good set up as it gives us more time with the stars. Ultimately, the ending was the only thing that really dragged the movie down, as I thought it veered too far into the absurd/silly. Psych has always walked a fine line in that respect, but for me this one ended up on the wrong side of it. This may have also contributed to the conclusion feeling a bit rushed. In any case, conclusion notwithstanding, this one is definitely worth the time for any Psych fans looking for more of Shawn Spencer and his partner Birdinahand Andabush.
An enjoyable, if not entirely consistent, ultra-violent rotoscoped epic. There's some stiff voice acting in a handful of places that was a bit distracting, but not enough to drag the rest down. Regarding the episodic nature, I was quite pleased to find that none of the sections really fell flat for me, with enjoyment to be had in all of them. I really loved the unpredictable elements, particularly the story of the trio of winged avengers toward the end. The violence was suitably intense and the lore, vast and compelling. At the end of the day, the creativity on display in this movie greatly surpasses almost anything else you might choose to watch. Even if it's got some rough edges and a somewhat narrow intended audience, it is undoubtedly an admirable film.
Not sure why I didn't see this back when it came out, as I remember hearing generally good things about it. Perhaps it was my residual anti-twilight bias poisoning the well on Robert Pattison. But, having now distanced himself from that sparkly history with some excellent films like Good Time and The Batman, I went into this expecting good things and overall was not disappointed. I think the first two acts are stronger than the third, as the pacing starts to get a little rushed, but other than that I was quite impressed. Strong performances, good production design, and interesting characters.
I'm not sure how I feel about the documentary style opening, which is effectively a long exposition dump, but once we get to the live broadcast that represents the bulk of the lean runtime, I was on board. I'm a sucker for films/TV that explore their own industry, so the live gimmick was appealing. I haven't watched a lot of late night television (and even less from the 1970s), but for what it's worth, this felt pretty authentic - David Dastmalchian's central performance and the production design in particular. Combine that with a reasonably compelling, though admittedly simplistic, demon possession story and you've got a solid horror film with a unique backdrop. Ingrid Torelli delivers an suitably off-putting/chilling performance as Lilly, carrying the tension through the back half. As far as critiques go, some of the interactions during the "cut to commercial" segments feel a bit superficial/rushed (e.g., conversations with the producer and/or Gus), but it's not a major issue. As a final comment, perhaps the biggest impact of the film was making me want to re-watch This Time with Alan Partridge, which makes brilliant use the same live TV gimmick, but for comedy rather than horror.
I can understand why critics are loving this movie, but I am a bit surprised that its audience scores are almost equally high. I guess it's more digestible than some of Lanthimos other films, but it still feels more arthouse than your typical best picture nominee. But maybe I'm just underselling the appeal of watching Emma Stone's explicit adventure of uninhibited sexual discovery. But, while that element of the movie certainly appeals to some of my baser instincts, I was never fully on board with the rest of it. It just feels like some of the decisions are trying to inject weird for weirdness sake, rather than tying it to any sort of character/story motivation. It's that feeling of an online video that is trying too hard to go viral. In terms of pacing, the final act (or at least everything from the interrupted wedding onward) felt rushed. Now, with all of that said, I still enjoyed the movie. There were lots of interesting characters and ideas being explored and, despite feeling intentional/manufactured, some of the quirky humor still lands.
Re-watched in preparation for part 2 next week. I wish I had been writing reviews back when this came out, because I'd like to compare my current thoughts to my initial reaction, but overall I suspect they didn't change much. This is a spectacle focused movie that rightfully prides itself on production design, cinematography, and audio. I have a distinct memory of my brother coming out of the theater and raving about the costumes and you know what - he's not wrong. But through all of the impressive visuals and thunderous soundtrack, the characters and story felt a little thinner than I would have hoped. Not bad, by any means. I think the performances themselves are excellent. But I just didn't find myself particularly attached. I think part of the problem is that the scope is so ambitious that even with a 2.5+ hour runtime, things have to move pretty quickly to get through it. There's also the problem of being a part 1, as the arc definitely feels incomplete and the ending is somewhat abrupt/unsatisfying. Luckily, that last problem will soon be solved - looking forward to part 2!
After hearing good things about the new prequel TV series, I decided to go back and watch the movies in preparation. I saw the original back when it came out and never got around to the sequel (I think because I heard it wasn't that great). The clever premise does most of the heavy lifting, with plenty of humor to be extracted by the reliable work of Wahlberg and MacFarlane. That said, I was surprised at how dated some of the humor feels. Even in 2012 a lot of these jokes probably would have caused discomfort for certain audience members. I suspect the offensive humor was largely intentional, but that's a dangerous game to play and a decade later things that were once riding the line now feel well beyond it. In the end, I definitely don't think the movie lives up to the 8/10 score that I gave it originally. Probably would give it a 6 today, but I'll average the two for a 7.
