The run times of the Rocky films have an interesting trajectory, with the first and second being approximately 2 hours, but the third cutting 20 minutes and the fourth cutting another 10, down to an incredibly lean 90 minutes. What makes that even crazier, is that each Rocky sequel (up to the fourth anyway, haven't watched the rest yet) has opened with 3-5 minutes that is directly lifted from the previous movie. On top of that, this entry has no less than 3 extended montages that amount to entire music videos, eating up another 15 minutes of run time. Moral of the story is, there isn't much meat on these bones. The story is superficial and rushed and, as with Rocky III, what little dialogue there is, is generally melodramatic and on the nose. The US/Soviet angle is the only unique element, but it's as surface level as the rest of the film, though Dolph Lundgren does deserve some props as the suitably intimidating Ivan Drago.
The cracks in the Rocky formula are starting to show. More and more of the run time is taken up by what amounts to music videos and what little story there is, is underdeveloped and melodramatic (having just finished watching Rocky IV before writing this review, spoiler alert, that problem gets worse). In this case, I actually think the overall premise had potential. Rocky finding out that Mickey was setting him up with lesser contenders is a nice little twist. But the execution is too superficial, with Rocky's arc feeling rushed. Combine that with soapy dialogue (the scene on the beach with Rocky and Adrian in particular), and the movie just doesn't land its punches. On the plus side, Eye of the Tiger is still catchy as hell and Mr. T is pretty fun too.
I didn't love the original Hunger Games books/movies. I had to double check my watch history to even confirm how far into the series I made it. I thought I only saw the first two, but turns out I did see Part 1 of Mockingjay. In any case, they didn't exactly leave a strong impression, feeling like the quintessential blend of young adult dystopian clichés. However, after strong recommendations from siblings/friends who had read this prequel, I figured why not.
Overall, I thought this was an improvement over what I remember from the originals. Not a huge improvement, but an improvement. Tom Blyth seems like a star in the making and a contender to join Timothée Chalamet in the next generation of sharp-jawed heartthrobs. His performance was strong enough to carry a film that is probably a bit longer than it should have been. Unfortunately, Rachel Zegler didn't work quite as well for me. I'm probably not the best judge, but her accent just felt forced and I think they leaned into the singing angle a bit too much. The ensemble has some strong work, with Jason Schwartzman injecting some much-appreciated humor and Peter Dinklage selling his role (though I wished he had more material to work with).
With respect to story, I've always appreciated a prequel that adds context, and I thought this did a pretty good job in that respect. Getting a glimpse into the history of the games and how they've developed over time was compelling. The fact that we leave the Hunger Games behind for the final act was also interesting, and though some of that sequence feels rushed, the ambitious scope is still admirable.
I also have to comment on the budget, which was significantly reduced from Catching Fire/Mockingjay. I don't know that I'd call it out as noticeable, but I will say that the few action set pieces did feel a bit cheap.
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.
An incredible true story that doesn't lend itself very well to a movie adaptation. Watching someone play a video game is not a cinematic visual, so everything up through the online qualifier didn't do much for me. The creators do their best to mitigate the issue, adding an almost certainly manufactured running-late/ticking-clock component and throwing in some superfluous CGI overlays to the video game sequences, but these aren't enough to save the unavoidably bland/predictable scenes. It doesn't help that the movie really leans on ham-fisted expository dialogue, with characters constantly verbalizing the stakes at every opportunity. Things do improve once our gamers actually get into race cars, but the on-the-nose Hollywood style storytelling persists, to the point that it makes you question how true elements of the story actually are. On the positive side, the central trio of Archie Madekwe, David Harbour, and Orlando Bloom are all solid, doing their best to sell the often cheesy lines.
A definite step down from the first. The set-up starts strong, feeling a bit more slice of life in terms of exploring Rocky's life and struggles after "retirement". Rocky being terrible at finances, driving, and acting all fit perfectly with the character and add some fantastic humor. But once the movie starts driving toward the rematch things don't work nearly as well. The emotional ups and downs feel rushed and superficial, with the final rematch feeling far more Hollywood than the original film. On top of that, boxing just doesn't offer all that much variety in terms of visuals, so even though this is only the second in a nine-film series, the actual fight sequences are already feeling overly familiar and less-than compelling.
Up until this week there was a Sylvester Stallone sized gap in my viewing history, as I somehow had never seen the triple Oscar winning (with 7 more nominations) film that rocketed him to stardom. I finally sought this out because I saw an interview Stallone did on BBC back in 1977. In the interview, he described his background and motivations. He was well spoken and as an aspiring screenwriter, I found it incredibly relatable and inspiring. So, with that as the backdrop, does the almost 50 year-old classic hold up? Absolutely*!
