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 the 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.
The last best picture nominee I had left to watch and perhaps my favorite. The writing and performances are brilliant. Even before finishing the movie, I already wanted to revisit certain scenes to look for missed details and appreciate all the little nuances (definitely the flashback/recording scene, which was a highlight, but several courtroom exchanges as well). I really enjoyed the interplay between languages and how those types of elements might affect the judge/jurors. In the same way that it's difficult to judge a performance in a language you don't speak, I imagine it's also difficult to judge credibility. I was worried about how things would end, as these kind of stories can struggle to stick the landing (e.g., I was disappointed in HBO's The Undoing), but they made it work.
Other than serving as a relatively tame introduction to whatever fetishist community Grey is a part of, this film doesn't have much to offer. The fact that the book started as fan fiction makes sense, as the writing feels decidedly blunt and underdeveloped. Despite clocking in at just over two hours, it felt like there wasn't enough story to even feel like a complete movie. The conflict/tension is so narrow and low stakes that I was never invested.
I don't have any deep nostalgia for Winnie the Pooh, but this film made me feel like I do. I guess there's a reason these characters are so well loved - they're cute, hilarious, and wholesome. And of course there's the voice acting. I think the dialogue was strong, but honestly Jim Cummings could probably say any line with Winnie the Pooh's signature voice/cadence and I'd probably love it. The story isn't revolutionary, but its compelling enough to serve as an effective nostalgic vehicle. There aren't many live action films for younger audiences that win me over, so it was a pleasant surprise to find another favorite here.
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.
Explores some interesting relationship dynamics but didn't quite land for me as a complete package. The entire film is focused on this relationship, with effectively no B/C plots to speak of. This resulted in the characters feeling underdeveloped and the pacing feeling rushed. The first couple of sequences felt too short. And I don't necessarily mean short on runtime, but rather short on story. The movie lingers in many scenes, creating a melancholic feel, but not much is actually happening. By the time we get to the longer, present day sequence, I haven't had a chance to fully invest in the characters and so the conflicts feel a bit superficial. That said, the performances are still strong and there was some thought provoking dialogue throughout (particularly enjoyed Arthur talking about how Nora makes his life bigger, as well as Hae Sung's discussion of Nora being the one who leaves for him, but the one who stays for Arthur).
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.
I can't speak to the negative (or positive) aspects of the representation in this movie, so I'm just going to ignore that whole conversation. All I can do is comment on how it landed with me, someone who doesn't have any skin in the game and was just watching it as a movie. Overall, I thought Sean Penn's performance was compelling and the central relationship between Sam and Lucy landed enough emotional beats to carry the film. The story understandably dodges any real conversation surrounding Lucy's conception or some of the practicalities of how Sam raised Lucy for the first 7 years, but they glossed over it efficiently enough that it doesn't really detract. What does detract is Michelle Pfeiffer's character, which often feels superficial and melodramatic, especially toward the end.
After watching both Dune's back to back, I had an itching for more epic, desert based cinematography and decided to revisit George Miller's masterpiece. This also makes for an interesting comparison. While I enjoyed my 5+ hour visit to Arrakis, I think this is the stronger movie. The amount of world building it accomplishes in just 2 hours is incredible. Combine that with an elegantly simple story, strong central performances, and jaw dropping action sequences, and you've got a winner. After almost a decade, the action set pieces remain unmatched, and it's honestly not close. Comparing the practical heavy stunt work to the CGI messes that are so common now is night and day.
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.
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.
Spectacle is undoubtedly the focus, and in that respect the movie generally delivers. The one exception might be the worm riding, which is something that seems cooler in theory than it looks in practice. The set-up for it is cool, but once they actual get on the worm it just looks goofy (especially when they show it from a distance). But like I said, that's the exception - there's plenty of fantastic production design, visuals, and audio throughout. So what about character and story? This was a mixed bag for me. I think there are some ideas that worked well (Emperor/Princess interplay, Bene Gesserit intrigue, Feyd-Rautha set-up), but Paul's central conflict of accepting or rejecting the prophecy felt repetitive and ultimately fell flat. Now, I do think the ending salvages the arc and makes it work as best it could, but the path to get there was less than compelling. All in all, I think Villeneuve's two-part adaptation is worthy of praise for its ambition and technical brilliance, but I don't think these will be movies I feel the need to re-watch with any regularity.
