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.
I'm not going to lie...the Trinity test left me a little underwhelmed. Which is a bit of a problem, because that was the payoff to the first two hours of build up. Overall this movie's structure and pacing were just a bit odd to me. Everything leading up to the test feels primarily character driven, almost slice of life-esque. And for such a long movie, the slices are actually quite thin. Things move fast, with whirlwind character introductions that don't leave much of an impression in many cases. Only a couple of character names stuck with me, which did raise some issues in later sequences when characters are being referenced by name alone. Of course, that doesn't apply to Oppenheimer himself. Cillian Murphy doesn't disappoint, delivering an incredible performance. In fact, all of the performances are excellent, benefiting from strong dialogue that kept me engaged even through the sections when the conflict felt somewhat thin. There's only so much tension that can be extracted from the actual efforts of the Manhattan project, as the conclusion is largely known to the audience. Yes, there are secondary/tertiary conflicts throughout the opening hours, interpersonal and political, but they don't drive the story. It's not until the final hour when Nolan reveals that the movie will have an antagonist and more traditional conflict after all. It's set up as a twist of sorts and for the most part it works. I do think I enjoyed the final hour more than the first two. Technically speaking Nolan never disappoints. The production design is excellent and the cinematography/directing includes some fantastic shots. I probably won't go out of my way to re-watch this anytime soon, but it was still an engaging watch built on a central performance that will likely be an Oscar contender.
While the original three Indiana Jones films are hardly a bastion of realism, they might as well be a documentary compared to the late fourth entry, which features some of the most ridiculous set pieces imaginable. I feel like the nuke-proof fridge gets a lot of flak, but the worst moment for me was undoubtedly Shia LaBeouf's Tarzan imitation, somehow catching up to speeding jeeps by swinging from vine to vine. It's the kind of sequence that makes you scratch your head and wonder what these Hollywood folks are thinking. Another puzzler is the surprisingly selective magnetism of these alien artifacts. I suspect these otherworldly properties are in fact powered by screenwriting contrivances. These kind of critiques can feel a bit nit-picky, but the sheer volume of these issues makes them hard to ignore. I'd also point out that if the movie logic hand waving was in service of an otherwise great film, I think everyone would have less of a problem suspending their disbelief. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Despite my issues with the original three films, at the very least they contain numerous iconic moments. This film on the other hand is largely forgettable, and the parts you might remember will not be for a positive reason. I'm not going to update my legacy score of 6/10, but I would knock this down to a 5, possibly even a 4 based on this re-watch.
With all that said, shoutout to the only line that got a laugh out of me: when Shia LaBeouf gets spooked by a spider web and reassures himself by saying "It's just a thing". For some reason that really got me.
I was a bit wary during the opening sequences of this film. First, the submarine sequence, which was difficult to appreciate given the audience's lack of context as to its importance. However, the inherent tension was ultimately enough to sell it and the idea of a mcguffin being intentionally buried at sea in a ghost submarine is compelling. However, then we come to Tom Cruise’s first action scene: the horse/dessert sequence. I was not a fan. Other than the dust storm, there wasn’t much to set this apart from gun fights in a million other movies, and even the dust storm felt uninspired given that we had a great dust storm sequence in Ghost Protocol. All in all, not the best first impression.
However, the movie turns it around once we learn of the central conflict/antagonist, which feels like a new step for Mission Impossible, veering almost into science fiction. It allows for some fun twists and turns and puts our heroes on the back foot in some creative ways throughout the film. It helps that Gabriel gives a viscerally sinister performance to back up the more ethereal threat of the rogue AI. Hayley Atwell’s character also made a nice addition to the team and I was impressed with how quickly they established her character. I think it’s largely due to some strong dialogue and Cruise’s natural chemistry with pretty much everyone.
Of course, for Mission Impossible, story and conflict is somewhat secondary. The real draw here is the action/stunts. In that respect, other than the aforementioned opening, the rest of the movie’s action did not disappoint. We get a well balanced buffet of driving, jumping, running, falling, and fighting, with plenty of memorable/creative moments and some solid humor interspersed throughout.
As an aside, I did find it interesting how much the promotion of this movie pushed the motorcycle BASE jump. Maybe I’ve just been desensitized and or am struggling to appreciate the practical element, but on the screen it didn’t exactly blow me away (I felt similar to the side of the plane stunt in Rogue Nation). Alas, I don’t want to discourage Tom Cruise from continuing his grand spectacle practical stunts, so it still gets two thumbs up from me.
EDIT: After seeing this for a second time, I have to acknowledge some shortcomings that I overlooked initially. The exposition dumps are hard to ignore and the dialogue in general was stuffed with cheesy on the nose exchanges. While I still appreciate the high-level premise, the actually plotting is quite thin. Yes, the action is fun and saves things for the most part, but I still have to pull back my initial 8/10, because the rest of it isn't there.
