Rankings and Lists - Page 4 of 16 - Reel Opinion by Eric Zimmerman

Oppenheimer Review – Christopher Nolan, the Destroyer of Worlds

“Oppenheimer” is the latest film from renowned filmmaker Christopher Nolan. It stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project which developed the first atomic bomb. The film follows Oppenheimer’s journey from shy college student to cocky professor to persecuted outcast.

One of the main selling points of the film is the technology behind it; the first black-and-white IMAX film stock was invented specifically for this film and Nolan infamously avoided any CGI. The film is photographed to perfection by cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, whose visuals are often a representation of Oppenheimer’s thoughts more than literal imagery. Ludwig Göransson’s haunting and exhilarating score is another standout. It’s an incredibly creative piece which incorporates sound beats from certain scenes into the music itself. For example, the crackles of Geiger counters and the booming stomps of fellow scientists are part of the music for their respective scenes.

Cillian Murphy’s work as the title character is undoubtedly the best part of the film. Absolute perfection. He’s not merely doing an imitation of the real-life Oppenheimer, but instead creating an entire character for the audience to connect to, while also not always being sure of his motives. Like Oppenheimer, the portrayal is deeply ambiguous, all punctuated by Murphy’s scorching eyes. This is one of the greatest leading performances of the decade thus far. The film requires Murphy to hold its entire weight on his shoulders and he laughs at the challenge.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, as Nolan has repeatedly said, is one of the most important people who’ve ever lived. Nolan smartly chose to portray him as realistically as possible, basking him in all his flaws, mainly his obstructive ego and indecisiveness. Yet he’s also an incredibly charismatic and remarkable man whose genius is absolutely inspiring. Nolan’s passion for this subject is evident in the screenplay, which is his most creative since “The Prestige.”

In the past, Nolan has always struggled with making his conversations both compelling and natural, and he’s finally cracked the code in “Oppenheimer.” The dialogue is razor sharp here and he does a terrific job of making all the science mumbo jumbo easily understandable for the audience.

However, this film becomes deeply frustrating during the third act. The first two acts (which run about 2h 15m) are borderline flawless, with all the riveting character work and tension you’d want as it tells the creation of the bomb. Then when we head toward the finale, Nolan fumbles the ball a bit and creates a mixed bag. Firstly, the third act is tonally all over the place. The entire film leading up to the finale is extremely grounded and almost documentarian, only to be interrupted by a cartoonish scene with Gary Oldman’s President Truman, a portrayal which couldn’t be more goofy and historically inaccurate. As soon as Oldman walks toward the camera with that laughable fat-suit, we’re in trouble.

Additionally, the third act doesn’t know what it wants to be about. Is it a series of FBI interrogations about communist activities? Is it a story about the rivalry between Lewis Strauss and Oppenheimer? Or is it what it should be, a study of the immense guilt and inner torment that haunted Oppenheimer ever since the bomb was dropped? That’s what’s most interesting about Oppenheimer’s story. The “Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds” moments. The film definitely has some of those, and when this aspect of Oppenheimer is explored it’s phenomenal, but that needed to take precedent over the other concluding elements. The movie doesn’t have as many gut-punching emotions as it needs because its ending is so cluttered.

My point is proven by the final scene, which is undoubtedly bound to be iconic. It brings that frightening air needed to close out the film with a— pun somewhat intended — bang, covering the horrors Oppenheimer inadvertently unleashed upon our future and plunging him into that Promethean fire… but there should’ve been more scenes like it in the last 45 minutes.

My final issue with the film is a microscopic one but it needs to be mentioned nonetheless: the sex scenes. I’m not a prude, but they were entirely out of place and unnecessary. I don’t want to spoil much so I’ll be vague: the first one was an inexcusably lazy and misplaced reveal of the “I am become Death” line, and the second was oddly A24-esque and so absurd that it elicited laughs from the audience in my theater.

“Oppenheimer” is the latest movie to be wrongfully crowned a “masterpiece” by critics, but it’s still another solid film from Christopher Nolan thanks to the once-in-a-lifetime performance by Cillian Murphy, astonishing technical achievements, and brilliant imagery. If the film maintained its momentum all the way through, it might just have earned that masterpiece title.

A-

All Mission: Impossible Movies Ranked (2023)

The Mission: Impossible films are incredible action movies and one of cinema’s greatest franchises. With the release of Dead Reckoning Part One, here’s my ranking from worst to best.

7. Mission: Impossible II

“Mission: Impossible II” is the only dud of this otherwise consistent franchise, mainly because it feels so out of place. Ethan Hunt feels and acts completely different from all the other films, as he’s more of a James Bond womanizer type here. Hunt is never supposed to be the suave romantic action hero; he’s an extremely dedicated and focused operative with a heart of gold. This film is mainly just a lame romance flick starring Tom Cruise and Thandiwe Newton (who share as much chemistry as oil and water). The direction by John Woo, while confident, is utterly distracting and often annoying, especially with those dreaded doves. MI2 is no abomination, but it’s persistently dull and misguided.

