Ryan Reynolds' well established brand of sarcastic quips isn't nearly enough to salvage this film. In fact, the humor isn't even a saving grace, as it's way more miss than hit, often feeling stilted and obligatory. The paper-thin plot doesn't bring anything new to the time travel genre, boiling down the typical elements to the absolute bare minimum. All talk of mechanics and paradoxes are swept under the rug without any meaningful explanation, with the allegedly high stakes often expressed through nebulous expository dialogue (e.g. when Reynolds explains to his younger self that 2050 is just like in terminator but worse). Combine all that with noticeably cheap special effects, less than compelling acting from most everyone involved, and ineffective sentimental moments, and the end result is a disappointingly forgettable mess.
Was looking for a comedy and chose this based on its good reviews and the fact that it features some actors that I've enjoyed in other comedies (Sam Richardson in Veep, Michael Chernus in Patriot, and George Basil in Crashing). Unfortunately, I came away quite disappointed. The movie embraces its clichéd setup a bit too much for my liking, with the various twists/reversals in the final half hour feeling very predictable. The goofy small town characters feel too much like caricatures. The humor is more hit than miss. Although the primary genre is different, I can't help but compare this to Knives Out, which was significantly more successful, both in terms of establishing an interesting ensemble cast, and crafting a clever story. All of that said, the movie isn't awful, or even bad. As my rating suggests, it's just sort of meh. There's a handful of funny moments and Sam Richardson has the comedic chops to sell even some of the weaker jokes, but it's not enough to recommend.
I decided to go back and watch both original Ghostbusters prior to watching the new Ghostbusters: Afterlife. I had never actually seen the sequel, so this one was totally new to me. Unfortunately, watching this film immediately after the iconic original doesn't do it any favors. It's just worse in about every way. The humor is more miss than hit. The story isn't as tight. The finale was an unexciting chore. The handful of new ideas don't land, and the returning elements are a pale imitation. Critically, the central plot device, the "mood slime", felt ill conceived and forced. Of course, there are still some solid moments and elements. Bill Murray makes the most of the less inspired humor and I enjoyed Rick Moranis' return. I also think the initial set-up had promise, as the idea of the Ghostbusters "going bust" opens up all sorts of potential story directions. But thirty minutes in, most of that potential is unfulfilled and is subsequently jettisoned when the movie manufactures a way to revert things back to normal and get the Ghostbusters back on top, which feels like a big missed opportunity.
I was sitting down to watch the new Ghostbusters: Afterlife when I realized that I hadn't seen the original in probably 15 years and had in fact never bothered to see the sequel. So, I changed plans and decided I'd do something of a marathon and watch all three (perhaps even four, as I also haven't seen the reboot from 2016).
This movie is a classic for a reason and it remains worthy of its reputation. Yes, the effects are incredibly dated, and yes, the ending doesn't quite stick the landing, but neither of those things really matter when Bill Murray is on screen delivering some of the most hilarious and iconic one liners of all time. I also want to complement the brilliantly snappy pacing, from hilarious cold open all the way to marshmallow covered finale, there isn't a wasted moment.
I really love Tom Hardy. Unfortunately, I really did not love this movie. Everything about it felt underdeveloped and one-dimensional. And that one dimension, the weird, pseudo-buddy-cop dynamic between Eddie Brock and Venom, is just not a very compelling dimension. I remember the quirky humor landing more often in the first one, but here it felt forced almost the entire time. I think the efforts they are taking to make Venom some sort of semi-good guy are misguided at best. The movie also feels like it's in a hurry, which may have contributed to the underdeveloped feeling. Alternatively, the short runtime and rapid pace also kept me watching even though I wasn't getting much out of it, so it may have also been a saving grace. When I think of the weaker Marvel movies, sometimes the action/spectacle is enough to coax a 6 or 7 out of me even when everything else was a let down. Unfortunately, that was not the case here, as the battle of CGI characters on display did nothing to impress.
Tim Blake Nelson and Stephen Dorff carry the film and feel right at home in a western. The dialogue has plenty of fun/clever turns of phrase that reminded me of some of my favorite lines in True Grit (2010). However, while I initially enjoyed the small scale of the plot, it ended up veering into clichés on more than a few occasions that ultimately left it feeling a bit slight. Additionally, the climax of the film was a somewhat disappointing, with a feeling of "been there, done that". All that said, none of these issues were deal breakers and with the good/great acting taken into consideration, I think it's worth the watch for any western fan.
Watched this one mainly as a fan of Anton Yelchin and was not disappointed in his performance. Unfortunately, I was a bit less impressed with the love interest character. Probably was a combination of writing/acting, but most of her dialogue just didn't land for me. It wasn't movie ruining, but it did pull me out of some scenes. Luckily, the story held my interest with a rapid pace, plenty of fun beats, and even some nice supernatural detective twists and turns. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that the "bodach" special effects held up pretty well for an eight year old movie shot on a modest budget. All in all, a worthwhile watch that definitely deserved better from critics and the box office. Also, more proof that Anton was a star. Rest in peace.
An enjoyable, if not entirely consistent, ultra-violent rotoscoped epic. There's some stiff voice acting in a handful of places that was a bit distracting, but not enough to drag the rest down. Regarding the episodic nature, I was quite pleased to find that none of the sections really fell flat for me, with enjoyment to be had in all of them. I really loved the unpredictable elements, particularly the story of the trio of winged avengers toward the end. The violence was suitably intense and the lore, vast and compelling. At the end of the day, the creativity on display in this movie greatly surpasses almost anything else you might choose to watch. Even if it's got some rough edges and a somewhat narrow intended audience, it is undoubtedly an admirable film.
Went into this one pretty much blind. I'm a fan of Andrew Garfield and I knew it was a Lin-Manuel Miranda directed musical, but that's about it. Luckily, it did not disappoint. I'm probably biased toward the story, as I'm an aspiring creative who is in the same stage of life as Jonathan Larson is in the movie. As such, some elements were very relatable to me. In particular, the final conversation Jon has with his agent really resonated with me in a bittersweet sort of way. The movie does a good job highlighting the messy relationship many creatives have with validation. Overall, I think the movie does justice to the powerful true story it sets out to tell, with creative directing/storytelling, catchy/fun/poignant music, and a stellar performance from Andrew Garfield.