The majority of my review of Raiders applies equally to this film. Special effects heavy blockbusters from yesteryear are always going to struggle in a modern context. I just can't imagine that the lengthy action sequences that comprise the majority of the film will do much for an uninitiated audience member. And if those elements aren't working, what you're left with is a relatively simple story with characters who aren't particularly complex. The tonal issues I had with the original persist, as the movie wants to be taken seriously in some scenes, but in others delivers goofiness straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon (e.g. scaring birds with an umbrella, rotating fireplace gag). All of that said, I actually think the third Indy outing holds up better than the first, mainly due to the addition of Sean Connery. He provides a fish-out-of-water foil to our hero that creates opportunities for fun moments and dialogue. Having only seen this film one time years ago, the exchange where Connery tells Indy that Dr. Elsa Schneider talks in her sleep got a genuine laugh out of me. As with the first film, I'm not going to update my legacy score of 7/10, but that probably isn't far off from where I'd put my rating today. Maybe I'd drop it to 6/10?
The iconic scenes are still iconic. The soundtrack is still an all time best. Harrison Ford is still as ruggedly handsome as ever. But even with all that...I don't think the movie holds up particularly well. At the end of the day, it's an action focused blockbuster full of ambitious special effects and set pieces which comprise the lion's share of the runtime. But what was ambitious and impressive 40+ years ago is much less so today. I always joke about wondering when Hollywood learned how to throw a punch, because clearly they didn't know back in 1981. Action choreography just feels like an afterthought and it results in fights that don't feel real. There's also a lot of goofier elements that feel like they belong in a Saturday morning cartoon rather than in a film where Nazis get their faces melted off. The whole sequence with Marion hiding in the basket comes to mind. This also leads to the very odd death fake out, which didn't land at all for me. Another underlying issue was the simplicity of both the plot and characters. Maybe I'm just not giving them enough credit for inventing the tropes and archetypes, but the story here just doesn't feel like it has a lot of substance.
With all of that said, there are still plenty of moments that do hold up (just not any of those involving special effects). I still love the detail of Indy taking out some of the sand from the bag before stealing the idol. The Marion introduction scene has some fun exchanges. The gimmick of the villain burning the headpiece into his hand is clever. There's also plenty of memorable/iconic cinematography and the production design is consistently fantastic.
I'm going to leave my 9/10 rating out of respect for the film's legacy, but if I take off my rose colored glasses, it's probably a 6.
Went into this with pretty low expectations, but ended up having a surprisingly good time. It had me worried initially, as the opening action sequence was way too goofy for my liking and featured some excessive uncanny valley CGI. Ezra Miller's socially awkward schtick was also feeling more miss than hit through the first act. But once we get to the inciting incident, things started to work better. I was surprised at how much humor landed for me, as I found myself laughing pretty consistently throughout the Barry/younger Barry sequences that comprise most of the second act. Unfortunately, the more emotional exchanges between the Barry's that come later don't feel quite as natural. Despite it's 140+ minute length, I never found myself checking my watch, so I think the movie deserves some credit for keeping up the pace. I know people have a tendency to criticize the entire Synder-verse, but I don't mind saying that I enjoyed Man of Steel, so using that film as the foundation of a multiverse story was fine by me. I do think the finale starts to play pretty fast and loose with the storytelling and they cram a whole lot of exposition into the final "chronobowl" scene, but it's all moving fast enough that I didn't really catch on it too much. Ultimately all of the time travel/multiverse mumbo jumbo is just a mechanism to explore Barry's emotional arc with his mother, and I thought the final grocery store scene provided a solid conclusion to that arc. Regarding Keaton's Batman, I don't have much to say. I thought the way he was incorporated was perfectly alright. And though her role was underdeveloped and she deserved a more significant sendoff, I thought Supergirl was a fun addition.
I always remembered Shrek 2 as an improvement over an already fantastic original. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the original in over a decade, so it's difficult for me to confirm that thinking based on this re-watch (normally I re-watch series all in a row, but this was just a one-off with my niece and nephew). What I can say, is that Shrek 2 offers a tight story that is packed with clever twists on fairy tale tropes, fun pop-culture homages, and near constant humor (both via dialogue and visual gags). I will say that the animation does feel more simplistic than I remember it, but I don't think it detracts from the experience.
As an aside, I have recently watched both Puss in Boots films, which made this re-watch more interesting, as it serves as the introduction to Antonio Banderas' Zorro inspired feline. While there are plenty of elements to his character that have persisted, it was definitely a little jarring how easily Shrek was able to incapacitate him given what we've seen he's capable of in his standalone films. Regardless, I'm excited to see these characters reunite, as was hinted at in the final moments of Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (2022).