6. Mission: Impossible III

Mission: Impossible III Phillip Seymour Hoffman

As everyone familiar with this franchise knows, Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Owen Davian is the best Mission: Impossible villain. Hoffman’s ice cold, almost dead line delivery is spine-chilling. There’s nothing over-the-top about his mannerisms; Hoffman plays the character so matter-of-fact that he completely transforms into this frightening character. Aside from that phenomenal performance (and the fiery opening scene), the rest of the film is just average. The story is entirely forgettable and uninspired. Whenever Hoffman is off-screen it’s challenging to stay invested. I also think that J.J. Abrams is the weakest director of the franchise. He uses that repugnant shaky cam/quick cut editing technique to shoot not just action, but pretty much every scene. Sometime it gets to the point where I can’t even see an actor’s face because Abrams is too busy slapping the camera (which is an actual technique he uses — watch the “Star Trek” (2009) behind-the-scenes). Overall, this is still a good film that far surpasses MI2, but it’s unremarkable nonetheless.

5. Mission: Impossible

The fact that this is only in fifth place shows how extraordinary this franchise is. What a thrill-ride. Out of all the movies, this has the least action but remains one of the most suspenseful due to Brian De Palma’s meticulous direction. Ethan Hunt never fires a gun in this film but his exploits are massively entertaining nonetheless. The iconic CIA wire heist is a masterclass in building tension, as is the shocking opening mission. Cruise is incredibly likable out of the gate as Ethan Hunt, with fire pulsing through his veins as he sprints through the film. What holds this one back is its jumbled mess of a plot that doesn’t quite tie together at the end.

4. Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation

MI5 is a terrific spy thriller. The clear standout of the film is Rebecca Ferguson as femme fatale Isla Faust, the most compelling side character of the whole franchise. The screenplay effectively makes her actions and motivations unpredictable, enabling Ferguson to craft this dangerously seductive rogue. It’s clear why this was Ferguson’s breakout role. MI5 also has the most gorgeous cinematography of the entire franchise, as well as two of its most thrilling stunts: the airplane sequence and the underwater heist. It’s impossible not to sweat watching some of the challenges Cruise takes on. However, this film suffers from an incredibly forgettable plot and from being a little too long. If ten minutes were cut, this would move a lot quicker and be far more digestible.

3. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

This is easily one of the most rewatchable entries in the franchise. Director Brad Bird instills an incredible energy throughout the film, especially during the first two acts. This thing just moves. We go from a prison break to infiltrating the Kremlin to running from the exploding Kremlin to what is, for my money, still Cruise’s finest stunt: the Burj Khalifa climb. It doesn’t get more nail-biting than watching Ethan Hunt clumsily scale the world’s tallest building with faulty suction gloves. The film also benefits from the incredible team dynamic, which might be the best out of all these movies. Each team member has their own complexities and unique traits that make them work so well together. A common complaint is that this film loses steam after the Dubai sequence, and I don’t necessarily agree. It still has momentum for another twenty minutes. The final climax is when MI4 goes downhill — really downhill. It’s embarrassing how this film ends: Ethan Hunt struggles to defeat an out of shape 55-year-old man in a parking lot, who then kills himself for no good reason. That said, the rest of the film is tremendously memorable and some of the most exciting Mission: Impossible we’ve ever gotten, so I had to put it high on the list.

2. Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One

Somehow Tom Cruise keeps finding ways to top himself. MI7 has surprising heart and tragedy due to its exploration of Ethan’s relationships and how it all ties into Grace’s origin. I loved learning the process of becoming an IMF agent, though it’s odd we only discover this in the seventh movie. Then there’s the incredible action sequences we’ve come to expect, especially the chaotic car chase and the exceptional train escape. At 163 minutes the film somehow moves at a brisk pace without feeling too bloated. This is also the best edited movie in the franchise. Putting the performances, technical achievements, and emotional story together, MI7 is another fantastic Mission: Impossible flick.

1. Mission: Impossible – Fallout

I say this without hyperbole: “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” is one of the greatest action movies ever made, maybe even the greatest. It’s the most tension-filled, pulse-pounding flick I’ve ever seen. That ticking clock ending sequence, particularly the helicopter chase, is terrifying in the best, most heart-racing way possible. Then there’s the vicious bathroom brawl, the riveting motorcycle chase, the breathtaking halo jump, and tons more standout action sequences. Every single one is iconic and brilliant in its own right. Henry Cavill oozes badassery with his million-dollar mustache and reloading fists. This film is also the only one which really makes Ethan Hunt feel like an actual aging human, as he stumbles and struggles a lot more than he used to in earlier films. Everything about MI6 is utter perfection and it’s one of the most consistently compelling movies I’ve ever seen. This is Tom Cruise’s masterpiece.

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” | Review

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is the latest film in the long-running and gloriously consistent action franchise. Tom Cruise returns as the practically immortal secret agent Ethan Hunt on his latest mission: collect both parts of a key which grants control over the Entity, a super advanced artificial intelligence. Once again, the world is at stake, so Hunt and his team must race against the clock, allowing for Tom Cruise to perform more life-threatening stunts.

This film’s predecessor “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” is, I’d argue, one of the greatest action movies ever made. It’s certainly in my top five. Therefore, I went in somewhat hoping this movie would capture just as much magic as Fallout, which is essentially a perfect film. After seeing it, MI7 isn’t on Fallout‘s level, but it’s still super entertaining.