The biggest strength of this film is the extreme contrast between the story of the Höss family and the story taking place on the other side of the wall. The former gets most of the attention, with the movie playing out like a slice-of-life family drama. But the latter, which exists only in the background, unspoken and off screen for most of the film, is what packs the punch. The writers leverage the knowledge that most audiences already have - we all know what was happening. And that's where the contrast is - watching a man help orchestrate one of humanity's darkest moments without any acknowledgement is disturbingly compelling. That said, this isn't my favorite kind of film, as it feels less focused on building a narrative arc and more focused on the thematic ideas. Just a little too arthouse for my tastes.
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!
I didn't have high expectations for this movie. First, I'm not the biggest fan of musicals. And second, I hadn't yet been sold on Timothée Chalamet. Now, the first issue remained an issue for me, as the music here wasn't catchy enough to win me over. But on the second issue, I was happily surprised by Chalamet's goofy/optimistic performance. He's fun and wholesome and carries the film. There's a solid ensemble with plenty of humor that lands throughout. I'd also generally compliment the writing. The whole opening sequence, even when wrapped in a song that I didn't love, was an impressively efficient and clever way to introduce the character, the world, and the conflict.
Having unexpectedly enjoyed the TV show Heels, I was looking forward to another dramatic story in professional wrestling and was not disappointed. The relationship between the brothers is the highlight here, with nuanced writing that reveals complexities and contradictions. The wholesome moments are disarmingly heartwarming, which makes the gut punch moments land so much harder. The performances are excellent across the board. The production and technical filmmaking deliver memorable shots throughout. My only minor complaint is the pacing in the final act, as things moved rather quickly, with the final scene feeling a bit too on-the-nose/cheesy.
This film really highlights the flaw in the MCU's ambition to tell stories that connect to their TV-shows. I'm their ideal viewer. I'm caught up on all my MCU homework. I saw Wandavision. I saw Ms. Marvel. But the problem is they have to perform a balancing act of writing a movie that works on its own, while also leveraging the storytelling that took place on the small screen. The end result is a weird middle ground, where the characters from the TV shows feel like they get incomplete introductions, with awkward references to TV show events shoehorned in to connect the dots. It didn't work for me, and I suspect that it will be even less effective for the uninitiated.
As for the actual content of this movie, I think there are the seeds of an interesting plot (Captain Marvel confronting/atoning for the unforeseen negative ramifications of destroying the Supreme Intelligence), but the execution is severely lacking. Motivations feel forced, characters/relationships/conflicts are underdeveloped, and the story is rushed. There's sparks of creativity here and there (e.g., the power based body swapping, the singing planet), but none of it sticks the landing and the end result is another forgettable MCU adventure.
John Carney has carved himself quite an interesting Dublin-based, musical niche. The advice of "write what you know" can be controversial, but here is an example of someone who seems to have leaned into it and the results are consistently excellent. Flora is not the type of protagonist we see very often, with flaws prominently on display, but the writing and performance was nuanced enough to win me over. Not just to sympathize with her situation, but to cheer for her. The relationships are interesting, the dialogue feels real, and the story comes together in an unexpected way. The one thing holding the movie back for me was some pacing problems, as I felt like things were rushed in the back half. At only 97 minutes, it seems like there was room to let things breathe a bit more.
Went into this one blind and perhaps the most interesting aspect of it was how the central premise felt more like a B plot. It'd be interesting to look into relative screen time, but I suspect family/relationship drama comprises as much, if not more, than the pseudonym author plot. Luckily, the writing and performances are strong enough to make both plotlines compelling. I will say that the meta ending felt a bit like a copout, but even there the execution (and a hilarious performance by Adam Brody) makes it work. I don't know if Jeffery Wright's performance will be enough to land him the Oscar, but at the very least I hope it lands him more leading roles, because he deserves them.
