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.
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.
Ben Affleck's directorial debut was an instant classic for me. The highlight here is the writing. I haven't read the original novel, so I'm not sure how much credit the Batfleck should get, but in any case, this is a brilliantly paced, hard-hitting mystery. Moral dilemmas in movies often feel superficial, serving more as a plot device for the characters than as a meaningful exploration for the audience. That is not the case here. Thanks to it's clever structure, this movie plants all of the seeds for its moral dilemma without the audience even knowing what the dilemma is. Getting the context before the question makes the finale's reveal that much more effective.
The low level writing is equally brilliant, with virtually every scene packed with memorable moments and dialogue, all of which benefit from fantastic performances. There's multiple darkly comedic exchanges that add a touch of humor to this otherwise heavy story, and the brief moments of action are well staged and punchy. There's also the setting to discuss. From the opening scene, it becomes clear that this depressingly well realized city is as much a character in this story as Patrick Kenzie. I can't speak to how accurate the representation actually is, but it certainly feels real. Also, I might just be a sucker for a Boston accent.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
While the single take execution on display here is certainly deserving of praise, I can't help but think of it as the cherry on top of an already great film. The writing and performances are brilliant. The efficiency of character development is absolutely masterful, as the film somehow manages to juggle a large ensemble cast in 90 minutes. Some of these characters don't get more than a few minutes of focus and a few lines of dialogue, but that's all this film needs to make them feel real. This is all anchored and elevated by the powerhouse central performance of Stephen Graham. I am so impressed with the writing and execution of this character. It would have been easy to turn him into a very non-sympathetic caricature of the angry chef, but that's not what we get here. Yes, we get some profanity laced outbursts, but we also get heartfelt apologies and acknowledgements of his own responsibility. This is a man whose life is spiraling out of control and he knows exactly who is to blame: himself. This makes his interactions with his staff all the more tragic. Every time they are caught in the fallout of his mistakes he hates himself all the more. It's an effective portrait of someone who is desperately trying to be a good person, but addiction and self-sabotage are making that an impossible task.
My only critiques would perhaps be that the ending felt a little rushed and that the Alastair Sky storyline didn't feel quite as natural as everything else.
Part 7 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Unlike all of the others, I did update my original score for this movie based on this viewing, increasing it from a 7 to an 8. While I still think it isn't quite as strong as Homecoming, I don't think it deserves a full point less.
THE BAD: As with Homecoming, no major problems, just nitpicks. The metallic Spider-suit used in the early scenes with the Iron Man/Starlord style automatic helmet just doesn't feel like Spider-Man, due in part to the more obvious CGI nature of it. Luckily that's the only place it's used and the movie quickly manufactures a reason to get Peter back into a more standard costume with a traditional mask. The twist reveal scene is a ham-fisted exposition dump with forced/unnecessary tie-ins to past MCU films. The technology/mechanics behind the villain don't really hold up to scrutiny and knowing the details on re-watch really strained my suspension of disbelief, leaving me scratching my head as to how it could all possibly work in numerous places. Luckily, it all looks great on screen and the movie happily and effectively sweeps the details under the rug so they don't get in the way of the compelling plot/characters and exciting action. While all of the major elements that worked in Homecoming continue to work here, I will say that some don't work quite as well. The humor has a few more misses. The plot a few more overly convenient elements (e.g. Peter turning EDITH over to Mysterio so quickly was a bit of an eye-roll inducer).
THE GOOD: Lagging behind Homecoming in certain categories is really more a testimony to the quality of Homecoming than a critique of this film. Everything here is at least good, and more often great. Tom Holland and Zendaya play the budding Peter/MJ relationship perfectly and are cute as hell together. As with Amazing Spider-Man, I enjoy the decision to have secret identities shared sooner rather than later. As expected, Jake Gyllenhaal is great in his first superhero role, with a character that gives him a chance to show off some range. The action is all visually impressive and engaging, with the projection sequences providing nice opportunities to be more creative. And finally, J.K. Simmons' return as J.J. Jameson is much appreciated.
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.
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.