Tom Cruise is a living legend and undoubtedly the last true movie star. He’s willing to put his life on the line to get a couple of cool shots, and you have to respect the man for that. Like in “Top Gun: Maverick,” the screening starts with a clip of him thanking the audience for supporting his film in a theater. Such compassion and dedication to his fellow moviegoers is monumental, and that heart is present throughout this whole film.

Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One Tom Cruise Hayley Atwell Train

Obviously, the action in this film is mindblowing. Whether it’s the chaotic Fiat car chase in Rome or the claustrophobic alleyway fight or the heart-stopping train sequence, Cruise never disappoints. It’s all in-camera with minimal cuts because it’s all happening for real; no stuntman is filling in for him and no CGI is interrupting him. Since all the action sequences are actually happening and Cruise is actually pulling off these incredible feats, the film maintains that edge-of-your-seat energy we want from a Mission: Impossible flick. This movie gets even better when compared to all the other blockbusters of today. CGI-ridden films like “The Flash” and “Fast X” simply don’t have that raw grit of MI7, so they’re far less engaging and emotional. I care dramatically more about Ethan Hunt than I do Barry Allen or Dom Toretto because everything happening on screen is practical stunt work rather than visual effects.

Even in comparison to films like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” which also relies on practical stunt work, MI7 outshines the competition. While the situations Hunt finds himself in are over-the-top, the writing sufficiently supports why they’re occurring and makes all the events believable. In the latest John Wick films, it’s hard to care about Keanu Reeves because there’s no justification for him walking off a Wile E. Coyote fall from a six-story building.

Mission: Impossible Tom Cruise motorcycle jump

The sequences are heightened even further by McQuarrie’s confident and energetic direction. This is his third Mission: Impossible film and seventh collaboration with Tom Cruise, so he’s steadily expanded his filmmaking prowess to become one of the best action filmmakers of all time. McQuarrie is able to make long dialogue scenes feel as riveting as any fight sequence, particularly an exposition scene with Kittridge that floored me. It’s a masterpiece in direction, editing, and sound design.

Speaking of which, this is one of the best edited films I’ve ever seen. Editor Eddie Hamilton (who also worked on “Top Gun: Maverick” and wrongfully lost the Oscar for it) is a genius. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what he does to make each scene so investing. He’s just able to draw you into each scene and, using McQuarrie’s stellar work behind the camera, he crafts a technical wonder.

MI7 is also the most emotional entry in the franchise. It explores Ethan like no other film has done before and utilizes a new character in Grace (played by Hayley Atwell, who I’ll discuss later) to delve into what makes someone join the IMF. There’s also a story choice concerning a major returning character — who I won’t name to avoid spoilers — halfway through the film which legitimately surprised me. I was stunned that the filmmakers had the guts to do it and I couldn’t be happier. The film’s stakes are all the higher for it, not just for the world but, more importantly, for Ethan Hunt as a character.

Tom Cruise Hayley Atwell Mission: Impossible 7

Let’s discuss the new characters, starting with Hayley Atwell’s Grace, a thief whose world is turned upside down when she encounters Ethan Hunt. Atwell exudes magnetic charisma and gives an instantly lovable performance. She’s very much the point of view character for the audience and therefore the centerpiece of the film. Esai Morales plays the villain Gabriel (an admittedly underwhelming name for an antagonist), a returning nemesis from Ethan’s past who now works as a sort of avatar for the Entity, carrying out its bidding. What makes him so threatening — besides Morales’ stone cold glare and frightening screen presence — is that he can predict every move Ethan and his team will make with the Entity’s guidance.

Unfortunately, MI7 has that detested flaw plaguing most modern films: an overlong runtime. This is a 2h 43m film and there’s no reason for it to be. It thankfully never bores, but a solid ten minutes could’ve been shaved off. Specifically, there’s a nightclub standoff in the middle of the film that should’ve been trimmed to the bone. It’s utterly repetitive, with characters spewing lofty yet predictable expository dialogue.

While it doesn’t come close to the sky-scraping heights of Fallout, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is another stellar film from the most consistent action franchise of all time. It’s sheer unadulterated entertainment and adrenaline from start to finish. Bring on part two.

A-

“Past Lives” Review – One of the Year’s Best Films

“Past Lives” is the directorial debut of writer/director Celine Song. The film follows Nora, a Korean immigrant who left behind a childhood romance with classmate Hae Sung when she emigrated at 12 years old. Now, over 20 years later, Hae Sung visits the U.S. for a week-long vacation, reuniting with a married Nora.

With a 97% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes and rave reception after its debut at the Sundance Film Festival, it’s easy to go into “Past Lives” expecting the next cinematic masterpiece. I went in with my expectations low, not because I thought the film would be bad, but because I strived to avoid disappointment. Thankfully, I left astounded by this extraordinary film.

The key to this movie’s success is the perpetual realism at its core. There are no irrational characters or trashy rom-com lowbrow humor commonly found in romance films. Like Richard Linklater’s “Before Trilogy,” there’s calculated nuance to the conversations and relationships. All three leads (Nora, her husband Arthur, and Hae Sung) are completely relatable. You can see where Arthur and Hae Sung are coming from; neither fall into love triangle archetypes, and they instead behave like mature adults. The complexity of this situation makes this story of lost opportunities all the more heartbreaking.