Very little worked for me in this film. Where Tim Burton's first outing with the caped crusader at least had Jack Nicholson's Joker to carry me through the dated special effects and overly cartoony elements, this film doesn't find that success with Danny Devito's Penguin. I was just not a fan of the character design or performance. Too over the top. Particularly grating was his near constant superfluous grunts and groans, which tainted nearly every scene he was in. Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was also a misfire for me, with the transition from put upon secretary to unhinged, impressively acrobatic, leather clad vigilante generating some serious eye rolls. Her conflict with Batman also felt manufactured (or at the very least it was forgettable given that I can't even remember what the source of conflict was only a week after watching the film). The only new character that worked for me was Christopher Walken's seedy, corporate overlord, Max Shreck. He has some solid dialogue and Walken rarely disappoints. Unfortunately, his performance is wasted sharing the screen with all of the over-the-top goofiness that makes up the majority of the film. All in all, I highly doubt your average modern audience member is going to find much to enjoy here. I know I didn't.
I've quickly become a fan of the burgeoning "True Corporate" genre (as opposed to True Crime). Between this film, Tetris, and Air, I consider the genre three for three this year. I'm sure the films aren't for everyone, but having worked most of my career at the intersection of legal and finance/accounting, I find the stories fascinating. The case of BlackBerry is even more so given that it took place within my lifetime. Being able to map the events in the film against my own recollection of BlackBerry's prevalence definitely adds something. Combine that with solid writing and fantastic performances from both Jay Baruchel and Glenn Howerton and the end result is an easy recommend.
As a tiny little nitpick, I think "save the cat" moment of Mike fixing the buzzing intercom in the opening scene was a bit cliché and ultimately unnecessary. I think the theme/message would have been equally (if not more) effective had he just identified the buzz, given the same commentary about it, maybe even opened it up and tried to fix it, but not actually fixed it. It's just a bit of an eye roll, because I don't buy that thirty seconds and a paper clip is enough to fix much of anything. But I'm not an electrical engineer, so maybe I'm totally off base. In any case, not a big deal, and ultimately the scene works just fine as is, but I would have tweaked it.
Looking back on my review of the first Spider-Verse film, I see that I described it as ambitious, which it certainly was, but with 20 extra minutes of length and an exponential increase in Spider-Man quantities, the sequel has turned the dial up to 11. And for the most part, the efforts are successful. The movie delivers powerful emotional beats, plenty of great humor, and most impressive of all, a non-stop display of beautiful/creative animation. That said, I did have some quibbles.
By the back half, I was absolutely feeling the movie's length, which was made even worse by the growing realization that the story wasn't working toward an actual conclusion, with the ultimate "to be continued" reveal not really sitting well with me. I think this connects with my feeling that the movie didn't have a strong enough central plot thread. We spend so much time on these admittedly great character moments, that the "big bad" ends up feeling like a B Plot. Maybe even a C Plot by the end. I'd also say that some individual scenes dragged on more than I felt necessary. I think the movie was at it's strongest in the opening act. Some of the emotional beats in the back half didn't feel quite as natural. I also think they spent too much time building up the "Miles is in a different universe" twist, which felt too obvious to warrant that much time.
All of that said, I still really enjoyed the movie. The voice acting is consistently excellent. The new Spider-Man designs are unique and fun. And again, the animation cannot be highlighted enough. Setting the bar high for the entire industry.
I've seen this film many times, but what struck me most during this re-watch was the tension. From the almost inaudible scream of a distant child in the opening to the absence of a barking dog a few scenes later, this movie is just a masterclass in injecting tension in creative ways. The idea that one of the most tense scenes in the film is a sequence where a man watches news footage in a closet is incredible. Of course, you can't talk about this film's tension without heaping praise on the soundtrack, which is equal parts memorable and disquieting. Just brilliant work from James Newton Howard. I'd also point out that the movie knows how and when to give the audience moments of tension release, sprinkling in the perfect amount of humor throughout.
But tension only gets you so far. This movie ultimately succeeds because the tension is in service of a tightly written story with compelling characters brought to life by brilliant performances. There's not a line of dialogue wasted. Even the most minor characters are memorable additions (i.e. Tracey Abernathy with her confession of cursing or Mr. Nathan with his soda commercial conspiracy). And while I will acknowledge that the final act does move a bit quick to set up its big payoff, I'd argue that the payoff is worth it.
Not perfect, but a breath of fresh air compared to recent Marvel fare and a god damn masterpiece compared to Ant Man Quantummania. The writing is strong, providing a tragic backstory for Rocket, as well as a villain whose motivations feel unique and whose mad scientist brand of menace is brought to life brilliantly by Chukwudi Iwuji's performance. As the movie points out in an almost third-wall breaking dialogue exchange, it's nice to have a villain whose motivation isn't some brand of world/galaxy/universe destruction. With respect to Rocket's story, I was impressed that they played it straight, as the flashback sequences had essentially none of the goofy humor that the Guardians are known for. The tragedy stood apart, which made it all the more impactful.
Speaking of humor, this movie really crams it in, and though there are some jokes/goofiness that I didn't care for (e.g. Cosmo/Kraglin and the whole "bad dog" bit was super weak and the post finale dance party was a bit much), the hit rate was fantastic compared to what I'm used to. Even running gags that I considered stale were able to generate solid laughs, like Drax's whole "taking everything literally" schtick. Add to that a fun cameo from Nathan Fillion and you've got one of the funniest Marvel films is some time.