Part 8 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Generally I have not been updating my original scores during this marathon, even in cases when the films didn't hold up, but in this case it's a nonissue because my original score (8/10) still feels appropriate.
THE BAD: No big problems, just nitpicks. I'm not a big fan of Miles' non-traditional venom strike and invisibility powers. They just don't feel very Spider-Man to me (apologies in advance if they are actually comic book accurate powers, but I certainly wasn't aware of them beforehand). That said, I appreciate their importance from a narrative perspective and thought they were used well throughout the movie. While the over-the-top nature of this movie's premise is obviously very intentional and allows for extreme creativity, certain elements just weren't my speed. In particular, the Looney Tunes-esque Peter Porker was not a real value-add for me. There were also certain action sequences (e.g. the cemetery/dragged by train set piece) that were a bit more slapstick/cartoonish than I would like, especially given the darker tone/event that kicked off the plot.
THE GOOD: The most impressive thing about this movie is the fact that it successfully executes such a ridiculously ambitious premise. Interdimensional antics have been a mainstay of comic book storytelling for probably 50+ years, but this film might be the first real success in translating those antics to the big screen. The darker elements of the story are well executed, leading to some very effective emotional beats (including a great Stan Lee cameo, rest in peace). The animation is top tier, with maximum creativity on display in every scene. In particular, the comic book inspired elements (thought bubbles, multi-panel sequences, etc.) are perfect. The soundtrack is killer. The voice acting is top notch. The humor is plentiful, naturalistic, and meaningfully contributes to character development. Jake Johnson's Peter B. Parker is an impressive example of how lean storytelling combined with well known mythos can establish compelling new characters very quickly (this technique was also used to varying degrees of success in Marvel's recent animated What If...? show on Disney+).
And with that, my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon is officially over. Luckily, with No Way Home coming out tomorrow, I won't have to wait long to get another dose of the web-slinger. It's really a testament to the character that even after watching 8 straight films, I'm still excited for more.
Part 6 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. As with all of the others, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (8/10) based on this viewing. However, when it came to the Sam Raimi trilogy and Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2, the reason I didn't want to update my score was because the movies didn't necessarily hold up, and relative to modern standards the scores likely would have needed to be decreased. That was not the case here. In fact, while watching the movie I incorrectly thought that I had originally given it a 7/10. Based on that false recollection, I actually was prepared to increase this movie's score because... what can I say? It's a really great movie.
THE BAD: Not a lot to criticize here, and really all of my critiques are the same ones I remember having back when I saw it in theaters. The early Vulture scene where he disintegrates the original shocker still feels tonally out of place. The final action sequence is kind of a letdown relative to the previous set pieces and even relative to some of the action sequences in Maguire's/Garfield's films. Spider-Man deserves well lit action scenes that highlight his movement and creative web-slinging, not visually muddy night-time scenes on the side of a crashing plane.
THE GOOD: This movie is firing on all cylinders. Casting. Dialogue. Characters. Plot. Humor. Everything is top notch and having just watched the earlier Spider-Man films, this movie's quality is all the more recognizable, easily standing above them in pretty much every metric. Some of this probably has more to do with changes in style than anything, but for me anyway, those changes are all for the better. For example, the larger focus on humor is a big win. Not only is there more of it, but it's also weaved in more naturally and feels right at home coming from high-school sophomore characters played by actors/actresses that actually look the part. The movie also benefits from its connection to the larger MCU, with RDJ's Tony Stark and Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan both providing great supporting roles. The connection also isn't some token element/cameo just to appease the audience. These characters and their relationship with Peter are a driving force, both narratively and from a character development perspective. In theaters, I remember not being all that impressed with the big twist, but for whatever reason, on this viewing everything clicked and I was totally on board. I can't help but feel like Michael Keaton could have been used even more, but he was great in the scenes we had (I just finished Dopesick where he absolutely killed it, so that's probably why I'm feeling like a big Michael Keaton fan).
In today's environment of bottomless new content competing for my attention, I really struggle to find reasons to re-watch anything. The siren call of the new and unknown, brimming with potential greatness, will inevitably win out over the familiar. However, the one exception to this rule is when I have opportunities to watch things with others. After all, what is the purpose of trekking out into the unknown if I don't share what I discover. With that said, this was a re-watch for me, as my mother was visiting and was looking to watch a movie. This film had really resonated with me and I thought she would connect with its story as well.