Song’s direction also grounds the film, as she carefully prohibits style from getting in the way of drama to fully immerse the audience in the story. Her work is most reminiscent of Todd Field’s direction in last year’s “Tár” (he should’ve won the Best Director Oscar by the way).

Where Song really shines, however, is in her writing. The dialogue is gripping without any showy monologuing. Her meticulous story structure transports us across time with Nora. Each character, as mentioned previously, is completely three-dimensional. They all feel like legitimate people who we could know in reality. The events of the film lead to an immensely satisfying ending which, while crushing, makes perfect sense in light of the grounded tone. Song’s screenplay is the most impressive of 2023 thus far, although I do think the film could’ve been trimmed by five minutes. Unfortunately, that’s an issue common in nearly every film nowadays. It’s a plague which even “Past Lives” succumbed to.

You know you’ve seen a terrific film when you find yourself still thinking about it days, weeks, even months later. By the end of “Past Lives,” I couldn’t stop theorizing about what Nora and Hae Sung’s lives would be like if she had remained in Korea, and that’s the true accomplishment of this film.

“Asteroid City” Review – Wes Anderson Movie Magic

“Asteroid City” was written and directed by the OCD mastermind Wes Anderson, featuring his usual all-star cast. The film tells the story of the posthumous final play by playwright Conrad Earp (Edward Norton), cutting between the documentary about its production and the fictional play itself. Set in 1955, the play follows multiple families as they attend a junior stargazing event for their brainiac children in a small town called Asteroid City, when an alien suddenly arrives and changes their lives forever.

This is arguably the most complex script Wes Anderson has ever crafted, given its story within a story structure and double roles for each character (e.g. Jason Schwartzman plays both a dedicated actor and the fictional character Augie Steenbeck). Obviously what I’m describing sounds utterly perplexing, but it’s astonishing how easily the film pulls it all off. The movie admittedly starts a little slow, but it picks up after the first twenty minutes and ends in a thrilling finale which impeccably links the parallel storylines. This play angle also helps to make the film feel staunchly different from the rest of Anderson’s work which often feels repetitive due to his incredibly distinct style.

Yet what most makes “Asteroid City” stand out among Anderson’s filmography is the production design, which is legitimately some of the most impressive filmmaking I’ve ever seen. The crew built not only the gorgeous tiny desert town, but all the background aesthetics as well. Towering rock ranges, a massive asteroid crater, beautiful cacti/desert agriculture, entire road networks, etc. All of the play was filmed in this prodigious man-made area that’s simultaneously lived-in and cartoonish. The crew even had to drive golf carts to get around the set. If this isn’t Oscar-worthy, nothing is.

The score, while very Wes Anderson-y, was particularly beautiful. It had a youthful and adventurous, almost Spielbergian, energy to it but with an eccentric flare. The music does a stellar job at immersing you into this world and adding even more life to it.

To no one’s surprise, the performances are stellar across the board. Anderson attracts the best talent around and knows just how to utilize each actor depending on their skillset. I’ll always argue that Jason Schwartzman has been Anderson’s best performer; he knows better than anyone how to deliver the monotone lines with hints of sarcasm and a melancholy vibe. The standout this time around is newcomer Jake Ryan, who plays Augie’s brilliant yet socially distant son Woodrow. With his relatable awkwardness and straight man presence, he brings a much needed heart to the film, plus some standout line delivery. Not to mention he has an uncanny resemblance to Schwartzman.

I do think, however, that this film struggles with a lack of emotion. It’s stylistically gorgeous and admirable, but I wish I felt a deeper connection to the characters like in some of Anderson’s previous films, namely “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “The Royal Tenenbaums.”

Asteroid City Wes Anderson Liev Schreiber

“Asteroid City” is far from Wes Anderson’s best film and far from his worst film. It lands right in the middle of his filmography for me, and that’s fine. It’s a technical wonder that’s unique enough to differentiate itself, although it suffers from some pacing issues and doesn’t have much emotion running through it.

B+

Shazam! Fury of the Gods, BlackBerry, & More – Quick Reviews

Shazam! Fury of the Gods | C+

Shazam! Fury of the Gods DC Zachary Levi

“Shazam! Fury of the Gods” isn’t nearly as bad as its reputation. It shares the energetic and youthful energy of its lead. Zachary Levi is once again perfect in the role as Shazam/Billy Batson. He’s such a joy to watch, not only because of his great comedic timing that reflects the immaturity of his character but also due to the clear heart and passion he has for the role. The first two acts of the film, while generic, are actually pretty fun. Unfortunately, the third act devolves into another CGI-fest climax, worsened by the manufactured family theme. The weakest part of this film is the family dynamic because of how cheesy it is. The first “Shazam!” made the mistake of giving all the foster siblings superpowers in the finale. It makes Billy feel less important and the powers less impressive. As Syndrome from “The Incredibles” said, “When everyone’s super, no one will be.”

Additionally, the supporting cast isn’t all that great, except for Jack Dylan Grazer; he would have been a far better kid Billy than Asher Angel is. Grazer feels more like the immature teenager that Zachary Levi plays as adult Billy, and he’s also just a more talented actor than Angel. Angel has a boring screen presence and is far too cool for the role. That said, he’s certainly better than he was in the first film, where he gave a brooding performance in stark contrast to Levi. I also thought Lucy Liu was surprisingly terrible, with cringe-inducing line delivery and a clear misunderstanding of the movie she’s in. Helen Mirren is a little better, but she looks bored throughout the whole film.