So we've got story, characters, and humor, but the last ingredient that ties it all together is the action. In that respect, this movie is a somewhat mixed bag. On the one hand, the movie's finale veers into the realm of bland with the ant-like swarm of grotesque monsters attacking Knowhere and an animal stampede that felt a little too kids-movie for my taste. It just feels like needless scope creep, and I think smaller would have been better. On the other hand, we get the extended hallway sequence that was masterfully done. Outside of those lows and highs, the rest of the action tends toward slightly above average, so all in all I'd say more good than bad.
Finally, I'll comment on the "heart" that goes along with the Guardians' humor. I think there's a fair bit of cheese/melodrama in some of the exchanges, coming awfully close to a fast and furious-esque "family" vibe, but the well earned chemistry is usually enough to carry it.
All in all, a much needed return to form for Marvel and a solid conclusion to James Gunn's Guardians trilogy.
Having recently watched Keanu Reaves fourth outing as the virtually unkillable Baba Yaga, it strikes me that the character of John Wick is one that also embodies the titular concept of this film. As such, I'm going to build this review around a comparison to John Wick Chapter 4.
First off, length. John Wick 4 was almost 3 hours long. The lean 90 minute run time of this film was certainly the better choice. I definitely felt the length of John Wick, with actions scenes that dragged on and felt repetitive and too many non-action scenes where the less than compelling dialogue and story were more apparent. By comparison, this film is refreshingly paced, with a collection of bite size action sequences, all of which are entirely unique. John Wick gets so bogged down in it's gun-fu, whereas this film never does the same thing twice. The creative and increasingly over-the-top action sequences were a consistent source of incredulous smiles in the theater (how could you not smile when Aatami invents SCUBA diving by sucking the oxygen out of the slit throat of a Nazi).
While suspension of disbelief is shattered early and often, generally speaking the movie gets away with it, hiding behind the folklore/legend element. That said, there were still specific moments that were a bit too much for me. For example, I could have done without the sequence where Aatami uses his prospector's pan as if it's Captain America's shield. I also was disappointed that the final sequence (surviving a nose diving plane crash) didn't have any clever or creative component to it.
As for the less than compelling dialogue, this movie solves that problem by having very little of it. Yes, there are still examples of on-the-nose, or otherwise expository dialogue (the opening narration even felt a bit off), but more often than not we go minutes at a time without a single line. Of course, no dialogue doesn't always work for me either, but between the near constant action and an impressively expressive performance by Jorma Tommila (as opposed to the admirable, but notably one-note performance Keanu Reeves is known for), I had no problem with it here. It also helps that Aksel Hennie, the central Nazi who almost certainly has the most dialogue in the film, gives a strong performance. If you want to see him in a very different role, I highly recommend Headhunters (2011), a Norwegian thriller that is perhaps one of my favorite foreign films.
All in all, a lean, mean action film that accomplishes exactly what it set out to do and is an easy recommend for action junkies.
Close to perfect. While there isn't a single performance that disappoints, at the end of the day the movie rests on Jude Hill. It appears to be his first role and the kid just absolutely nails it. His adorably innocent and earnest perspective provides a strong contrast to the scary period in Irish history that is depicted. And it's that same contrast that overflows throughout the film. This is a family and a community that pushes through hard times with whatever positivity they can muster. In this way, the movie is able to be poignant and powerful, while still somehow feeling light and optimistic. I was surprised by how funny the movie was, with hilarious scenes sprinkled throughout (from the children's discussion of recognizing Protestants/Catholics by their name to the numerous quick witted one liners from Grandpa). I know I already praised all of the performances, but I'd be remiss not to specifically call out Judi Dench and Ciarán Hinds, who deliver some of the most powerful dialogue in the film.
After recently seeing The Fabelmans and Babylon, I thought it was interesting that this movie also has a pronounced focus on the impact of film/television/theater. Even more interesting was the fact that I think this movie was the most effective of the three in its use of that element. I think this was because film/tv/theater acted as a very real form of escapism, giving the characters a reprieve from the tension of their normal life. The clever use of color also didn't hurt. This also ties to the overall excellent production/direction throughout the entire film. The movie certainly deserved all seven of its Oscar nominations and I might have even given it a couple more wins to go along with best original screenplay.
As far as critiques go, I really don't have much to say. The only quibble I have might be that the final riot/confrontation scene was a bit overly stylized and dramatic for my taste. But ultimately that didn't detract much at all. An easy recommend and one of my top movies from recent years.
This is a movie comprised almost entirely of people in a room talking. Sometimes they're sitting down. Sometimes they're standing up. Sometimes they're on the phone. But it's all more or less the same idea. I read an early draft of the script and it was much the same, with numerous pages of unbroken dialogue throughout. Now, all of this may sound like a critique, but it's not. This movie accomplishes the difficult task of making scenes of people in a room talking compelling. It's like winning a fight with one arm tied behind your back. It speaks to great dialogue, great performances, and clever filmmaking to add interest to a dialogue heavy script.