I wasn't writing reviews at the time of my first watch, so I figured I'd circle back with a brief write-up. If you're unaware, this film is based on a stage play, so you should be prepared for a very small, dialogue driven story. That said, the clever central conceit (our perspective mirroring the unreliable perception of Hopkins' character as his mind deteriorates with age) provides a backbone of drama and mystery as the story unfolds. It's the perfect blend of high and low concept (a simple narrative twist applied to a dialogue driven character study). Ultimately, the main thing to talk about here is the powerhouse performance of Anthony Hopkins. There's a reason he won an Oscar for this role. His character's arc through the movie feels authentic, with the entire spectrum of human emotions on display. Historically I'm not one to get emotional during movies, but that may be changing, as Hopkins' performance in some of the final scenes of this film definitely had my eyes watering up.
I think slice-of-life films have a disadvantage over those that are structured around more linear and external dramatic narratives. In murder mysteries for example, the plot alone might be enough to keep viewers invested, as they try to anticipate the twists and turns and identify the culprit. On the other hand, in films like The Tender Bar, there isn't necessarily an "A leads to B leads to C" plot progression, with many scenes feeling more like independent vignettes than pieces of a whole. As a result, characters and dialogue, rather than plot, have to do the heavy lifting. Luckily, this film knocks it out of the park in both of those areas.
Every character in this film feels real. Of course, it is based on a true story, so naturally you would hope that would be the case, but I've watched enough movies to know that it's easier said than done. The central relationships are unique and well established. Not often do we get to see an uncle/nephew relationship take the center stage. I've always had a soft spot for Ben Affleck, and the unconventional role model character was perfect for him. Child actors are always a risky play, but Daniel Ranieri does a fantastic job as the precocious JR. Christopher Lloyd is the perfect crotchety grandpa with a heart of gold. One of my favorite sequences in the film was when he takes JR to the fathers' and sons' breakfast. Such a wholesome moment that almost singlehandedly fleshes out an otherwise one note character, giving him virtues to go along with his flaws.
As far as potential critiques go, I don't have too much to say. Narration has always been a tough sell for me, but its use was fairly minimal and it ultimately didn't meaningfully detract. I also thought that the intercutting of scenes with JR on the train to Yale didn't really add much.
Some final positives. The soundtrack is killer. The dialogue is clever. The sets and costumes are stylish. Beyond that, it was thought provoking, uplifting, and just generally a well made film. As one final note, I should acknowledge that I'm probably biased in my enjoyment of this film, as my own writing aspirations gave me a natural connection to JR's story. Despite this acknowledgement, I'm still surprised at the film's less than positive critical reception.
Part 1 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Because this is the first, in this post I'm going to include a bit more background. I saw the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films plenty of times growing up, as we owned them both on DVD. Plus they, along with X-Men, were the first big superhero films of my life time. The other six movies (Spider-Man 3, Amazing 1 & 2, Homecoming, Far from Home, and Into the Spiderverse) I've probably only seen once or twice. As such, I expected these first two to be the most nostalgic experiences, which certainly proved to be the case here. So.... how did it hold up?
Well, it was a mixed bag. Before I get into the details, I'll say that I'm not updating my score based on this viewing. When I first joined Trakt (or more accurately, IMDB) I gave all movies I had seen previously scores from memory, and for this movie that score was an 8/10. This movie is a product of its time and so even though I certainly don't think it's as good as a modern movie that I would score an 8, it still deserves a huge amount of credit and so I wouldn't feel right lowering its score. Now, for my brief takeaways.
THE BAD: Lots of cheese. Rapid pacing takes away from dramatic moments (i.e. flashbacks to scenes that happened less than five minutes ago). Love triangle and everything to do with MJ was kind of a mess. Tobey Maguire unfortunately has to do a lot of heavy lifting in the acting department, and for me not enough of it lands.