The story is tight as can be, with interesting characters, strong dialogue, and, of course, an iconic theme song. Stallone absolutely sells the role. One of my favorites scenes was probably when Mickey comes to Rocky's apartment to offer his services. Just an excellent set-up and Stallone delivers a raw/powerful emotional performance. I was also surprised at how funny the movie was at times, albeit always with a dry, almost Coen brothers humor. I'm not even sure how intentional it was, but something like Rocky asking Paulie half a dozen times if Adrian knew he was coming on Thanksgiving was hilarious. Then there's the ending, which even though I knew the result was coming (hard to avoid spoilers this old), the movie still surprised me with the execution in the final moments. The way the announcer and fight result is so out of focus to almost be lost is such an effective punchline. Just quality stuff.
*There is one exception. A component of the film that absolutely will not hold up for modern audiences is Rocky and Adrian's first date (specifically once they get back to his place), which watches like an uncomfortable compilation of problematic male behaviors of yesteryear. It's crazy to think there was a time when the line, "I'm going to kiss you, but you don't have to kiss me back", delivered while Rocky has Adrian literally cornered between his arms, was considered to be any kind of romantic/acceptable.
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.
Went into this one completely blind. Zero familiarity with the games and lore. Overall, I found it to be a serviceable light-horror, that hangs its hat on strong production design and creepy visuals, while generally missing the mark in terms of dialogue/characters. I've always had a soft spot for Josh Hutcherson (shout out to Future Man), and I think he does an admirable job making the less-than-stellar material work. I even liked some of the ideas being explored (e.g., dream therapy). But the overall story felt pretty undercooked in the end. Things move quick, which helps to mask a narrative that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny. All that said, making a video game movie that the fans love is a rare accomplishment, so props to the creators for that. Unfortunately, I don't expect the film to win many new fans.
Strong production design, solid acting, and some gruesome kills aren't enough to save the predictable story. This is a twist that most audiences will see coming a mile away. The overall premise was also too inexplicable/supernatural for my tastes, with a lot of logistical details being swept under the rug (e.g., how does this small town survive if kids are getting picked off by the dozens every year?).
As someone who didn't grow up as a horror fan, my gateway into the genre was horror-comedy, and this film shines in that role. It succeeds for two reasons: (1) the clever cliché-reversing premise; and (2) the performances of Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk. There's a lot of humor in the set-up and these two have the comedy chops to make it work, both in terms of physical gags (use of beer as cure-all was a highlight) and hilarious dialogue ("we've had a doozy of a day, officer"). Now, I will say, the film does lose a lot of momentum in the back half, with the comedy getting more sparse as the plot runs its course. The production also felt a bit cheaper than I remember. Not sure if it's the color grading or what, but it looks a little TV-movie at times. Luckily, its lean 90 minute run time saves the day and the positives easily outweigh the negatives.
It's an oft-used, often mis-used, phrase in cinema discourse, but I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think Megamind is underrated. I will never understand how Despicable Me launched a billion dollar tentpole franchise with spin-offs and merch galore, whereas Megamind seems to have been largely forgotten. Actually, I kind of do understand. Despicable Me was much more targeted toward younger kids (i.e., kid protagonists, fluffy unicorns, Minions, etc.). But still, Megamind deserved better. An absolutely stacked cast, clever premise, and hilarious writing. I've never been a huge Will Farrell fan, with his comedy often being too over-the-top for me, but he was the perfect choice for this role.
Watched this with my niece and nephew after not having seen it in at least a decade. While it may warrant an anti-bullying discussion for modern kiddos (which probably applies to all Charlie Brown specials), it still holds up as a Halloween classic with a cute story, consistent humor, and timeless animation.
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.
Jamie Foxx sells the movie, with his opening scene (which happens to be delivering an opening argument) being my favorite of the film. Unfortunately, that means that the film peaked early. The true story lawsuit that forms the backbone of the film didn't really work for me as a story engine. It just felt like we were getting a superficial telling of what I'm sure was a much more complicated/legally technical case. Luckily, the performances were strong enough to keep me watching and I would still recommend the film to anyone looking for a solid courtroom drama.
