SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

These types of character studies succeed primarily due to stellar performances. There is interesting narrative ground explored, but that's not where most of the runtime goes. Instead it feels like we get what amounts to slice-of-life style storytelling that flesh these characters out into real people. I know the slice-of-life characterization feels odd considering the entire movie takes place over a two week span, but that's just how it feels without a propulsive A leads to B leads to C type of story. Luckily, the performances really are strong enough to carry it. Paul Giammatti deserves whatever praise (and nominations) he receives. The production is also top notch, with the retro-style style working well to sell the era. With all of that said, I think this is a film where audience reception will vary depending on how much they relate to the characters and themes being explored. I can recognize that it's all incredibly well executed and I did enjoy it, but I think I'm missing the personal connection that would really sell it.

As an aside, with my brother recently delving into stoicism, the funniest joke in this film for me was probably Hunham using Meditations as a go-to gift for everyone. Hilarious.

I 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.

Horror isn't my genre, but I can still recognize when it's at the top of its game. This is the top of its game. A premise that feels simultaneously familiar and fresh. Fantastic production that sells the moments of slow dread just as well as the moments of explosive horror. Generally excellent performances from fresh faces (at least fresh to me). Just an impressive showing all around. I can't help but compare it to Hereditary, often cited as one of the best of modern "elevated" horror films. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this film's creators pointed to Hereditary as a direct inspiration for at least one scene (Alex Wolff smashing his head into his desk). So, how does this film compare? Honestly, I enjoyed it far more. So often "elevated" horror just feels like a license for ill defined rules where scary things happen without rhyme or reason and inconclusive or unsatisfying endings are the norm. That may work for some people, but I generally prefer a more conventional structure. It's often why the opening act of horror films is the one I judge them on most, as that's when the film still resembles the real world and I can judge it against all films, rather than just against a genre where the bar is a bit lower (maybe a lot lower). This film's pre-horror portion is fantastic, quickly establishing interesting characters/relationships with strong dialogue. But more importantly, and unlike Hereditary, this film didn't lose me once the horror starts. It enters the story in a natural way and establishes rules so that the audience has some bearings on what to expect. They even pull off a tight rope ending that is just the right balance of bad ending/good ending.

I know this review sounds quite glowing, so a 7/10 might seem inconsistent, but that's largely because horror is just not my bag. Plus, I do think Mia's character started to suffer from some horror clichés in the back half with respect to frustratingly poor decision making (I know, I know, she's basically possessed, but still).

The only thing I knew going into this film was that it starred Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and that it had some Oscar noms. As it so happens, I recently watched Don't Look Up (2021), which proved an appropriate modern companion piece, having a very similar vibe with its over-the-top satire of behind the scenes politics. However, where that film didn't quite win me over, this one did. For one thing, I'm just a sucker for showbiz, so the premise here was more compelling. The comedy also came more naturally, inspiring more consistent chuckles than the somewhat overbearing dark comedy of Don't Look Up. On top of that, I think the performances and moment to moment dialogue were stronger and helped the humor along, with Hoffman being the standout. The overall arc was excellent, with a good balance of things going right and things going wrong that made things satisfyingly unpredictable. My only real critiques relate to some of the choices for Woody Harrelson's character and elements of the finale. The twist of who he actually was didn't land for me (and also felt like a waste of Woody Harrelson's talents). And the plane crash was too over-the-top, with that whole sequence feeling rushed. Luckily, the movie sticks the landing, with Hoffman's final scene selling an excellent payoff.

Having recently done a rewatch of three of the four previous entries in this franchise (I skipped Temple of Doom because I was never a big fan), I have come to the controversial conclusion that Dial of Destiny was the most enjoyable. To clarify, I’m not considering historical context, cultural significance, or any of the numerous other factors that make Raiders an all-time classic. I’m simply saying that, for me, as a modern audience member used to the style and trappings of modern film, Dial of Destiny was more enjoyable than the rest. It’s simply too hard for me to ignore the dated and/or goofy elements of the old films or the over-the-top ridiculousness of Crystall Skull.
The de-aged WWII opening sequence was impressive, with some clever set pieces to boot (the interrupted hanging was particularly fun). The motivation for the villain was surprisingly unique given the franchise’s long history with Nazis. The McGuffin’s secret power and its effect on the plot is far more interesting than previous McGuffins (though perhaps I’m just a sucker for time-travel).
All of that said, there are still some things I could have done without. I’ve just been worn out on car chase sequences, and having it be in a tuk-tuk wasn’t enough to differentiate it. The final sequence crosses into Crystal Skull territory with some of its more ridiculous elements (e.g., kid hotwiring and flying a plane, bomber flying stupidly low so as to be shot down by arrows).

