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

“The Creator” is a Massive Disappointment – Review

“The Creator” is the latest sci-fi film written and directed by Gareth Edwards, the man behind the stellar and immensely underrated “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” After a nuclear bomb destroys Los Angeles, the United States blames widespread and rapidly growing artificial intelligence. Decades later we’re in 2065, when a global war between the Americans and the A.I., who now rule the eastern hemisphere (renamed “New Asia”), is reaching a devastating climax. John David Washington plays Joshua, a former American operative who lost his wife in this long-running battle. Now, he’s brought back into action by the American government and put on a team to capture a mysterious weapon from an A.I. facility, only to discover it’s a young cybernetic child (later named Alphie). What proceeds is an all-too obvious mixture of “Paper Moon,” “Children of Men,” “Blade Runner,” “The Terminator,” and pretty much all other famous sci-fi flicks you can think of.

I won’t lie: I went into this with really high expectations. But how could I not? One of our finest modern science fiction filmmakers returns to the silver screen after seven years, the trailers looked absolutely incredible, and the early reports from test screenings were stellar. I was rooting for Edwards ever since the film was announced, but after seeing “The Creator,” he’s lost my trust.

The original cut of this film was a whopping five hours, and when watching the two-hour-long final product, it’s abundantly clear. This is a jagged, chopped together, racing-to-the-finish-line mess of a film. While the plot is generally coherent, there’s no emotions or investment holding the film together. All of the scenes meant to make us sympathize with the characters are just gone. Despite the heart of the film supposedly being the cliché father-daughter relationship (so clichéd that they literally stole the “You can talk?!” scene from “Logan” — seriously, it even takes place in a car too), you can’t feel it because there are barely any scenes exploring that relationship. In one scene Joshua will hate Alphie and in the very next scene he’ll suddenly care about her. What happened? Where’s the development? These characters need room to breathe. The film just moves from plot point to plot point and set-piece to set-piece without actually getting us invested in the characters.

“The Creator” isn’t experienced, watched, or even viewed; it’s just looked at. There’s nothing to connect to. It’s such an odd experience, and the worst part is that there’s no excuse for it because they did film those needed character development scenes. Those moments are just lying on the cutting room floor, begging to be added. “The Creator” is one of the very few films nowadays that I’d actually want to be longer. And I don’t just mean 5, 10, 15 minutes longer — there needs to be at least 30 more minutes here. The film is bleeding out and needs that runtime transfusion desperately. This is an absolute skeleton of a movie.

Now let’s address one of this film’s biggest selling points: it’s an original sci-fi film from Hollywood! WoAh HoW cOoL! After seeing it, what’s so original about it? Maybe the robot designs, but what else? The story sure isn’t original. Nor is this high-tech dystopian future. It’s just “Blade Runner.” Almost all of the characters are one-dimensional, and the ones that aren’t are just copy/pasted from other movies. We’ve seen the whole war between man and machine before. “The Terminator,” “The Matrix.” Seriously, what about this concept is “original?” What this film actually is is a non-franchise sci-fi movie. That doesn’t mean original, that just means it’s not a sequel, reboot, or remake. And it’s not as if it’s the first in a long time to do this: 2019’s “Ad Astra,” 2016’s “Arrival,” and 2015’s “Ex Machina” just to name a few. Hell, a new sci-fi movie called “Foe” is releasing one week after “The Creator.”

Plus, just because a film is part of a franchise doesn’t mean it’s any less of a film. Let’s look at examples from this year. MI7 is one of the best films of the year. TMNT: Mutant Mayhem is my favorite animated film of the year. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” remains the best sci-fi film of the year.

So, after all that ranting, do I think “The Creator” is a bad film? No, not at all. I’m just disappointed and, frankly, offended by this film when I know it could’ve been so much better. There are some terrific elements in here. The visuals and cinematography are absolutely gorgeous; this is probably the best looking film of 2023. The action sequences are invigorating, energetic, and utterly badass. Some individual scenes are actually quite memorable, namely one in which Allison Janney’s character uses a computer to resurrect someone for thirty seconds. The third act climax is phenomenal, albeit — like almost everything in the film — rushed. Edwards always delivers on his third acts at least. Then there’s the biggest praise I can give any film, which is that it survived a child actor’s performance: Madeleine Yuna Voyles was never annoying as Alphie.