Fantastic performances, interesting character dynamics, and a technically impressive production are all let down by an unsatisfying ending that felt unearned, infeasible, rushed, and vaguely derivative. It's not enough to sink the experience completely, but I certainly wish they had taken it in a different direction.
It's a little too slapstick-y and kid-leaning in its humor to secure a spot among top-tier animated films, but between the stellar cast (Sam Rockwell in particular), the ever reliable heist genre, and the surprisingly solid animation, this was still a very good time that shouldn't have any problem winning over its target audience.
This was a rewatch after only seeing it once 10+ years ago. Initially I was surprised I only gave it a 7, as I was really enjoying the opening act, but then it started to lose me a bit in the back half, with the final conflict feeling too manufactured and over the top. That said, the performances were still excellent and there was plenty of solid humor, so overall still a good time.
These types of character studies succeed primarily due to stellar performances. There is interesting narrative ground explored, but that's not where most of the runtime goes. Instead it feels like we get what amounts to slice-of-life style storytelling that flesh these characters out into real people. I know the slice-of-life characterization feels odd considering the entire movie takes place over a two week span, but that's just how it feels without a propulsive A leads to B leads to C type of story. Luckily, the performances really are strong enough to carry it. Paul Giammatti deserves whatever praise (and nominations) he receives. The production is also top notch, with the retro-style style working well to sell the era. With all of that said, I think this is a film where audience reception will vary depending on how much they relate to the characters and themes being explored. I can recognize that it's all incredibly well executed and I did enjoy it, but I think I'm missing the personal connection that would really sell it.
As an aside, with my brother recently delving into stoicism, the funniest joke in this film for me was probably Hunham using Meditations as a go-to gift for everyone. Hilarious.
Not sure how I missed this one back when it came out, as I still had young siblings at the time, but I'm glad I finally got around to it. The story may be well-explored territory, but execution is everything, and the execution here is top notch. An absolutely stacked cast, creative visuals, a nice sprinkling of humor, and a cute emotional core that ties it all together. Watching it for the first time on Thanksgiving felt like a perfect way to bring in the Christmas season and this absolutely deserves a spot in the holiday rotation.
I was recommending this movie to my brother and, after I started describing it, he said, "Oh, I think I saw the trailer. It honestly just looked like a bunch of hitman clichés". Honestly, he isn't wrong. This movie hits a lot of ideas that we've seen before, from things like Dexter on TV, to even the Meet the Sniper promotional trailer for Team Fortress 2. And the familiarity of the concept isn't the only thing that was a potential turn off. There's also the heavy reliance on narration, which can often feel like a stilted, storytelling crutch. However, the film overcomes both of these issues through sheer quality of execution. This is David Fincher after all. The production, writing, and performances are all top notch. The simplicity of the narrative was also appreciated, with more effort put into building a world that feels real. A simple story in a complex world is much preferred over a overly ambitious story in a world that feels empty. Here we just watch a master of his craft move from A to B to C, being presented with interesting problems and finding creative solutions. Michael Fassbender is excellent, selling the role and the narration. The Tilda Swinton scenes were the other highlight. My only real critique is that the ending didn't quite land for me, feeling a bit rushed.
Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is expectedly excellent. The heartbreaking true crime story is devastatingly compelling. Those two elements alone are enough for me to recommend the film. That said, the glacial pacing was excessive in my opinion. I read somewhere that Martin Scorsese referenced the pacing of Ari Aster films as an inspiration (e.g., Hereditary, Midsommar), and as someone who isn't the biggest fan of "elevated" horror, that inspiration isn't a plus in my book. It often results in unnaturally slow/stilted dialogue or sometimes no dialogue at all. I recognize that these performers are capable of delivering a lot of emotion with facial expressions alone, but I could have done with a bit more dialogue and a bit fewer extended/silent close ups. My brother came out of the film claiming that it could have been an hour shorter without losing anything critical. While I think that might be an exaggeration, I definitely noticed the length. To be clear, even if arguably unnecessary, everything in the film is incredibly well executed. It is Scorsese after all.
A couple of other minor thoughts: (1) John Lithgow and Brendan Fraser felt a bit superfluous/wasted as practically cameos in the final act; (2) I quite enjoyed the live radio broadcast, both for being an effective epilogue as well as being an interesting window into a historical entertainment medium.