I will say that the movie started stronger than it finished. The opening couple scenes were excellent. First, you've got the nostalgia-bait '80's montage intro (and the rest of the music). Yeah, it might be a bit pandering, but who's going to deny that it's effective. Plus, that guitar riff from Dire Straights is a classic. After that, you've got a brilliant introductory scene with the discussion of the draft picks and the follow-up scene with Matt Damon and Jason Bateman in the bathroom. Interestingly, in the script the latter scene took place in the cafeteria, which shows how the foundation of a good scene can be tweaked into a great scene. It's more visually interesting, more dynamic, and adds a bit of humor. Finally, you've got the introduction of Phil Knight, and maybe I'm just a sucker for the Affleck/Damon duo, but all of their scenes together were highlights for me. Overall, these sequences do such a great job establishing the characters, the world, and the central conflict. It's incredibly efficient and effective storytelling.
As the movie progresses, the simplicity of the story does start to detract from the experience somewhat. There's just not that much too it, and what is there, is fairly predictable. Sonny wants to sign Jordan...and he does. It leads to an underwhelming, anti-climactic third act. So again, it's the moment to moment writing that makes the movie. The characters. The dialogue.
This film slots into a relatively small intersection of genres, the action-rom-com. The action elements were serviceable, but nothing spectacular. The romance was slightly more interesting, as it forms the backbone of the entire premise. However, while I like the idea, the execution was lacking. Specifically, the opening meet-cute/date sequence that sets up the titular ghosting was too slow and the chemistry wasn’t clicking for me. Once the ghosting occurs, things do improve, particularly with respect to Chris Evans and his interactions with his family. Still, the rest of the romance is sprinkled throughout the action set pieces and doesn’t ever feel completely natural. Finally, the comedy is very much hit or miss. The primary source is Marvel-esque quippiness that is getting more tired with every passing year, but there’s plenty that lands well enough to generate chuckles. Some of the funniest moments are surprise cameo sequences that feel a bit like cheap fan service, but they still got a big smile out of me.
It seems like Ana de Armas has become one of the go to female action stars of late, getting big roles in No Time to Die, The Gray Man, and now this film. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of these roles have really given her a chance to stand out in the same way that she has in things like Knives Out and Blade Runner 2049. While I think the writing for her characters in these action films is partly to blame, I also think that the action focus can sometimes pull away from the performance regardless of the writing. It’s a symptom of screen time really. The more over the top the action, the more time we spend with a stunt double or CGI replacement, rather than with the actual actress. It’s trading time that might otherwise provide character development for another gun fight or car chase. All of this is to say, I wasn’t super impressed with Ana de Armas in this film, which was unfortunate.
Chris Evans’ character had a bit more to work with in terms of arc and he definitely benefited from it. I think this is mostly a symptom of him being the fish out of water and proxy for the audience. I also think his comedic chops are a bit more honed.
In the end, I suspect this film will do well with audiences, but I don’t expect it to be anyone’s favorite.
A very difficult film to watch, as it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of Charlie's situation. I can see why Brendan Fraser won the Oscar for his performance. He has so many solo scenes where he conveys complex emotion with zero dialogue, providing a powerful glimpse into Charlie's internal anguish. While Fraser is the obvious standout, Sadie Sink certainly holds her own. I was also pleasantly surprised by the complexity of the story. The characters are rich and the writing is strong. In the end, the movie lands an effective emotional punch. Definitely had me on the verge of tears in the finale.
Certain scenes in the film felt very much like a stage play. While not a good thing or a bad thing necessarily, I would say there were a couple instances where the acting also veered more theatrical/melodramatic, which took me out of the story briefly.
As an aside, this is one of those interesting cases where, despite feeling like I knew the central premise in advance, I actually knew virtually nothing. I knew a single character trait. That's it. In that way, the movie acted as a powerful reminder that people are so much more than a single character trait.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that the action was the key ingredient in the success of the first John Wick film. Between its sheer volume, its impressive choreography, and the signature gun-fu element, it was just refreshing. Unfortunately, three films later and what was once refreshing has now started to feel awfully familiar. Yes, they try to find some unique angles and creative set pieces, but none of it is enough to avoid the fact that the 1,000th close range headshot on the recently thrown henchman isn't quite as fun as the first. Not to mention, for every new action idea that I enjoyed (top down sequence with fire breath shotgun, sequence in the Arc de Triumph roundabout), there were two more that didn't land (blind Donnie Yen...sorry, just too suspension of disbelief shattering, final stair sequence). All of this isn't to say that the action isn't fun. It still is. But it's no longer enough to carry the film for me.
Which brings us to the second thing people enjoyed in the first John Wick: the world building. In this respect, the franchise pretty much lost me in the third movie (maybe even a bit in the second). It all just feels too goofy and melodramatic for me. There are still small pieces that I enjoyed (the sequence where they use cards to decide the specifics of the duel), but the overall vibe just feels too saturday-morning-cartoon in terms of depth.