THE GOOD: Willem Dafoe absolutely kills it. His green goblin laugh is iconic. J.K. Simmons absolutely kills it. Everything he says is iconic. Surprisingly, some of the effects hold up well enough. There's some PlayStation 2 level graphics on display here or there, but once Spidey gets his proper suit, the webslinging and fight sequences look quite solid, even leaving me impressed in a couple of moments.
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.
I was due for a re-watch of this film, having originally seen it about 8 years ago. It was one of the first foreign films that really impressed me and definitely helped open my eyes to the wider world of cinema. As such, I had kind of put it on a pedestal in my mind, so I was a bit worried about how it would hold up on a re-watch. Luckily, my original assessment was 100% accurate, this film is great! Aksel Hennie's central performance is excellent, absolutely nailing this unconventional lead role. In fact, none of the cast disappoints, with Hennie's wife and Jaime Lannister both standing out as well. Beyond that, the story is clever and well executed, keeping the audience on their toes with plenty of twists and turns that all feel earned. The movie really subscribes to the writing advice of putting your protagonist through a meat grinder of misfortune, and Hennie sells the extreme emotion that you would expect in this kind of wild scenario. The action and set pieces are visually impressive and the effects all hold up. The film also manages to balance the intense thriller plot with elements of dark humor throughout. All in all, a brilliant Norwegian film that can go toe to toe with anything that Hollywood can produce.
Part 2 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. As with the first, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (8/10) based on this viewing, despite many elements not holding up.
THE BAD: As with the first, this movie has more than its fair share of cheese. Of course, most of the cheese is likely just a symptom of trying to mirror the comic book story telling of the source material, i.e. the dialogue is simple, the relationships are simple, the character arcs are simple, everything is simple. This isn't an insurmountable flaw and the intentionality of it certainly helps (plus the performers are all game to ham it up), but compared to the more ambitious storytelling in modern superhero media (e.g. Logan or even Infinity War/Endgame), everything on display here starts to feel very Saturday morning cartoon (or rather, old Saturday morning cartoon, as even animated shows these days have stepped up their game, e.g. Harley Quinn or Arcane). Beyond the cheese, most of my critiques from the first movie also return. The relationship with MJ is still a mess. Tobey Maguire still doesn't feel quite right as Spider-Man (although I think his performance is an improvement over the first, mainly because his arc allows him to display a bit more range). Watching back to back with the first also highlighted how Doc Oc's origin is largely a rehash of the Green Goblin's (overly ambitious but not evil man is corrupted by uncontrolled technology that takes over his mind, to the point where they both talk to themselves). Final action set piece was perhaps a bit overly ambitious for the technology available at the time and looks quite dated in several places.
THE GOOD: Every scene with J.K. Simmons. The train sequence and really all action sequences involving Doc Oc. More humor. The lost powers plotline, while undoubtedly contrived, does make for some fun moments. The direction is impressive and often memorable. I know this good list feels a bit short, but... it's a Spider-Man movie. The webslinging is more than enough to make up for my nitpicks and at the end of the day its still a good time.
Unless you count Jackie Chan's character in Shanghai Noon, this is my first John Wayne film. And it's not just John Wayne that's missing from my watch history - somehow the entire Western genre has been quite neglected (outside of a handful of modern Westerns). If this movie is any indication, I've been missing out on some great films. I'll admit, the opening threw me for a bit of a loop, with no dialogue or context to really appreciate the inciting incident. But the filmmakers knew what they were doing, as the process of learning who these characters are the implications of the opening scene makes things all the more enjoyable. My lack of western experience is probably an asset, because I'm told that there are plenty of recurring plot elements, but for me, the setup here was fresh and the execution was excellent. Yes, there's some contrivances and soft spots here and there, but the movie does a good job of sweeping you up in the story and maintaining the suspension of disbelief. On top of the compelling story, you've got some great characters and, most importantly, fantastic dialogue. Plenty of impactful lines and a surprising amount of wit/humor that is still effective even 60+ years later. Even the action, which is where old films most often show their age and lose modern audiences, was not a deal breaker - primarily because the film doesn't lean heavily on it.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
Re-watched this film in anticipation of seeing the follow-up, Missing. I loved it back in 2018 and it absolutely holds up. The opening sequence stands out as a powerhouse proof of concept. It could easily have been released as a short film, packing an emotional punch that proves that the computer screen POV is more than just a gimmick. The movie uses the POV in creative ways that ring true (or true enough anyway - yes, the excessive use of facetime is a crutch, but what do you expect? We obviously need to see our actors). Once the central mystery kicks off, the true power of the POV is revealed, as it allows the audience to be much more involved in the investigation, getting a direct window into our protagonist's train of thought. Honestly, it puts the "detective" work in most mystery movies to shame, which typically have to rely on either narration or some other equally blunt expositional dialogue to catch the audience up. The twists and turns keep the audience guessing, and the final reveal, though straining credulity in certain respects (surviving five days down a ravine still feels like a bit much, even with rain), generally sticks the landing. Finally, John Cho's performance needs to be called out, as he absolutely carries the film and excels despite the unconventional demands of the POV.
