SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

I don't know if its just a matter of age, but this film did not work for me. The central pairing between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close was almost a complete deal breaker. I understand style and beauty standards change from decade to decade, but I was not seeing any attraction, fatal or otherwise. And that's not to say the performances were bad. I actually think they both did solid work. Maybe too solid in the case of Glenn Close, as her character struck me as the type to avoid almost immediately. Job well done I suppose. As far as the story goes, there wasn't much to it. It's a simple premise, and once the train is on the tracks it doesn't really offer many surprises. I spent much of the movie speculating on the next big sequence and was correct more often than not. The ending also suffers from a couple problems. I felt it borrowed a bit too much from the slasher/horror genre (especially with the cliché not-dead-yet Glenn Close jumping out of the bath tub for a final scare. I also think it would have benefitted from a less tidy/happy ending. As an aside, my girlfriend and I had been specifically looking to watch an erotic thriller and were quite disappointed in this film's offerings in that regard. However, we did get a good laugh out of the strange sex scene where the sink accidentally starts running and Michael and Glenn frantically start splashing water onto each other. Not sure we'll be incorporating that move, but definitely something to think about. As one final note, there are a couple scenes featuring casual racist stereotypes that are enough to make any modern audience grimace. They aren't a major part of the film, and are downright tame compared to something like Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's, but it's always interesting to see how things have changed over the last 30+ years.

While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.

First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.

When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.

Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.

A not-so original sci-fi feature that punches above its weight class in terms of spectacle and world building, but is lacking in the writing department more often than not. Way too many examples of ham-fisted, on-the-nose dialogue, as characters bluntly tell the protagonist how high the stakes are, how important the child is, or any number of other expositional dumps. The high-level story is also rife with clichés, with the central arc feeling familiar to the point of predictability. Now, there are moments that land effectively. I would specifically call out the early interactions between Joshua and Alphie as being among the strongest of the film. But those moments are few and far between, as a lot of the more ambitious emotional beats feel rushed and/or forced. On top of that, it seems like delivering spectacle was perhaps overly prioritized, as many sequences don't hold up to even the most surface level logical scrutiny, resulting in a lot of eye-rolling, head scratching, and ultimately the death of suspension of disbelief (e.g., suicide bomb robots seem silly when you've got a massive tank shooting precise missiles that are shown to be more effective, or standby mode somehow fooling an army of scientists, or Nomad seemingly being in multiple places at once in the final sequence). Admittedly, those types of complaints are nitpicky, and if the dialogue and big picture story had landed better, I think they would be easily forgiven. Not to mention, as I said initially, the visuals are fantastic. The Nomad's eerie beam of blue light is unique and memorable. The contrast of futuristic robots in a rural Asian setting offers plenty of striking visuals. I have no doubt that Gareth Edwards got incredible bang for his buck, stretching his $80 million budget to look on par with films that cost twice that. But in the end, the whole is less than the sum of its parts, with all of the fantastic visuals and handful of strong ideas combining into a package that was just okay.

I've quickly become a fan of the burgeoning "True Corporate" genre (as opposed to True Crime). Between this film, Tetris, and Air, I consider the genre three for three this year. I'm sure the films aren't for everyone, but having worked most of my career at the intersection of legal and finance/accounting, I find the stories fascinating. The case of BlackBerry is even more so given that it took place within my lifetime. Being able to map the events in the film against my own recollection of BlackBerry's prevalence definitely adds something. Combine that with solid writing and fantastic performances from both Jay Baruchel and Glenn Howerton and the end result is an easy recommend.

As a tiny little nitpick, I think "save the cat" moment of Mike fixing the buzzing intercom in the opening scene was a bit cliché and ultimately unnecessary. I think the theme/message would have been equally (if not more) effective had he just identified the buzz, given the same commentary about it, maybe even opened it up and tried to fix it, but not actually fixed it. It's just a bit of an eye roll, because I don't buy that thirty seconds and a paper clip is enough to fix much of anything. But I'm not an electrical engineer, so maybe I'm totally off base. In any case, not a big deal, and ultimately the scene works just fine as is, but I would have tweaked it.

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.

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.

I think I let my expectations get ahead of me on this one. I was looking for something more than the original; something fresh and new. Instead, they chose to go the same route as The Force Awakens, leaning into the nostalgia and making a film that closely follows the original formula. Clearly it was the right call, as the movie is breaking records like crazy, but I can't help but be disappointed that a $150+ million dollar sequel had to borrow the structure of the 36 year old original. This borrowing has the added effect of creating a very predictable film. Many of the beats can be seen coming well in advance, which can take a bit of the oomph out of otherwise fun/exciting moments.