All in all, John Wick Chapter 4 should scratch the action itch for fans of the genre, but it no longer sets itself apart and the non-action elements aren't nearly good enough to pick up the slack.
My brother came out of this movie insisting that it was basically a Marvel film, and upon some reflection I tend to agree. Sure it's got a fantasy coat of paint, but at the end of the day, what are D&D adventurers if not the superheroes of the realm. Even the action feels superhero-esque, as Michelle Rodriguez's Fighter (or possibly Barbarian? I haven't cracked open a Players Handbook in a while, so my knowledge of D&D classes is probably out of date) tosses enemies around with superhuman strength. Or maybe she's just got +5 gauntlets of kicking ass, who knows. I'd also call out the final fight sequence against Sofina, which definitely feels like it took inspiration from one of the Avengers fights versus Thanos. In any case, if this film modeled itself after Marvel, the question is, does it feel like a good Marvel movie, or a recent Marvel movie (looking at you Quantummania). All in all, I'd say closer to the former. I don't think it's going to win any awards and I don't know that I would feel the need to re-watch it anytime soon, but it was fun.
Surprisingly, the thing I'd praise most is the story. The writers manage to craft an adventure that somehow feels like a greatest hits of classic D&D while also avoiding being predictable (barring a couple of moments that still worked as payoffs). Specifically, there is some fun magic implementation and problem solving (the use of the portal gun, I mean, hither-thither staff in the heist plan was very clever. The comedy, which also feels quite Marvel-esque, never landed 100% for me, but it wasn't a total miss either. No real laughs, but some chuckles throughout. As far as things that disappointed, I wasn't a big fan of the fat dragon sequence. I'd also say that I wasn't particularly impressed with the performances, with perhaps exceptions for Chris Pine and Regé-Jean Page. Everyone else felt a bit flat. Luckily, this movie doesn't need Oscar winning performances to be entertaining.
While it may not fit the typical definition, I wouldn't hesitate to rank this as one of the best video game films of all time. Honestly, taking a glance at the competition, it probably is just the best, full stop. I never really had a Tetris phase, but that didn't stop me from having extreme second-hand nostalgia as this film successfully romanticizes not just Tetris specifically, but also early video game culture as a whole. Henk's visit to Nintendo America and the reveal of the prototype Game Boy was goose bump inspiring stuff. Just absolutely top tier. And if that's all the film was, a nostalgia bait look back, it would have been good, but it doesn't stop there. This film also manages to be a globe trotting political thriller, with a unique angle on the Soviet Union and a car chase to boot. Beyond that, the central conflict kept me at the edge of my seat with a somehow riveting exploration of the finer points of international IP contract law. I'd be remiss if I didn't also praise the performances. I've been a Taron Egerton fan for some time, but this might be my new favorite of his. The smaller parts also excel, with the uppity Maxwells and the always dependable Toby Jones being great throughout. The creative, 8-bit styled transitions were also fun. All in all, an early favorite for the year and an easy recommend.
This story felt too small. I'm not sure a central conflict which boils down to a family overcoming the stress of pressure/expectations is enough to carry a feature length film. Maybe I was just expecting a more traditional villain. I don't know. I also don't like how nebulous and manufactured the "losing the magic" feels. I like magic with rules and consistency, so having just a vague threat of "we're losing our magic because... we're all stressed and not united as a family?", generated a bit of an eye-roll. Perhaps my biggest issue came at the end when the movie completely abandoned what I thought was a central message: you don't need magic to be exceptional.. That seems like a worthwhile message for kids, but the movie rug pulls it away with a last minute "they get their magic back". Now watch as the Madrigals get to be really happy, even happier than without magic. Kind of lame. Unfortunately, none of the music really stuck with me either. It was all fine, but not immediately earworm catchy.
I do have some positives. Their were plenty of very cute moments and creative visuals. I quite enjoyed John Leguizamo's Bruno. All in all, not a bad movie, but not something that is going to stick with me.
Guy Ritchie's best movies have a lot of shared DNA. Memorable characters. A wry British humor. Frenetic pacing. Multiple plot threads that intersect in interesting and unexpected ways. And of course, Jason Statham. This film has only one of those things and, as much as I love the dulcet tones of Mr. Statham's deep, British accent, he unfortunately can't carry the movie on his own. The biggest issue here is the plot. It's simple. It's bland. It's forgettable. There's a phrase in screenwriting which refers to realizing the potential that is implied by whatever clever plot you've come up with: the promise of the premise. This movie fails to deliver on that promise. The central premise of recruiting a movie star for an undercover mission feels underdeveloped and Josh Hartnett's character doesn't have nearly enough to do. With respect to humor, I could see the attempts at Ritchie-esque humor throughout, but almost none of them land. The one exception, and the one bright spot of the entire movie, was Hugh Grant. His was the only character that felt like it had some actual character largely thanks to Grant's performance. I quite enjoyed him in another recent Guy Ritchie film, The Gentlemen, so here's hoping that he becomes another mainstay for the director.