Solves my biggest problem with the first film by simply being a sequel. Instead of 30 minutes of retired Denzel and no action, this entry jumps right into badass Denzel and plenty of action. On top of that, I think the episode-of-the-week style side quests that Denzel gets up to in this film are superior to those in the original, with the Lyft driver set-up being a clever way to introduce them. The dialogue is consistently good, and Denzel is fantastic as always. As with the first, the villains in this entry have some great sequences, from the brutal staged suicide to the tense encounter in the middle of a suburban street. The plot feels a bit hand-wavey with respect to some of the details, but the big pieces are interesting enough to carry it through. The finale was also a mixed bag. I liked the setting and thought the hurricane effects were surprisingly solid. However, the villains’ strategy was a bit of a headscratcher given those conditions and the whole sequence plays out a bit too convenient for my tastes. Overall, a small, but noticeable, improvement on what was already a solid first entry. Looking forward to the third!

I've been hearing good things about The Equalizer 3, so I figured I'd go back and do a re-watch of the original (and the 2nd, which I never got around to) before going to see the third. I had previously scored this as a 7/10, but that was almost a decade ago and long before I was writing reviews, so I didn't really have much of a recollection of what I liked and didn't like.

Things get off to a slow start. I think it's an inherent downside of the "badass comes out of retirement" schtick that we've seen with things like John Wick and Nobody. In order to make the comeback feel impactful, we have to spend some time seeing our badass in his retired life, which isn't always compelling. Somehow that phase of this film feels simultaneously rushed and too long. Rushed because they are trying to get through a lot of set-up very quickly, and too long because waiting 30 minutes to hit the first action sequence in an action movie seems less than ideal. At that point I was a bit concerned that the old me was generous in his scoring and that I was in for a slog. Luckily, things improve as the plot accelerates. The biggest source of improvement was the introduction of Marton Csokas as the central villain. I didn't recognize him from anything else, but I'll have to keep my eye out, because he nailed this role as the sociopathic Russian fixer. The cat and mouse between he and Denzel carries the film, with their one on one dialogue scenes being standouts.

As far as the action itself goes, it's a mixed bag. The slow motion planning stage certainly has grown stale over the years and I've never loved overly convenient and surprisingly effective trap setting a la Home Alone (really detracted from the Skyfall finale for me), but it's all effective enough. I did feel like Denzel's side quests (cop extortion & cashier holdup/ring return) felt a little shoehorned in and coincidental, but I suppose he needed something to do while Teddy was playing detective. I'd also generally praise the dialogue and of course Denzel has a signature style that is never unappreciated. Overall, I'll stick with my original 7/10 and am excited to check out 2 & 3.

The majority of my review of Raiders applies equally to this film. Special effects heavy blockbusters from yesteryear are always going to struggle in a modern context. I just can't imagine that the lengthy action sequences that comprise the majority of the film will do much for an uninitiated audience member. And if those elements aren't working, what you're left with is a relatively simple story with characters who aren't particularly complex. The tonal issues I had with the original persist, as the movie wants to be taken seriously in some scenes, but in others delivers goofiness straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon (e.g. scaring birds with an umbrella, rotating fireplace gag). All of that said, I actually think the third Indy outing holds up better than the first, mainly due to the addition of Sean Connery. He provides a fish-out-of-water foil to our hero that creates opportunities for fun moments and dialogue. Having only seen this film one time years ago, the exchange where Connery tells Indy that Dr. Elsa Schneider talks in her sleep got a genuine laugh out of me. As with the first film, I'm not going to update my legacy score of 7/10, but that probably isn't far off from where I'd put my rating today. Maybe I'd drop it to 6/10?

Went into this with pretty low expectations, but ended up having a surprisingly good time. It had me worried initially, as the opening action sequence was way too goofy for my liking and featured some excessive uncanny valley CGI. Ezra Miller's socially awkward schtick was also feeling more miss than hit through the first act. But once we get to the inciting incident, things started to work better. I was surprised at how much humor landed for me, as I found myself laughing pretty consistently throughout the Barry/younger Barry sequences that comprise most of the second act. Unfortunately, the more emotional exchanges between the Barry's that come later don't feel quite as natural. Despite it's 140+ minute length, I never found myself checking my watch, so I think the movie deserves some credit for keeping up the pace. I know people have a tendency to criticize the entire Synder-verse, but I don't mind saying that I enjoyed Man of Steel, so using that film as the foundation of a multiverse story was fine by me. I do think the finale starts to play pretty fast and loose with the storytelling and they cram a whole lot of exposition into the final "chronobowl" scene, but it's all moving fast enough that I didn't really catch on it too much. Ultimately all of the time travel/multiverse mumbo jumbo is just a mechanism to explore Barry's emotional arc with his mother, and I thought the final grocery store scene provided a solid conclusion to that arc. Regarding Keaton's Batman, I don't have much to say. I thought the way he was incorporated was perfectly alright. And though her role was underdeveloped and she deserved a more significant sendoff, I thought Supergirl was a fun addition.

