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.
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.
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.
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.
Other than knowing it was directed by and starred Bradley Cooper, I went into this completely blind, to the point that I wasn't even aware that it was biopic until 20 minutes before the showtime and I certainly had no preexisting knowledge about Leonard Bernstein. But having quite enjoyed Cooper's first directorial effort (A Star is Born (2018)), I was still quite excited to see his second. Luckily, it lived up to that excitement.
Recently I've complained about slice-of-life movies where the slices are too thin to draw me in, or don't provide enough connective tissue for a cohesive narrative, but this movie avoids that completely. It not only delivers perfectly sized slices of the Bernsteins' life, but also perfectly chosen slices, with each helping to capture the nuance and complexities of their relationship. I can't speak to the accuracy of the portrayals, but I thought the performances were brilliant. I'd also credit the writing, as the dialogue was consistently thought provoking, but not unrealistically so. It's still rare for emotional beats to really land with me, but this film's final act certainly did, getting me watery-eyed in the theater.
With all of this said, I do think I'm somewhat predisposed to the subject matter. Not the world of classical music and conducting, which actually doesn't do anything for me at all (I definitely would have trimmed the extended conducting performance near the end), but the broader exploration of the troubled creative-type. As an aspiring screenwriter who is still crossing my fingers for a call up to the metaphorical Carnegie Hall, I certainly found elements of the story relatable.
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 don't know if it's my memory deteriorating or if I just watch too much content, but I went into this musical not only unaware that it was an adaptation of the 2007 film, but also having zero recollection of what that film was about despite having seen it. Admittedly, I probably saw the film about a decade ago, but it seems like I should have at least remembered the premise. In any case, I prefer going into movies blind, so I guess having a terrible memory accomplishes much the same thing.
So, what did I think of this adaptation? It was good enough to overcome my general indifference toward musicals. None of the music felt like instant classics to my ear, but it was catchy enough. I have zero qualifications to judge the quality of the singing, but the performances were strong and there was a surprising amount of solid slapstick-esque humor, with Drew Gehling and Joe Tippett really selling their quirky roles. As for the story, it's an effective feel-good drama about breaking out of a negative rut with the help of found family. Fans of musicals will likely enjoy it and it may win over non-musical folks like myself as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I stumbled into this as a longtime fan of Justin Long who also thought it would be interesting to see the first major effort of Sam Esmail of Mr. Robot and Homecoming acclaim. I can definitely see some common threads between Esmail's work, as Long's character shares some DNA with Rami Malek's from Mr. Robot, being too smart for his own good and socially awkward in an aggressively abrasive way. I do think the writing leans a bit too much into these elements, as the pseudo intellectual musings sometimes feel so divorced from realistic dialogue that it breaks immersion. That said, the jumbled structure does a good job breaking things up, ensuring that none of the less convincing moments outstay their welcome. Ultimately, this checks a lot of classic boxes of a freshman film: a perhaps overly ambitious dialogue driven concept executed on low budget. And for the most part, I'd say it's a success. The non-chronological structure is just enough of a twist to keep the audience invested in a relationship story that might otherwise feel familiar. While I'd hardly call the film a comedy (though it appears to classify itself as such), there were some comedic moments/dialogue that landed well. And though none of the philosophical ideas explored were earth shattering, they were compelling enough to keep me watching. As far as criticism's go, I would say that Emmy Rossum's performance didn't feel quite as natural to me as Long's, but that might be partly a writing issue, as Long had more to work with.
Despite producing some all-time classic films, the legal world has never struck me as a natural fit for the screen. Maybe it's because I work in the space, but it always feels like we're getting a watered down, oversimplified version of the strangely complex bureaucracy that is the U.S. legal system. The exercise for the filmmakers is to pick out a handful of digestible ideas to focus on, and gloss over all of the rest. That exercise is reasonably successful here, as the subject of expert medical testimony provides an interesting foundation for the legal battle. This kind of "battle of the experts", as they are sometimes referred, offers a natural conflict and clear stakes. I also enjoyed the somewhat caricatured depiction of the big law villains, with their army of attorneys working overtime to crush the one-man shop of good old Butch. Despite this, the limitations of the setting still were an issue for me, as the ending felt decidedly anti-climactic. After all, there's only so many ways a jury trial can end, and the delivery of a verdict isn't exactly an exciting affair.