Not bad, but definitely a step-down from the original. The humor is still more hit than miss, though the ratio is down from the first. The story is serviceable. I was actually pretty happy with things until the last act when the CGI budget spiked and my interest cratered. It makes the classic sequel mistake of assuming bigger equals better. Unfortunately, much of the increased scope ends up feeling half baked and/or obligatory. For example, the movie really lost me with the random mythological creatures getting birthed from the tree. It feels like the movie just needed a lower level threat for non-super powered characters to face off against so that they have something to do. It's completely superfluous and I would have preferred to just not see those characters for a while. Black Adam did something very similar in its finale, with zombies/skeletons randomly popping out of the ground. Not sure which is worse. In this case, the issue culminates in the unicorn sequence, which got a big fat eye roll from me. I'd also criticize the pacing of the finale, as certain sequences seemed to drag way longer than necessary (e.g. waiting for the lightning staff to blow up). All in all, way better than Ant-Man Quantummania.
A childhood favorite that holds up incredibly well on re-watch. Now, don't judge me, but I'm going to repurpose a portion of my recent review of The Princess Bride, because it is equally relevant here (just the first paragraph below).
Before we started the movie, I was surprised to see its length: less than 90 minutes! I was incredulous. How could the countless incredible scenes that I remember from my childhood be packed into such a small package. I soon found out the answer. The entire movie is just those incredible scenes. There is no filler. It cuts from one highlight to the next without a superfluous scene, dangling plot thread, or wasted line of dialogue in the entire film. It puts on a clinic in terms of efficiency of storytelling and other than one character doing an unnaturally rapid double 180 toward the end (When Dean goes from okay with Giant, to scared of Giant, to okay with Giant in a matter of 15 seconds, which just so happens to correspond with an equally rapid weather change for cinematic snowfall. Notably, even this sequence was barely a hiccup), the pacing never feels like a problem. It just feels like masterful writing.
Beyond the writing, you've also got top tier voice acting with memorable deliveries of quotable lines in virtually every scene (or at least me and my siblings quote them, e.g. anytime one of us is looking for attention the default response is an unenthused "we're watching, we're watching" in the style of Dean on his lawn chair at the lake). The film also manages to be something that kids can enjoy, while not feeling like it was made for kids, which is a difficult balance. All in all, a ridiculously impressive film. It's got humor. It's got heart. And it's got Vin Diesel.
As a final positive, the last 15 minutes were pure joy for my 8-year old self. What other animated kids movie has well directed military action sequences with jeeps, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines!
An incredible film that feels very unique among its peers of holocaust focused cinema. The contrast between the treatment of the Jewish counterfeiting operation versus the general Jewish population provides a powerful foundation to the story, as thought provoking to the characters themselves as it is to the audience. I really didn't have any complaints. The writing, performances, and overall story are all brilliantly executed and powerful.
As an aside, I try to go into all of my films blind, but there are levels to that blindness. The lowest level of blindness is just avoiding spoilers. That's the level that most everyone considers normal. It starts to get controversial when you move to level two: avoiding trailers. Most people rely on trailers to make them aware of up and coming films to get excited about, but for me they are just spoilers by another name. The third and final level is having zero knowledge of the movie. Not knowing the premise. Not knowing any of the actors. Not even knowing the genre. This level is almost impossible to achieve, as even seeing a poster can convey a lot of information. Which brings us to this film. I watched this film with what I thought was the 2nd level of blindness. I hadn't seen the trailer, but from the poster and the title I had a sense of what it was about. Or at least, I thought I did. All of this is to say, I've discovered a new level of blindness. Whereas the first three levels are all about having little to no expectations, this fourth level is about having expectations that are completely wrong. I thought this was some sort of thriller about counterfeiting in the vein of Oceans Eleven. I was very wrong.
What a uniquely brilliant film. I wouldn't exactly identify romance as one of my favorite genres, but this film transcends the genre. Yes the subject is love, but not just love between a romantic couple (though it includes that too). This is about every type of love. Love between siblings. Love between friends. Love between father and son. But most importantly, this film is about love of life, whatever that life may look like. Tim's final conclusion about how he's learned to live life just hits hard and really captures the spirit of the entire movie. It's wholesome, uplifting, life affirming, poignant, and on top of all that, quite hilarious at times.
To expand on my point regarding the broader romantic genre, I feel the average romance film has a fairly narrow scope, most commonly exploring a brief stage of a relationship (meet-cute => rocky patch => make-up). By comparison, we see Tim and Mary from meet-cute to marriage to three kids. Actually, now that I think about it, the clever sci-fi premise allows them to give us two meet-cutes, and both are excellent. Then we get a brilliantly executed montage (and a great song!) that shows us the relationship is a success. And then the rest of the film is a perfect mix of big and small moments that give us a window into the longer term relationship. How refreshing is it to see a romance where the conflict doesn't come from the romance itself? There is no rocky patch here. In fact, when the movie hints in that direction, they use it as a clever misdirect and pivot into the next relationship milestone proposal!. Just brilliant writing all around.