Puss in Boots' second solo outing improves on the first in every way.
The biggest improvement comes in the story/writing department. While the original was generally surface level and kid-focused, this film provides a meatier narrative with foundational themes that offer much more for adult audiences. It sounds like a superficial compliment, but this film simply has more going on, with what feels like three times as many story threads as the original. Most importantly, those story threads are successfully weaved together in a way that feels natural and provides worthwhile payoffs.
The improvement in story is intrinsically tied to the incredibly strong supporting cast of characters. The standout out for me was Goldilocks and the three bears, whose side story stands toe to toe with Puss' central narrative in terms of emotional strength. I also enjoyed that their story harkened back to the Shrek days, with its simple yet clever twist on a classic fairy tale. Beyond that, there is of course Perrito, whose wholesome innocence provides a worthwhile sounding board for the rest of the cast, and the big bad wolf, who offers a suitably intimidating presence and fantastic action sequences with every appearance. The only character that didn't do much for me was Jack Horner. I've never been a huge Mulaney fan, as his performances always strike me as same-y, so that was part of it, but I think my real complaint is that the character stands out as one dimensional compared to everyone else in the film. Luckily, that's not as much of a problem for a villain in an animated kids movie, especially when the film offers two other compelling pseudo-villains.
Finally, there is the animation. The film makes the interesting choice to weave in various styles that depart from the classic Dreamworks' look. This mostly occurs during action sequences, and if I had to guess, I'd say the inspiration comes from things like Into the Spiderverse and anime. Under the hood, I also suspect that there may have been a budgetary benefit to this decision. While the transitions caught me off guard initially (the lower frame rate animations in particular), I ultimately was converted, as the animation consistently delivers visually creative action sequences.
I went into this film virtually blind, knowing only that it was a who-done-it starring Jon Hamm. It seems the who-done-it genre has seen a resurgence of late, with two currently playing in theaters (this film and See How They Run (2022)). I suspect that the success of Knives Out (2019) has something to do with that, as I certainly was hoping this film would scratch the same itch as Daniel Craig's southern drawl detective film. While this film doesn't have quite the same vibe, I still loved it.
The biggest thing to point out is the comedy. I was surprised at how much I was laughing during the first half hour of this movie. The writing is clever and Jon Hamm is absolutely hilarious. Seeing his character bounce off of the consistently quirky ensemble cast leads to some fantastic scenes and exchanges. Detective Monroe and Griz in particular are consistently great. The flighty neighbor also provides an almost slapstick set piece and of course seeing Jon Hamm reunite with his Mad Men (2007) co-star John Slattery was a treat.
Regarding the who-done-it aspect, this film is not as clever as Knives Out (2019), but the mystery was compelling enough to keep me invested, and seeing Fletch problem solve was just another opportunity for comedy. I will say that the ending was a tad underwhelming, but nothing so problematic as to detract from the rest.
As a side note, I didn't learn that Fletch was a pre-existing character until after I saw this film. While I may go back and watch the Chevy Chase originals, I suspect that going into this one blind actually contributed to my enjoyment, as recycled jokes/ideas landed as fresh for me, rather than nostalgia bait callbacks.