Having recently watched Keanu Reaves fourth outing as the virtually unkillable Baba Yaga, it strikes me that the character of John Wick is one that also embodies the titular concept of this film. As such, I'm going to build this review around a comparison to John Wick Chapter 4.

First off, length. John Wick 4 was almost 3 hours long. The lean 90 minute run time of this film was certainly the better choice. I definitely felt the length of John Wick, with actions scenes that dragged on and felt repetitive and too many non-action scenes where the less than compelling dialogue and story were more apparent. By comparison, this film is refreshingly paced, with a collection of bite size action sequences, all of which are entirely unique. John Wick gets so bogged down in it's gun-fu, whereas this film never does the same thing twice. The creative and increasingly over-the-top action sequences were a consistent source of incredulous smiles in the theater (how could you not smile when Aatami invents SCUBA diving by sucking the oxygen out of the slit throat of a Nazi).

While suspension of disbelief is shattered early and often, generally speaking the movie gets away with it, hiding behind the folklore/legend element. That said, there were still specific moments that were a bit too much for me. For example, I could have done without the sequence where Aatami uses his prospector's pan as if it's Captain America's shield. I also was disappointed that the final sequence (surviving a nose diving plane crash) didn't have any clever or creative component to it.

As for the less than compelling dialogue, this movie solves that problem by having very little of it. Yes, there are still examples of on-the-nose, or otherwise expository dialogue (the opening narration even felt a bit off), but more often than not we go minutes at a time without a single line. Of course, no dialogue doesn't always work for me either, but between the near constant action and an impressively expressive performance by Jorma Tommila (as opposed to the admirable, but notably one-note performance Keanu Reeves is known for), I had no problem with it here. It also helps that Aksel Hennie, the central Nazi who almost certainly has the most dialogue in the film, gives a strong performance. If you want to see him in a very different role, I highly recommend Headhunters (2011), a Norwegian thriller that is perhaps one of my favorite foreign films.

All in all, a lean, mean action film that accomplishes exactly what it set out to do and is an easy recommend for action junkies.

This is a movie comprised almost entirely of people in a room talking. Sometimes they're sitting down. Sometimes they're standing up. Sometimes they're on the phone. But it's all more or less the same idea. I read an early draft of the script and it was much the same, with numerous pages of unbroken dialogue throughout. Now, all of this may sound like a critique, but it's not. This movie accomplishes the difficult task of making scenes of people in a room talking compelling. It's like winning a fight with one arm tied behind your back. It speaks to great dialogue, great performances, and clever filmmaking to add interest to a dialogue heavy script.

I will say that the movie started stronger than it finished. The opening couple scenes were excellent. First, you've got the nostalgia-bait '80's montage intro (and the rest of the music). Yeah, it might be a bit pandering, but who's going to deny that it's effective. Plus, that guitar riff from Dire Straights is a classic. After that, you've got a brilliant introductory scene with the discussion of the draft picks and the follow-up scene with Matt Damon and Jason Bateman in the bathroom. Interestingly, in the script the latter scene took place in the cafeteria, which shows how the foundation of a good scene can be tweaked into a great scene. It's more visually interesting, more dynamic, and adds a bit of humor. Finally, you've got the introduction of Phil Knight, and maybe I'm just a sucker for the Affleck/Damon duo, but all of their scenes together were highlights for me. Overall, these sequences do such a great job establishing the characters, the world, and the central conflict. It's incredibly efficient and effective storytelling.

As the movie progresses, the simplicity of the story does start to detract from the experience somewhat. There's just not that much too it, and what is there, is fairly predictable. Sonny wants to sign Jordan...and he does. It leads to an underwhelming, anti-climactic third act. So again, it's the moment to moment writing that makes the movie. The characters. The dialogue.