When “The Creator” gets something right, it really gets something right, but when it gets something wrong, it really gets something wrong. It’s the ultimate mixed bag of a film; one which has just as many strengths as it does weaknesses. But that’s not good enough. That should never be good enough, for any film. Those critics calling this film a “masterpiece” (of whom there are thankfully few) aren’t analyzing this movie properly. Just because you think it’s original doesn’t mean it gets a pass for its mediocrity. When people watch this movie ten years from now, they won’t be thinking, “Finally, an original sci-fi movie!” They won’t care about whether or not original films were being made in 2023; they’re just trying to find a good movie to watch on Netflix in 2033.

C+

“Meg 2: The Trench” Review – This is Not Cinema

“Meg 2: The Trench” stars Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor, a sort of James Bond marine biologist… I think. It’s unclear what exactly his job is other than fighting prehistoric sharks. This film doesn’t have much of a plot — at least not a coherent one — and that can sometimes work for B movies like this as long as it’s entertaining. Meg 2 certainly isn’t that. This is corporate sludge from the deepest abyss.

What’s most compelling about this film isn’t the film itself, but rather its development. This is a joint venture between American and Chinese production companies, but it was engineered to cater toward China more than any other nation. This is blatant throughout, as most of the film takes place in and around China, the characters often speak Mandarin, and the co-lead with Statham is a new character (Jiuming) played by Wu Jing, an immensely famous movie star in China. There’s even a Chinese pop song playing over the end credits.

I have no issue with the involvement of China in an American Warner Bros. film, but what I do have an issue with is how evident it is that Warner Bros. designed the film solely to make money in one market. It’s the definition of a cashgrab. “Meg 2: The Trench” has zero passion or effort behind it. There’s absolutely no soul here because it’s just a compilation of events caught on camera that were carefully engineered for Warner Bros. to make money off of the Chinese population. This is not a film. This is a product. This is not meant to be experienced. This is meant to be consumed.

Beyond its corporate feel, there’s so much else wrong with this film. Firstly, the performances. What happened? How could everyone be so abysmal across the board? Statham is plagued with narcolepsy throughout this thing yet he somehow does the best out of the whole cast, except for maybe Wu Jing who’s just fine. The acting is just as wooden, dull, and uninspired as the story. Most egregious is the work of Skylar Samuels as Jess. She has that irritating CW style of acting with the breathy, exhausted voice and the eyebrows that clench together — it’s absolutely impossible to take her performance seriously.

Speaking of irritating, Meiying (the daughter of Statham’s character) is a parasite that further annihilated this already failing film. Just like the weird clone girl from “Jurassic World: Dominion” (which shares a ton of similarities with Meg 2 by the way), the 14-year-old Meiying is brutally annoying as the script contrives ways for her to get involved in situations she shouldn’t be prepared for. Yet again we have the genius prodigy who talks down to the adults because she’s somehow far more intelligent than those experienced, specialized individuals. Honestly, she was a far more unlikable antagonist than any of the unintimidating megalodons.

Another issue is the dialogue, all of which feels like it was written by a bootleg Chat GPT. Here’s some of the banger lines these hack writers came up with:

“Let’s get this show on the water.”
“We’re a strong group. We can do this.”
“We do what’s in front of us. Then we do the next thing.”
“Hey there, treehugger!”
“Help people! Go help all the people you got!”

Now, the film isn’t all bad. The final twenty minutes are actually quite fun and deliver on what the audience wants from a schlocky movie like this. There’s some pretty clever and intense action sequences, albeit too dependent on CGI. I also appreciate that it had a reasonable runtime under two hours. Modern Hollywood’s three-hour-long movie trend is a plague. That’s it though. There’s not much else to enjoy here and there’s certainly no substance either. Martin Scorsese would despise this thing.

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+