Overall, I somewhat enjoyed “Shazam! Fury of the Gods.” It’s way better than the first film, warts and all. If you’re looking to throw something decent on in the background, or if you enjoy Skittles product placement, this is the perfect choice. Don’t expect anything groundbreaking though.

BlackBerry | A-

Writer/director/star Matt Johnson’s “BlackBerry” is my second-favorite film of the year thus far. It follows the chaotic creation, rise, and fall of Research In Motion, the company which produced the once immensely popular BlackBerry cell phone. Is it “The Social Network” lite? Yes, but I don’t care because it’s just so much fun to watch. The script is nearly immaculate, each line being just as witty and hilarious as the next. The two leads are such compelling characters played masterfully by Jay Baruchel and Glenn Howerton. Speaking of the latter, wow is Glenn Howerton great in this film. He deserves an Oscar nomination for his work here. Obviously he’s a brilliant comedic actor given his background in “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” but he also brings plenty of emotion and complexity to his role as the (on the surface, anyway) scumbag businessman Jim Balsillie. I adore this movie and highly recommend it; “BlackBerry” deserves way more recognition than it’s gotten.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves | B

Inventive humor, fun action, generic/corporate feel. It’s good enough.

“The Flash” Review – Great Fun, But Beware of the CGI

“The Flash” was directed by Andy Muschietti and stars Ezra Miller in the title role. Based on the Flashpoint comic storyline by Geoff Johns, the film follows Barry Allen/The Flash as he discovers his ability to travel back in time using the Speed Force, allowing him to prevent his mother’s death. However, after doing so, he creates an alternate timeline without active heroes to protect it from an imminent threat. Joining forces with a retired Michael Keaton Batman, he must find a way to save this new world before it’s too late.

I’m burnt out on multiverses. Between the Spider-Verse films and the recent MCU phases and that aggressively overrated “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” the market has rapidly become oversaturated with this premise. What was originally a unique and inventive idea has turned into a boring and repetitive cameo-fest to make a quick buck.

That being said, I still had a fun time with “The Flash.” It utilizes the multiverse idea well enough to make it feel somewhat fresh and, more importantly, emphasizes a character-centered story about Barry rather than submit itself to the memberberries (at least until the ending).

This is a Flash movie first and foremost, and for the most part it reaps the benefits of that. For the first half of the film, Barry is in every single scene. There’s proper buildup before the chaos, featuring his origin, the tragedies in his life, and the challenges he faces on a day-to-day basis as a superhero. It’s not all pain and suffering though; this film features a lot of humor, especially during sequences when Barry has to regulate his calories or balance his double life. There’s also some excellent banter and one-liners, made even funnier by Miller’s delivery.

The point is, this isn’t just a mindless and formulaic comic book blockbuster the likes of this year’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” There’s actual depth and emotion underlying the momentum of the story, leading to a surprisingly gut-wrenching climax.

As an individual, Ezra Miller is… let’s just say flawed. I don’t need to delve deep into his history of (alleged) crimes and assault charges. Like anyone, I came into this film with a disdain for the actor, but I also went with the ability to separate the art from the artist. If you’re able to do that (and I completely understand anyone who can’t), you’ll appreciate the caliber of performance Miller gives. They’re able to juggle a dual role as the main Barry and a younger, brash version of himself beautifully, making sure each character feels both unique from their differing life experiences while sharing core similarities. Miller is quite likable and relatable in this role despite their history off screen, which is the most impressive feat of all.

“The Flash” also benefits from its excellent pacing. At nearly 2 and a half hours, there’s not a single dull moment, yet it also isn’t just a nonstop roller coaster ride. It moves slow when it needs to let character development breathe and rapidly when it needs to bring the action. However, and this is arguably a nitpick, there’s one scene at the beginning of the film involving the Flash “saving” babies that should’ve been cut entirely. It’s just too goofy and oddly unsettling.

Now let’s get to the enormous, protruding elephant in the room: the CGI. Wow. It is honestly some of the worst 21st century VFX work I’ve ever seen. The worst part is that there’s no real excuse for it. The VFX artists had years to work on it, so it’s not like they had some rushed abusive deadline. The movie had an estimated $300 million budget, so they must have had the necessary resources. The only explanation is simply that the artists and Muschietti, well, failed.

There’s certainly an over-dependence on CGI here, especially in the horrid cameo palooza at the end of the film in which famous faces (I won’t say who) pop up, this time oddly smooth with darting eyes and droopy noses. Some of these actors are still around and still look the part, and as for those who don’t: fine, just don’t put them in the film. This leads to the first atrocious aspect of the CGI: the digitally constructed faces. Think the baby from the “Twilight” movies times a thousand, as such disturbing faces appear in almost every scene. Whether it’s the aforementioned cameos or Michael Shannon’s awkwardly inserted face into a CGI Zod body or the digital babies or the laughably rendered fake Ezra Miller face for scenes between the two Barrys (of which there are many), there’s almost always someone grotesque on screen.