Now, that said, the movie is still an improvement on the original. The fact that the second act training sequences have a well defined objective that ties in to the final third act action sequence is a big improvement from the generic and somewhat meaningless training exercises from the original film. It allows that whole portion of the film to maintain much higher stakes, rather than leaning on the low stakes of bragging rights in an educational pilot competition.

That said, this pro is somewhat offset by a minor con related to the specifics of the mission. When they have their introductory briefing, I couldn't help but roll my eyes as they described a dangerous trench run culminating in shooting a proton torpedo missile into at an impossibly small target to destroy the Death Star nuclear facility. I was waiting for Miles Teller to tell us that it was just like his days shooting womp rats out on Tatooine. I understand that there really aren't that many options when it comes to exciting parameters for fighter jet missions, but it was still a tad disappointing for it to feel so familiar.

The movie also suffers from some corny dialogue, which again seems to hearken back to the original film. Additionally, the last couple action beats really throw suspension of disbelief out the window, feeling like they would be more at home in a Fast and Furious film.

To leave off on a positive, despite the familiarity/predictability of the plot, there are still plenty of make-you-smile moments, my favorite being when, after being fired/discharged, Maverick pops up on radar to prove that the mission can be flown within the original time limit. It's the writers giving the audience exactly what they want, i.e Maverick gets to prove that he's the best.

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

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

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

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

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

The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my top 10 films, perhaps even top 3, so to see the series fall to this level is quite disappointing. The movie isn't shy about trying to imitate it's predecessors, but inviting that comparison was a bad move, as it is never more than a poor reflection. The opening sequence was actually a cool idea, although the dialogue got cheesy. With respect to the action, everything is way too over the top for my tastes. That problem was already creeping in with the original sequels (e.g., ball cage sequence in Dead Man's Chest), but this movie ramps it up even more (e.g., dragging a building, getting pulled by a shark, etc.). That said, I will admit that the guillotine sequence, though completely ridiculous, was at least a bit more clever than the rest. The comedy is equally over the top. While the original film has plenty of comedic elements, it still took itself seriously. In this film, the comedy is way more in your face. The story is rushed, none of the new characters leave an impression, and this iteration of Jack Sparrow, though still the bright spot of the film, has dulled significantly compared to his first performance.

I don't have a great recollection of the 2nd and 3rd films, but I still feel comfortable saying that this is the weakest of the bunch. Based on reporting, the budget for this entry was significantly reduced compared to the previous films ($85M vs $135/$150/$145), and you can tell. The animation is noticeably less detailed and the absence of the furious 5 was almost certainly a cost cutting measure. However, the lower budget isn't what drags the film down. In fact, I think it makes sense to push back against bloated animation budgets. Do we really think the primarily younger audiences are going to care about the graphical fidelity of the animal fur or how realistic the water simulations are? I think studios are realizing that there are diminishing (perhaps even zero) returns at higher budgets. While I couldn't find any reported numbers, I expect that animation budget for Adam Sandler's recent Netflix film, Leo, was comparatively low, as they leveraged a stylized/simplistic style that still allowed for all sorts of visual creativity. The point being, creative and engaging visuals don't need to be expensive and ultimately it's the story/characters that do the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, that's where this film disappoints. The story is incredibly rushed, at some points feeling like they cut entire sequences (e.g., when Zhen gives Po a cryptic quote about footprints, we cut to him following foot prints through the snow, and then we cut back to Zhen following up on the cryptic quote. The movie feels like it's going through the motions, relying heavily on call back material in lieu of anything more original.

After watching both parts of Denis Villeneuve's new adaptation effectively back to back, I had a morbid curiosity as to how David Lynch's 40-year old version holds up. The answer, generally speaking, is not well (though I understand that it wasn't exactly a big hit on release either). I suspect there is no modern audience that will enjoy this movie on its face. That said, it still was interesting to compare and contrast. Perhaps most interesting of all is the relative run times, as this movie tells the same story (at least superficially) in 137 minutes that Villeneuve needed over 321 minutes to tell. While some of that differential can be explained by Villeneuve's flair for spectacle, it's clear from this version that the extra time was needed to give the story room to breath and avoid a rushed/superficial feel. In terms of the spectacle offered in this movie, the non-practical special effects are super rough, but some of the practical work has some nostalgic appeal (e.g., miniature work on the worms). Production design decisions are much more hit and miss. I'm sure the fashion sensibilities are a product of their time, but going from Villeneuve's bald/brutal/black and white Harkonnen aesthetic to a bunch of redheads was quite the whiplash.