A big step down from to the first film, which was already not great. Superficial writing, bland action, questionable CGI, and less than compelling acting from most everyone involved. I'll give Patrick Wilson credit for being the only somewhat okay part of the movie. With the material he's working with, somewhat okay is actually pretty impressive.
With the release of Mean Girls The Musical, it came to my sisters' attention that I had never seen the original and they felt the need to correct that oversight. I'm glad they did. This movie is genuinely clever and hilarious. Tina Fey knocks it out of the park on the writing and the performances from the entire ensemble really sell it. Turns out there's a reason this is so heavily quoted.
When the most enjoyable part of a movie is the end credits, you know you've got a problem. Very disappointed with this one and honestly confused how it's getting so much positive attention and doing well at the box office. The writing felt like Hallmark/Lifetime took a stab at R-rated. I know "chemistry" is subjective, but I didn't feel chemistry between any of these characters. And I don't know if the writing is to blame, but Sydney Sweeney wasn't really working for me at all. I've been a fan of Glen Powell since the excellent Everybody Wants Some (an R-Rated rom-com that is actually good, go watch that instead), so I was very much expecting to enjoy this, but even he wasn't able to save it.
A definite step down from the first, as the novelty has worn off and a lot of the humor falls flat. Specifically, the humor feels more forced and sketch based, often having no intersection with the story (e.g., Liam Neeson cameo, throwing fruit at joggers). On top of that, it seems to lean more on over the top set pieces and slapstick versus clever dialogue. That said, there are still successful bits sprinkled throughout (e.g., Monopoly exchange, improv suggestions). The final act felt rushed and Donny's return as the central villain was superficial and didn't go anywhere interesting. Despite all that, Wahlberg and MacFarlane are still enough to keep it watchable.
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.
Enjoyable enough with some surprisingly deep messaging for a movie this goofy. Jake Johnson's comedic chops are always dependable and he proves to be capable enough behind the camera too. I'd say my biggest gripe was the balancing act of "is it real or is it in his head". Just feels like the movie plays a bit too fast and loose on that issue. It was certainly intentional, but the ridiculousness of certain elements took me out of it a bit (e.g., production ninjas). Still, with its fun premise, plentiful humor, and admirably brisk 89 minute length, I think this one is worth the watch.
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.
I dragged my whole family to this on Christmas, and even though they're not the most adventurous film goers (probably the first foreign film most of them have seen in theaters), they all had a good time. This is an old-school crowd pleaser that deserves all the love it's receiving. You might be able to tell where the story is going well in advance, but that's exactly where you want it to go and you can't help but smile as it takes you there. I don't know if the budget numbers floating around are accurate, but if this was made for $20 million, Hollywood needs to get their head out of their ass, because this would have cost them five times that and it probably would have looked worse. Talking about the film with my brother afterwards, we started to realize that there are plenty of potential nitpicks and extreme gloss overs, but the movie swept me up enough that they didn't bother me in the moment. Watching my sister in the seat next to me get pumped as the soundtrack kicked in during the final confrontation is what the movie going experience is all about. In fact, I just pulled up that song while I'm writing this review because we could all use that level of hype in our lives.
I went into this with minimal expectations, as Adam Sandler is not normally my cup of tea. His brand of humor is usually too broad for my tastes, often over-the-top and full of slapstick. This film still has some of that DNA, but not only does it work much better in an animated film (where visuals can be more creative and physical gags aren't limited by something as silly as physics), but its also in service of a story that surprised me with its heart and depth. This is far closer to a Toy Story or Over the Hedge than I ever would have expected out of a Netflix kids movie. It delivers not just one, but a whole collection of positive messages for kids in a package that adults will also enjoy. This movie deserves to stick around as a classic.
I will note that the animation is quite simple, a far cry from Disney or Illumination. But the creators made it work, turning limitations into a stylistic choice that still allowed for creativity and flair - there's a lot of cute animation in this movie (the design for the kindergarteners was hilarious/genius). And while I already commented on the Sandler-esque elements of the humor, the movie also has plenty of more clever dialogue and ideas that had me chuckling throughout.