The second major instance of hideous CGI is how the Speed Force is designed. As Barry moves back in time, we see images of past events, except instead of real footage, they’re digital renders straight out of a Playstation 2 cutscene. Then, besides these two darting CGI disasters, the majority of the remaining CGI simply doesn’t work either. The computer generated character models are all too noticeable and the action sequences, while entertaining, are unnaturally dynamic. Overall, it comes down to Muschietti’s over-reliance on CGI, the attitude of “they’ll fix it in post,” that sucks the realism and credibility out of the film. He’s clearly a stellar actor’s director and a master of balancing tone, but he must learn for future DC projects to use practical effects whenever possible.

Ultimately, “The Flash” is a much needed win for DC. It’s full of heart, entertainment value, and exciting characters. It’s not just another formulaic conveyor belt dumpster fire; it’s what comic book movies should return to. Of course, it’s certainly imperfect. The CGI will go down in the history books as a lesson in what not to do and the cameos at the end are unearned, but it’s still a great time at the movies. Strong recommendation from me.

B+

“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” – Classic Film Reviews #31

“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” is a 1962 western directed by acclaimed golden age filmmaker John Ford. The film stars James Stewart as Ransom Stoddard, a lawyer who’s robbed by the outlaw Liberty Valance and left in the town of Shinbone. While there, he meets the archetype Wild West antihero Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). Stoddard wants to defeat Valance using the law whereas Doniphon relies on violence, and the two debate this throughout the film as Stoddard also works to modernize Shinbone.

I’ll be honest: I’m not a fan of John Ford. In fact, I think he’s one of the most overrated filmmakers of all time. He represents the style of old Hollywood without the creativity of films like “The Wizard of Oz,” “12 Angry Men,” or “Paths of Glory” which were also released during his time. Of the ones I’ve seen, Ford’s films are sluggishly paced with bland characters and forgettable narratives. His work is exactly the type Hollywood had to shift away from in the late 1960s, as foreign cinema was running laps around American films and the audience started to want more mature, edgy stories.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance James Stewart John Wayne

That being said, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” is a good film. This is a surprisingly mature western, at least in comparison to Ford’s other work. Without giving away spoilers, it has a genuinely surprising ending which defies the laws and expectations of the western story formula. It’s no “Unforgiven” — not even in the same stratosphere — but it’s a fascinating deconstruction of these kinds of characters, exploring when, if ever, lies and murder are necessary for the betterment of a struggling society. It’s an intriguing morality tale which keeps you thinking.

The story is also carried by James Stewart’s terrific lead performance. He’s so great at being the relatable everyman with his goodhearted nature and ability to make his dialogue feel natural and in-the-moment. I love seeing George Bailey from “It’s a Wonderful Life” in a western. Unfortunately, John Wayne is nowhere near the caliber of performer as Stewart. I’ve never been a Wayne fan; he has almost nothing underneath his stare and smirk. He’s just generic cool western guy, a stereotype he plays exactly the same in each and every one of his films.

I also have to address the elephant in the room: the ages of Stewart and Wayne. Both were in their mid-50’s at the time of filming and you can really tell. Stewart is noticeably too wrinkled and hunched for his character that’s implied to be in his 30’s. Likewise, Wayne is overweight and slow in the joints. Whenever they’re required to do something physical or romantic, it gets distracting and oftentimes creepy.

While this film generally holds up and kept me invested throughout, it certainly could have been shorter. It’s 20 to 30 minutes too long; every scene can be trimmed down, some of which should’ve just been cut all together. Like Ford’s other films, pacing is an issue here, but it’s by no means grueling.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance director John Ford

“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” is an intelligent western that possesses both the rebellious excitement you expect and the maturity needed to make for a more memorable story. It suffers from plenty of issues, but it works well enough as a whole.

B+

“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” Review – Not Great

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” was a phenomenal animated film. A beautiful hero’s journey of Miles Morales, an instantly likable protagonist thrust into an adventure he’s completely unprepared for. He learns not only how to handle his powers, but the responsibility of being a Spider-person and that Spider-Man is more than the mask; anyone can emulate what he represents. It’s a story full of hope, optimism, heart, tragedy, excitement, humor, and all the things that make for a wonderful adventure film. The script is ingenious and nearly immaculate, full of wit and clear love for the source material. Its animation was more than groundbreaking; it shook the industry and ended the reign of the Pixar style. Overall, an incredible feat.

Now, 5 years later, comes its long-awaited sequel “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” and it breaks my heart to say that this was a massive disappointment. I genuinely don’t understand the rave critic reviews or that insane 95% Rotten Tomatoes score. This is a deeply, tragically flawed mess of a film that’s too ambitious for its own good. The level of overhyping and ridiculous praise is borderline shameful from some of these “critics.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect the vast majority of people who enjoy this film, but there are some who just go too far. Here’s an example tweet from one critic who will remain anonymous:

Seriously? Let’s be real for a second. If you’re a critic and you claim that this is not only one of the best Spider-Man/comic book/sequel films, but also one of the best films in general, you need to reevaluate yourself. It’s dangerous for movies to be overpraised like this. Just look at last year’s “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” That’s a film which is at least 30 minutes too long with hit-and-miss humor and a sappy, soap-opera climax. Yet because people on Twitter and Letterboxd claimed it’s the best movie ever made, it won 7 Oscars including Best Picture. We can’t keep doing this.

———THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS———

Anyway, let’s get back to Across the Spider-Verse (I want to apologize in advance because this is going to be a very, very long review). Do I think this is a terrible film? No, not at all. It’s generally entertaining and shares many of the great elements of the first film; it has the same youthful, vibrant energy and comic-booky sensibilities. The performances are stellar across the board. I also think the Spot is an incredibly entertaining and unique villain. He’s simultaneously hilarious and frightening, and the animation style used to illustrate his abilities is insane (in the best way possible). It’s basically the same technique used in the comic Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.

There’s a perfect 30-40-minute chunk within the first half of the film which focuses on Miles and his family that I thoroughly enjoyed. Miles Morales is by far this film’s best character, and it needs him more than it wants to admit. His struggles balancing his personal life, family, and Spider-Man is just so entertaining and heartfelt. I’d rather see a non-multiverse movie that’s just focused on a regular Miles adventure.

Whenever the film sways away from that heart it free-falls. It starts out with a 15-minute Gwen-centric prologue which I couldn’t stand. For one thing, its story was abysmal. Peter Parker died because he made himself a Green Goblin serum to get big muscles or something. Then, Gwen encounters a giant wooden vulture that looks laughable. She meets a couple Spider-people, fights the wood, and flees her universe. The worst part of this cluttered opening is the introduction of Jessica Drew/Spider-Woman, who’s riding a motorcycle while pregnant, endangering her unborn child. What’s the point of having this in the film? This is far from empowering. It makes the character instantly unlikable and puts a sour taste in the viewer’s mouth.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Miles Morales

Then the movie goes back to Miles and fresh air flows back in again, as mentioned previously. But as soon as he dives into the Spider-Verse, the film nosedives with him. Specifically, it’s when the plot holes start to appear. There are too many lapses in logic and plot-breaking ideas to list in this already overlong review, so I’ll just briefly cover the big ones:

Miguel/Spider-Man 2099: How does he have access to all this multiverse jumping technology? Living in the future is not an excuse; the film never explains how he got ahold of it or invented it, and considering how significant it is to the story, that’s a pretty big issue.
During the chase scene between Miles and the other Spider-people, why didn’t he just turn invisible? He said that he was trying to lure them together, implying that’s why he stayed visible, but that still doesn’t make any sense. Why go through all that trouble when you could just slip away unseen?
Mentioning the MCU was a colossal mistake. Now it’s established that all the multiverse shenanigans in the MCU are canon in this franchise, so why aren’t other Marvel characters around? Where’s Kang? How come Doctor Strange wasn’t glitching when he traveled to other universes in Multiverse of Madness?
Why would Miles be sent to the universe where his radioactive spider originated from? Miguel’s goofy machine scans the DNA of an individual (ANY individual, not just a Spider-person) and returns them to their corresponding universe. Miles is still almost entirely made up of DNA from his own universe; the spider DNA is only a minuscule portion of him. Wouldn’t he be sent back to his own universe, or at least have his atoms split between both universes?
Now for the biggest plot hole: why, WHY would Miguel tell Miles about the police captain cannon event? By telling Miles this, he fuels Miles to rebel and try to prevent it. If he never revealed this to him, Miles wouldn’t know or be prepared for his father to die. Therefore, if Miguel just kept his mouth shut, he wouldn’t have to worry about Miles inadvertently destroying that universe. The entire second half of the film rides on this moronic and forced decision.

Another problem here is the runtime. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, the movie feels at least 20 to 30 minutes too long, especially in the third act when every scene could’ve been the last.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Chase

Yet the writing isn’t this film’s only issue; on a technical level, it’s far less sophisticated than its predecessor. While Across the Spider-Verse has a wider range of styles, it doesn’t hold up to the first film’s look. I commend the filmmakers for attempting something new, but it feels like the animators were spread too thin to give sufficient detail to each art style, so the main art style from the first film looks significantly weaker here. The polygons are visible and some of the movements are off; for some reason, characters’ shoulders particularly look wonky. The sound editing is also a downgrade. The first film had AMAZING music and sound cues, especially the Prowler’s theme. This movie shares the same great sound, except it’s mixed by Christopher Nolan. I couldn’t hear what the characters were saying in the film a third of the time. It got to the point where I stupidly leaned in toward the screen.

“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is the newest film in the long line of overrated, forced cult movies that have been perpetuated by Film Twitter. I was left heartbroken by how much this movie disappointed me, and I hope people will eventually come around and see the film’s faults.

All “Succession” Seasons Ranked

“Succession” has recently ended, cementing itself as one of the greatest television series of all time. In celebration of the show’s run, it’s time to rank all four seasons from best to bestest… if that makes any grammatical sense.

4. Season 1

The first season of “Succession” does a great job at introducing us to this profanity-ridden corporate nightmare world and the deeply flawed characters who shape it. All the roles are perfectly cast and the audience is immediately able to connect to each actor. This is also the funniest season of the series. The hapless Tom and Greg have never been more lovably awkward and pathetic; they’ve always been the true love story of the show, both being total scene stealers as the comic relief. It’s Jeremy Strong’s performance as Kendall, however, that propelled this show to greatness right out of the gate. Strong is the most gifted thespian of this already stellar group of actors. He brings such an unstable intensity and misery to the role, making him the tragic Sisyphean figure we simultaneously love and loathe. In all four seasons of the series, Strong gave one of the finest performances in television history.