Re-watched this for the first time since seeing it in theaters 10 years ago. The book is one of my childhood favorites, so I'm in the classic position of wanting the film to be good, but also holding it to perhaps unreasonably high standards. In the end, I think this is a respectable attempt to adapt a book that in many ways is ill-suited for adaptation (and perhaps may have worked better as a series). I say ill-suited because relying on children protagonists to pull off weightier story elements and themes is much easier to do on the page than on the screen. Aging up the children was the bare minimum, but even young teenagers are tough to sell in these roles. That said, the acting was actually not a huge problem for me. My biggest complaint was the pacing, as the story felt incredibly rushed and doesn't earn most of its big moments. It's hard to say for sure, but it does feel like it would have worked better if they had 6-10 episodes to work with. As far as positives go, they certainly didn't skimp on the budget. I was surprised to enjoy the film's depiction of the Mind Game and thought that the hyper condensed version actually worked reasonably well. I enjoyed the battle room design and only wish we could have seen more actual battles. While the command school "simulations" were also clearly high budget, I was less of a fan of the design. I just think they overdid it with the bugger swarms, to the point where it is both unrealistic and too visually muddy to even appreciate what is going on. As with everything else, the ending definitely feels rushed, with Ender's internal emotional conflict relying on some forced dialogue and feeling superficial as a result. I thought the decision to have a live bugger with the hive queen egg was an understandable addition that worked. It's hard for me to judge the movie in a vacuum and I'd definitely be interested to know what uninitiated audiences thought of it. As for me, it was just okay.
I respect the high-concept/no-dialogue attempt, but for me it ultimately was a failed experiment. I already have a bad track record with "elevated" horror, a genre which seems to pride itself on having far less dialogue than is realistic, so turning that element up to the max was unlikely to win me over. I will give it credit for having the lack of dialogue actually make sense for the most part (i.e., the film is 95% solo scenes), whereas some of these other films will have multiple characters sit in silence when they have a million things that they should be talking about (like perhaps whatever horror is trying to kill them). But even if the lack of dialogue is more realistic here, it still results in a less than engaging film. It doesn't help that the silence is ultimately filled with near constant non-verbal noises (panting, whimpers, grunts, cries, etc.) that quickly became grating. It reminded me of one of the reasons I dislike anime, where every facial expression or emotion seems to come paired with an over-the-top audio cue. Loosely connected to that is one of my least favorite horror/action tropes, where a character crawls on the ground for an extended sequence before getting up and running moments later. I think that anyone who can get up and run would do so immediately.
This review is feeling rather nitpicky and probably more negative than my actual opinion on the film. The production is strong, with fun creature design and generally impressive VFX (especially for a reported budget of $23 million). There were story ideas that I quite liked (having her kill an alien early on was a nice surprise). The biggest issue for me was that there wasn't enough to it, even for a lean 90 minute film. A lot of same-y feeling running and hiding. The traumatic character backstory that serves as the only non-alien related plot point was working for me initially, but the payoff didn't land. I'm sure the creators have some explanation for why things play out the way they do, but on the surface it just feels rushed and superficial, taking the frustrating "elevated" approach of hiding behind ambiguity and not worrying about whether things come together in a satisfying logical way.
I'm a sucker for time travel, so the premise here was enough to coast on, but the execution was only serviceable. A little too tongue-in-cheek for my tastes. While they don't quite break the fourth wall, the constant meta references and the film's self-awareness of its place in the time travel genre just feels played out, almost leaning on it as an excuse to cut corners and not offer anything particularly fresh (the biggest hand wave of all is the science fair origins of the time travel device itself, which feels like something out of a Disney original, rather than an R-rated horror comedy). The main source of humor is the clash of a modern teen in 1987. While that set-up has potential, the execution feels superficial, with the jokes mostly being obvious and on-the-nose. The actual slasher/horror moments definitely don't bring anything new to the table and there's some noticeably cheap production that distracts in some of those moments.
After hearing good things about this final entry, I went back and watched the previous two films in preparation (re-watch for the original but first time seeing #2). You can find those reviews on this website, but overall I enjoyed both and was left excited to see the third. Unfortunately, my expectations were not met and I came away from this film disappointed. Everything about it feels undercooked, especially when compared to the prior two. Everything feels superficial and rushed, from the story to Robert McCall's central character arc of falling in love with a small Italian town. This film is the shortest of the bunch, so perhaps an extra 10-20 minutes would have helped, but it's hard to say. The villains are paper thin and don't have nearly the presence of Marton Csokas in the first film. The same can be said for all of the supporting cast, with no one really standing out (Dakota Fanning and David Denman just felt like they didn't do much of anything). Even the action feels like a dramatic step down, as the final assault can hardly be described as a set piece, lacking both in terms of spectacle and originality. This also connects with a generally cheaper feel than the first two, with certain decisions feeling like short cuts to save money. I'll have to read some of the positive reviews to see what I might be missing, but on first blush, this one just didn't work for me.