Last thing I'll complement is the characters and the performances. They're all fantastic, but the easy favorite for me is Bill Nighy. Great dialogue with plenty of humor combined with quirky speech mannerisms and of course the fact that his wholesome relationship with his son really ends up forming the emotional backbone of the film. But even the minor characters are great. Uncle D's final dialogue about his brother definitely had me choking up.
Old films are tough. Do you judge them based on modern standards, or do you attempt to judge them retroactively based on the standards of an era that you may not have even been alive during? I choose the former for two reasons: (1) the latter is basically just guesswork; and (2) I want my reviews to be helpful to a modern audience, so saying something akin to "this movie is really good (as long as you watched it back in 1989)", doesn't really fit the bill. So, with all of that said, how does Tim Burton's original Batman stack up in 2023? Well... it was better than Ant-Man Quantumania, so there's that.
But in all seriousness, this film is a mixed bag. The performances and story hold up surprisingly well, but the extremely dated special effects really drag down the more ambitious spectacle moments. In particular, everything with the bat wing was pretty rough, and even the scenes with the bat mobile were barely okay. I'd also point to several of the ambitious Gotham settings that look to be created through some combination of miniature or painted backdrop. I could be wrong on that, but whatever technology was used, it doesn't exactly hold up (though still better than some of Quantummania's CGI fest backdrops). Because the finale rested on a lot of this spectacle, the movie really didn't stick the landing for me. Luckily, the smaller scale production design and special effects don't suffer nearly as much from their age. I would also criticize the romance aspect of the film as underdeveloped and forced.
On the positive side, we've got Jack Nicholson, who brings this version of Joker to life in a way that really carries the movie. Michael Keaton is solid, though I feel like he isn't given nearly as much to work with.
I hadn't seen this masterpiece in over a decade, so of course I jumped at the opportunity to re-watch it when a friend told me they had never seen it. Before we started the movie, I was surprised to see its length: less than 100 minutes! I was incredulous. How could the countless incredible scenes that I remember from my childhood be packed into such a small package. I soon found out the answer. The entire movie is just those incredible scenes. There is no filler. It cuts from one highlight to the next at a breakneck pace that honestly was a bit jarring compared to what I'm used to these days. Some of this is due to editing choices, i.e. establishing shots are short and to the point, we don't linger in scenes, etc.. But the other key factor here is efficiency in story telling. There is not a superfluous scene, dangling plot thread, or wasted line of dialogue in the entire film. As my friend put it, "had this film been done in the style of Avatar Way of the Water, the opening love story with Westley and Buttercup on the farm would have been 30 minutes long instead of 30 seconds".
Now, while the pacing was jarring, the movie as a whole holds up incredibly well. The most impressive thing on display here is the characters. Through a combination of stellar writing and fantastic performances, the heroes, the villains, and everyone in between are all established as memorable, unique, and most importantly, fun. To highlight anyone in particular feels unfair given that everyone is excellent, but Mandy Patinkin and André the Giant are personal favorites, bringing humor and heart in equal measure.
I reserve 10/10 ratings for movies that have everything. Action. Adventure. Comedy. Romance. Just all around crowd pleasers. This movie is usually the first example I point to. Now, re-watching with a modern eye, would I still give it a perfect score? Probably not. But does it still deserve a perfect score? Absolutely.
Am I becoming a harsher critic or are Marvel movies just getting worse? Probably a little bit of both, but this one certainly makes it feel like the latter. I've described much of the recent Marvel content as serviceable; that is to say, not good, but not bad either. I can't be so generous with this film. It was bad. The dialogue. The plot. The special effects. The dialogue. The humor. The setting. The dialogue. But really, the dialogue was bad. So full of clichés. Bland. Derivative. Forced.
Now, I prefer my reviews to have at least some specifics to hold myself accountable and make sure I'm not just throwing out substance-less word vomit, so here are a couple of problems that I still remember one week after watching this mess: (1) Janet keeping all this crap a secret; (2) Janet continuing to keep all this crap a secret when the crap is practically overflowing; (3) Janet making dumb excuses as to why she won't tell everyone about this secret crap. Okay, I'll throw in some non-Janet secret keeping related issues as well. (4) MODOK doesn't work in live action; (5) the quantum realm's rag-tag team of rebels is underdeveloped and I didn't care about them at all; (6) daughter hacking quantum realm AV system was an eye roll moment; and (7) Michael Douglas' final(?) line (something akin to "Sorry I'm late") was groan inducing.
It would be unfair to be so harsh and not also acknowledge the film's positives. It's a short list: (1) Jonathan Majors. He is the only one that sells his lines. Unfortunately he isn't enough to carry the movie.