Beyond the legal element, Paul Newman is his usual excellent self. With respect to the writing, while none of it was bad, and there were even strong moments laced throughout, I did find the overall story a bit basic in the end. Everything is more or less as it seems, which doesn't make for the most compelling narrative. The strong execution helps to carry things along, but only just. All in all, I'm a bit surprised at how many Oscar nominations this film received.
The premise of this film had lots of potential. I love the idea of taking a small slice of a larger story and expanding it into its own thing, and a classic like Dracula seems ripe for such an exercise. Unfortunately, the execution doesn’t capitalize on the potential, delivering an uninspired horror film, where the horror elements are bland and repetitive, and the human drama outside of the horror is too paper-thin to carry the film on its own (there also just wasn’t enough of it). The end result is a slog, where I wasn’t able to get invested in either the plot or the characters.
As an aside, I saw this film in a pre-screening a full 12 months prior to its ultimate release, so the version I saw was still a work-in-progress, with plenty of unfinished CGI throughout. Despite the potential for improvements, my primary critiques are high level, and I don’t see how much can be done to correct them between now and final release. If the movie ends up getting positive reviews (which I don’t suspect it will), my curiosity may compel me to give it another chance just to see what the filmmakers were able to change in that time.
One more specific critique, the opening I saw featured a text crawl and flashforward that I think were entirely unnecessary and could have been replaced by a prologue scene involving the preparation for the shipment. They already have a focus on the crates and use the fear of the shipping folk to nice effect, but they could have started a bit further back and come up with a horror beat that could have hinted at elements to be revealed later in the film (such as the crates with townsfolk for Dracula to feed on).
I respect a film that can pack its story into a tight 90 minutes. Unfortunately, that respect doesn't necessarily translate into a favorable review. Ultimately, 65 hangs its hat on a premise that probably worked better in the pitch session that it does on the screen. There's just no way to advertise this movie without revealing that its going to be Adam Driver versus dinosaurs, so all of the time spent before the dinosaurs show up is largely deflated of tension, as we know what's coming. It doesn't help that the opening scene is quite rough, delivering pure, uncut exposition in an attempt to create some emotional stakes. Now, the payoff for those poorly established emotional stakes are slightly more successful, but only just. The inciting incident is rough for a different reason, as budget constraints are apparent during the big crash landing sequence. In general, this movie suffers from an odd combination of high/low budget, giving the audience a sort of whiplash as we go from one to the other. The finale suffers from yet a third issue, as it just leans a bit too much into the fantastic, completely shattering suspension of disbelief in multiple respects the fact that the escape pod survived the crash, the fact that an escape pod can take off from in atmosphere, the fact that the escape pod is functional after falling off a mountain and being torn at and rolled by a T-Rex, and on top of the dinosaurs...the asteroid?!.
Now, despite all of that, the movie does have moments that shine, where you can tell that the creators accomplished exactly what they were going for. First, there's the simple sequence where Adam Driver sends a distress message out into space. That's the kind of scene that would have worked even in script form. Just solid writing. Another that comes to mind is the action sequence in the dark that leverages the hologram display tech. Just a fun idea that also doubles as a way to minimize budget. Unfortunately, those are about the only two that stuck out. To be clear, it's not that the rest of the movie is necessarily bad, just bland.
Holds up surprisingly well for a 25+ year old film. The key is that the most iconic set pieces/sequences didn't require overly ambitious special effects that would date the film as it aged. This is before Tom Cruise's propensity for stunt work drove the series toward big spectacle action. This first outing was a spy film, first and foremost. I mean, the hook of the Langley heist is literally just Tom Cruise hanging from a rope and yet it is just as tense and effective today as it was back in 1996. Of course, the finale does ramp things up and the helicopter sequence certainly shows its age, but even that holds up more than expected. It's a simple thing and probably is completely unrealistic, but the way the speed of the train is shown with Tom Cruise struggling to hold on, flipping and sliding across the top of the train was appreciated and still looks solid. Ironically, I actually wish Dead Reckoning had taken some notes in that respect, as its train-top fight scene felt weightless and glossy in comparison. Beyond the spectacle, the story here is strong, with a brilliant opening that sets the stage for a host of twists and turns. I don't want to continuously bag on Dead Reckoning (I actually did enjoy it), but the dialogue and plotting feel so much more natural here. All in all, Tom Cruise's first stint as Ethan Hunt is a worthy starting place for a franchise that has built itself into an action juggernaut.