With all praise for the freshman season aside, it’s got plenty of issues. Firstly, its pacing is all over the place. Whenever we’re not focusing on Kendall, Tom, or Greg, the show loses momentum and can’t quite figure out how to keep the audience engaged. The season goes from fast-paced, intense sequences to slow lulls over and over again. Season 1 also has the weakest aspect of the series looming over it: Lawrence Yee. What a lame villain. At the end of the pilot, he’s projected to be some agent of chaos who sets out to burn Waystar to the ground, but he never does anything of serious dramatic note. He’s an annoying and utterly boring character who serves zero purpose other than to give Kendall something to worry about in the pilot.

3. Season 3

This is arguably the most subversive season of “Succession” due to the stark contrast between the marketing and the series itself. It wasn’t the Kendall vs. Logan battle we were promised, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Kendall continuing to lose and humiliate himself, while painful to watch, follows the realism and anxiety which forms the show. Watching Jeremy Strong morph from happy-go-lucky and enthusiastic to broken and borderline suicidal is incredibly powerful and exemplifies the strengths of the show, albeit tough to experience.

The standouts of this season are, once again, Tom and Greg. Over these nine episodes the pair crawl through the mud as they face pressures of incarceration, leading to their usual anxiety-fueled banter and shenanigans. This is really Tom’s season; the writers crafted a compelling contrast between him and Kendall, as we see Tom succeed through self-sacrifice while Kendall fails because of his narcissism.

Unfortunately, this season struggles to maintain a consistent pace and focused story, much like Season 1. It doesn’t quite reach the exhilarating heights of Season 2 but doesn’t make any grave mistakes either. Since it’s potentially Tom’s best season and Mr. Wambsgans is undoubtedly the best character of the show, I edge it out above Season 1.

2. Season 4

Season 4 landed the ship beautifully. The decision to kill off Logan so early on was not only pleasantly shocking, but also made sense in terms of story progression. The show is about who’s going to succeed him after all, and his death created the optimal drama and tension surrounding the power grabbing. Episode 3 “Connor’s Wedding” is possibly the greatest episode of the entire series, and arguably the most riveting episode of television since “Game of Thrones” 6×09 “Battle of the Bastards.” It’s a prime example of how to subvert expectations in a way that’s actually beneficial to the narrative, rather than what we’ve seen in films such as The Last Jedi.

Besides Episode 3, this season still has some of the best individual episodes in the series. Episode 4 “Honeymoon States” is a brilliant Kendall episode reminiscent of “The Godfather: Part II” and Episode 8 “America Decides” is the most pulse-pounding chapter of the series.

Likewise, the series finale was nearly perfect. Television finales are challenging to create and often unsatisfying, as writers are so frightened that they end up panicking and producing some messy conclusion which breaks the rules and arcs built over the previous seasons. Showrunner Jesse Armstrong thankfully knew the formula to a proper series finale, which is to write conclusions the audience doesn’t expect while not subverting expectations too drastically. What’s most important is to stay true to the characters and their arcs, and “Succession” did that. Plus, I actually leaped out of my seat and cheered when Tom became CEO, something I almost never do. He’s top ten, maybe even top five best television characters of all time for me.

While I found Season 4 to be a legendary sendoff, it still could’ve been a little bit better. Firstly, the Pierce plotline needed to be cut completely. The writers forgot about it as soon as Logan died and left it dangling, never to be spoken of again. Secondly, it was frustrating how all these major events happened in such quick succession, quite literally day-to-day. First, Logan dies on Connor’s wedding day. The next day is the wake, which makes sense, but then there’s the GoJo negotiations in Sweden followed immediately by the Living+ announcement followed immediately by the tailgate party followed immediately by election night followed by Logan’s funeral and, finally, the concluding board meeting. All this takes place over what’s implied to be a couple weeks, which is completely nonsensical. In the previous three seasons, we’d get one, maybe two, of such key events per season. What happened?

1. Season 2

This is peak “Succession.” Every episode is utter chaos and it’s impossible not to revel in it. The season moves at a breakneck pace with Logan at his most tyrannical and evil. Like Season 4, Season 2 has phenomenal individual episodes but they’re within an already impeccable season-long arc. The “Safe Room” episode is possibly the funniest out of the whole show as Tom has to interview a neo-Nazi newscaster, only to then be rushed alongside Greg into a dumpy safe room after a shooting scare.

Season 2’s penultimate episode “D.C.” is my favorite of the entire series; I know “Connor’s Wedding” is objectively a little better, but this episode encapsulates everything the show does so well. For one thing, it’s (somehow) darkly comedic to see Roman stuck in a hotel taken hostage by terrorists, but I also think this is Tom’s greatest episode (probably why I have a soft spot for it). It’s heartbreaking to see him humiliated and fed to the wolves of Congress, but one can’t help but tear up laughing as he attempts to explain the repugnant “Moe Lester” email threads.

I think what makes Season 2 the best season is just how focused it is. There’s no dangling plot threads or pacing issues which the other seasons sometimes suffered from. Season 2 is clean and straight to the point, with Logan challenging the other characters far beyond their breaking points to put out his fires. This is the season which cemented this show as one of the all-time greats, and it’s a flawless thrill ride.