My review is largely going to be built around comparisons to this film's predecessor, Searching (2018), which I quite enjoyed. While I was initially concerned that the filmmakers were following the formula of the original a bit too closely (e.g. opening with a melancholic flashback to reveal the death of a parent), they ultimately use the similarities as another means to misdirect the audience. The tongue in cheek acknowledgement of the first film (in the form of the true crime Netflix adaptation "Unfiction") was also a clever touch. As with the original, the screen based POV is an excellent way for the audience to experience an investigation, with plenty of opportunity for creative problem solving. Of course, there's still a lot of handwaving necessary on the tech side of things, with two factor authentication likely stopping much of June's work dead in it's tracks, but things move fast enough that I didn't really catch on it. With respect to the central mystery, things ramp up in scope and stakes a lot more than the original. It took me a bit by surprise, and it does start to strain suspension of disbelief, but nothing deal breaking. With respect to performances, Storm Reid's June was a bit hit or miss for me, with some stilted deliveries standing out amongst otherwise solid work. Javier the Columbian Taskrabbit was a standout. Just a fun idea for a character.

Not a total disappointment, but a disappointment none the less. James Cameron chose to follow in the footsteps of two other much belated follow-ups: The Force Awakens and Top Gun Maverick. That is to say, James Cameron chose to dress up a remake and call it a sequel. I can hardly blame him. It's a technique that clearly has proven effective, as both the Star Wars and Top Gun examples were billion dollar plus box office juggernauts. But for me, it just feels lazy. I couldn't help but roll my eyes as this movie trotted out not only the same exact antagonist, but even many of the same exact lines from the original. Then you've got remixes of scenes (Colonel Quaritch going to the floating mountains to bond with a dragon type pokemon). And the fundamental human conflict also uses an identical set-up (i.e. humans want a valuable resource (unobtanium/whale brain juice) that is found in a holy place for the Na'Vi (Home Tree/Whales).

Now, with all of that said, I will acknowledge the two new ideas that were clearly intended to shake up the formula, both in terms of story and spectacle. On the story side, this film introduces the family theme, which does contribute to story/character depth that was lacking in the original. It doesn't all work perfectly, and some of the threads are left unresolved (presumably setting up for the sequel(s)), but enough lands for it to be a positive differentiator (I enjoyed Spider's role, although I think they shouldn't have shied away from a much darker ending). On the spectacle side, we get the titular focus on water. For much of the film, the water based visuals weren't adding much for me, but the final set piece did win me over, with James Cameron leveraging all of his Abyss/Titanic experience to bring a suitably thrilling water based action sequence to life. All in all, much like the original, this film survives on its spectacle, but I was hoping for more.

If you look at the top comments on the first episode of Andor, they are not glowing, including a 5/10 and a 6/10 which refer to it as "pretty generic" and slow. When I saw those comments after watching it, I felt the need to speak up in its defense, as I thought it was the best Star Wars content we've seen in a very long time. Now, with episode 10, I'm having the opposite problem, as people are throwing out hyperbolic praise, when I found it to be a step down from what we've seen previously this season.

That's not to say the episode was bad, but it didn't blow me away either. The episode was a tad too monologue heavy, and the writing of the monologues broke the suspension of disbelief at points, as they were either too slow (during what should be a high pace prison break), or too melodramatic. Generally speaking, I want dialogue that feels practical. I want characters to say that things that they would naturally say if they were in these situations. This is in direct conflict with monologues that read more like prepared speeches. And this doesn't mean the content of the monologues are bad. They just clash with the more gritty realism I've enjoyed from Andor up to this point.

This is a bit more nitpicky, but I was also somewhat disappointed in the mechanics of the prison break; especially how it resolves. There's a lot of handwaving necessary to explain the logistics of 5,000 prisoners being able to swim to freedom from this isolated prison in the ocean.

All of this said, the overall story of the rebellion is still chugging along brilliantly. Mon Mothma's scenes never disappoint, and even with the over the top monologue, Luthen's meeting with the rebel spy still landed as a powerful moment.

A fun little horror/thriller with an ensemble of almost universally awful, but well realized characters. The dialogue is natural and often darkly hilarious. The performances are strong. There are several absolutely top notch sequences. For example, I loved the confrontation with Lee Pace's character in the gym. At that point in the story the reactions and suspicions of every character were all just on the right side of plausible. Brilliant writing. While I'm sure the writers would have their own opinion on the film's messaging or social commentary, my takeaway was two fold: (1) shared history is the foundation of most friendships, but not a particularly good one; and (2) awful people can have a traumatic or otherwise sympathetic past, and while that past may play a part in their awfulness, it certainly doesn't excuse it.

As far as criticisms go, the movie does fall prey to one of my most hated horror movie clichés: characters making terrible (and illogical) decisions (the classic example being, "let's split up"). I'm sure the writers would justify it by saying that these characters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed under the best of circumstances and were under the influence of alcohol and other substances in a high stress situation. While that explanation isn't completely without merit, it's not enough for me to forgive the groan inducing stupidity on display. Luckily, this issue only pops up in one or two moments and the strong writing outside of those moments was enough to keep me invested.