I haven't seen a live production of Hamilton and, considering its widespread cultural impact that verges on omnipresence, have had surprisingly little exposure to the soundtrack. As such, when the filmed version dropped on Disney+ back in 2020, I was excited to watch it effectively blind. My main takeaway then, and my takeaway now after my first re-watch two years later, was quite simple: Hamilton 100% deserves its lofty position in our cultural zeitgeist. It's got everything going for it. Clever lyrics, memorable songs, excellent performances, poignant emotional beats. All wrapped in a surprisingly educational package that will undoubtedly increase the average knowledge base of U.S. history for generations to come. Calling out a few highlights: (1) Leslie Odom Jr - probably my favorite performance; (2) Helpless/Satisfied - so much storytelling packed in these and I always love a good perspective change/reframe; (3) Jonathan Groff - just hilarious; (4) Cabinet Battles - all politics could be improved with rap battles; (5) It's Quiet Uptown - definitely had me choked up. Those are just the few that come to mind, but really enjoyed virtually every song/scene. The only exception might be the semi a cappella finale, which didn't quite work for me. Just felt a bit more melodramatic/forced than some of the rest.
A movie with sit-com sensibilities, as it isn't too concerned about having a propulsive central thread and focuses instead on humorous interactions involving funny people. And who could be funnier than one of sit-com's GOATs, Julia Louis-Drefus. From Seinfeld to Veep, she has mastered comedic timing and just nails every delivery. And opposite good old Elaine Benes, we have Tobias Menzies, who holds his own. He had a dryly comedic bit part in Catastrophe (2015), which is one of my favorite comedies of the last decade, so it was nice to see him in a similar role here. In fact, I enjoyed pretty much the entire ensemble. The only exception might be the son, who I felt didn't get much to work with in terms of material and ultimately served more as a plot device to draw a parallel that was a bit on the nose for my taste. This ties into a broader criticism that the final act fell a bit flat, as the titular theme never really landed as much more than a vehicle for humor. Luckily, the humor was enough, delivered in a tight 90 minute package with interesting characters, solid bits throughout, and just enough of a through line to tie it all together. As an aside, one bit that really got me was the very underplayed moment when the two sisters get ice cream and we cut to them exiting the store. Just clever/subtle writing. On the other hand, you've got the blatant Seinfeld Easter egg about the diner that I can appreciate for the exact opposite reason.
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.
Simple and effective. Yes, the tension throughout the first two acts is artificially/conveniently driven by key characters behaving in ways that don't really make sense in retrospect, but us horror audiences aren't exactly the pickiest when it comes to illogical decision making. As such, the central twist still lands well, despite being almost entirely manufactured. Unfortunately, after the twist is revealed, any cleverness of the plot is left by the wayside, as the film devolves into a cliché bloodbath. The finale ultimately feels a bit rushed and incomplete. It's not exactly bad, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. Outside the story, the production/filmmaking is quite solid and Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr are excellent (Starr really leveraging his disquieting Homelander affect).
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!
A simple movie that is happy sticking in its lane. It's not a high-brow lane and certainly won't win any awards, but it delivers exactly what is promised in the title. This is essentially a creature feature/slasher that succeeds by leaning into its absurd premise, keeping the pace up, and injecting some solid humor throughout. On the humor side, Aaron Holliday was a standout in his supporting role. As far as action goes, there are plenty of gory kills to go around, though there are clear budget constraints that detract at times. I quite enjoyed Alden Ehrenreich's performance. I feel like I haven't seen him much since Solo and definitely think he deserves bigger opportunities. Keri Russell felt like she didn't have enough to do in the story. The final set piece fell pretty flat for me, though I admit I smiled begrudgingly when the Mama Bear was revived by the falling brick of cocaine. I respect the commitment to the premise. Overall, there are far worse ways to spend 90 minutes.
After a solid run of films this year in the "True Corporate" genre (Tetris, Air, BlackBerry), I figured I'd go back and watch one of the earlier entries that I had never gotten around to. Overall, this film didn't disappoint and further confirms my affinity for the genre. Michael Keaton carries the film, from opening sales pitch to final monologue after his transition to cut-throat capitalist. Yes, the arc is familiar, but the execution is strong enough that it doesn't matter. Nick Offerman is also expectedly excellent, feeling right at home in his role as idealist business owner. Overall, a compelling story about the origin of a worldwide cultural phenomenon.
Is the social commentary on the nose? Absolutely. But is it funny? Hmm... enough of the time to keep me watching, but not enough to recommend as a comedy. I think the creators probably intended the plot itself to be a source of absurdist humor, but a lot of it was too absurd for my tastes (e.g. Mark Rylance's pseudo Steve Jobs). Jonah Hill's character was definitely a highlight on the humor side, with dialogue that was just the right amount of absurd and consistently hilarious. Outside the humor, the rest of the movie just feels like it's too focused on the satire. Probably not something that will stick with me.
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.
