Reviews

Phenomenal movie. I heard it was good but I didn't realize it was this good. The tension is there from opening scene to the closing frames, and the performances from the two main leads make you believe every second.

I hadn't realized J. K. Simmons won the Best Supporting Actor award at the Oscars until I looked up some data about this film a few minutes ago. Absolutely deserved. Miles Teller, the young lead, could have won the Academy Award, too, and I wouldn't have been mad. The give and take between these two, the power dynamics, twists, sheer will... it's spellbinding.

And the overall production and direction of Whiplash is fresh and inventive without taking anything away from the actors' performances. I think the sound editing won an award as well, which is not surprising given not only the subject matter of the film but the chances the director took with how he manipulated things to put us in the music itself.

And that ending...

More of the same great stuff that "Part One" had in it, only more expansive, more explosive, faster paced, and, somehow mixed in with all that, much more intimate. Villenueve chose to alter (at least) two main characters from the book, one in a subtle way and the other dramatically, but it didn't take much away from the gist of Herbert's written work and served to keep the momentum of the movie going.

I've always wondered how movie directors choose what to cut from novels they adapt to the big screen, or what they choose to keep in but change significantly. I respect what the director did here; "Part Two" felt much more emotive and touching to me than the first part, while still presenting those jaw-dropping cinematic moments (a right-of-passage the main character goes through with a sandworm reminded me of that canyon run scene from "Top Gun: Maverick").

All in all, this has instantly become the definitive "Dune" film adaptation, with or without future movies coming out in the franchise, and I feel lucky to be alive at a time I can see them in the theater.

Similar to how "The Fellowship of the Ring" left underinformed movie-goers wondering "is that how it ends?" with its inconclusive conclusion earlier this century, 2021's "Dune: Part One" covered just Book One of the three parts that make up the 1965 novel by Frank Herbert. While it's understandable how many would be turned off by the unresolved ending, I truly enjoyed the whole experience.

But then I also really liked the book. Is it necessary to read it before watching the movie? I can't answer that for you, but I am pretty sure it enhances the viewing by knowing exactly what's going on. Herbert's writing was very internal, meaning a lot of internal dialogue with his characters; what they were thinking, feeling, and their visions were rarely expressed to other characters. It makes it difficult to adapt to the screen. Some would say it is near impossible.

In my opinion, director Denis Villenueve succeeds in this endeavor. He relies on clear themes and ultra-talented actors to communicate in powerful ways without heavy exposition. The look, sound, and music of the film are second-to-none. The pace, though I know slow to a lot of the public, is appropriate and I would even say necessary. You just can't convey feelings of destiny, loss, loyalty, history, universal empire, secret orders, the various facets of love, and cultural conflict in a fast-paced 90 minute adventure film.

With making the impossible possible, Villenueve deserves credit. I already have my ticket to watch "Part Two" tomorrow morning.

I tried. I really tried. I wanted to like this movie so much. I tried giving it every benefit of all of the doubts. Yet, no matter what perspective I used, it didn't matter. The movie was not only bad, it was difficult to just get through. When a viewing experience becomes a chore, when the reason you watch is to say you got through it, then I feel the artistic endeavor failed.

The first ten minutes or so wasn't bad, and the final couple of scenes could almost be described as decent. It's that middle two hours that sucked ass.

Good things to mention about the film? It was ambitious, well cast, well scored, had some quality cinematography and set design, and the costumes and make-up weren't bad. Oh, the sandworms were actually well put together and may be my favorite part.

But it was just too inconsistent of a movie for me to enjoy for any significant period of time. And some parts were almost intentionally gross or creepy, like more than they needed to be, while other segments rushed way too quickly through character relationships or story, like we were watching a summary instead of the actual tale.

And I definitely wasn't a fan of the liberty the director took at the very end.

Not nearly as bad as I expected from everything I've heard. Not great, but not terrible. I can see why there has been such widespread disdain of the movie, because the overall quality of it is mid (as the kids say today), and it may be even more insulting to the hardcore comic fans, but it had the basic pieces of an entertaining movie.

I think what I liked most was how it grounded a mythological story, including a main character who learns she can see the future, while still being able to insert some heart into the center. And except maybe for the opening scene, the writing and acting were fairly decent. I even thought the pacing and direction of the story made sense.

Yes, there were dozens of head-scratching moments about why certain characters made certain choices, particularly the villain, but not enough to tank the experience for me. I think this is the director's first major motion picture; I looked up S. J. Clarkson and she mostly has directed TV shows. I'm good with Sony Pictures giving people a chance, but I do sometimes wonder why they do it with origin story movies of beloved comic book characters. Seems risky.

This was my first Dakota Johnson movie. I've heard her name a bunch but I hadn't seen anything with her in it prior to this role of Cassandra Webb. She was great the whole way through. Not until I looked her up after the movie did I know she was the daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson. The fact that I remember when those two got together, and that Dakota is currently 34 years old, means I'm old.

The rest of the cast was fine. Again, I honestly don't think this movie was bad. If I had to rate it, then maybe a 5 out of 10? Perfectly average, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And a bonus: Dakota Johnson looks great in jeans.

I remember this movie getting panned by some critics when it came out, which is partly why I haven't made seeing it a top priority. Then, through the years, I kept hearing positive references to it, usually by acquaintances but occasionally by film makers who would speak on director Michael Mann's visual pallette and tonal choices. So tonight, as I recover from a cold, I decided to give Heat a chance, all 2 hours and 50 minutes of it.

Outstanding. Like hella good. I don't know what the naysayers were smoking because this is masterpiece level work. I'm serious. I didn't think I would make it through the whole thing in one sitting but once it grabs you it doesn't let go until the credits roll; that is a the ideal state to be in as a movie watcher.

I don't remember what the criticisms were of the film, nor do I care much now about them, but I think it might have been something about having two movie stars involved in a project of this scale and only have one (maybe one point five) scenes together in a three hour span. What a stupid critique. The story calls for these titans not to spend much time together, and in fact that is the literal point of the movie, even tying the title into the story.

So yes, Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino are as good as you'd hope for, in the prime of their careers, but Mann assembles one of the best overall casts I've ever seen. I mean we got Oscar winning actors in small supporting roles. The production is as good as any, including action sequences, but the intimacy is where the director shines. He makes it so that the city itself is almost its own character, and with a masterclass on how to rarely (or never) use CGI.

I can see why Christopher Nolan references Michael Mann more than a few times during his career. It looks a lot like what a Nolan film would look like if shot in the mid-90's. The movie somehow is able to take its time as it moves things along with pace, as oxymoronic as that sounds. It's rare for me to watch that long of a movie at home without pausing it at least once for some reason (a snack, bathroom break, whatever), but here it happened. So, I'll just store this in the "critics-don't-know-squat" file.

Dumb. Such a dumb movie.

I did't hate it, and was actually thinking it was fairly decent halfway through. Then they decided to get intentionally goofy.

I had no problem with the actors, production value, or even the musical cues. The basic story is fine. The initial set-up and introductions were good enough. I liked the bad guy, though I wish they would have given her more development. But you take a pretty birthday cake and throw cat poop on it then hold it to the audience and say "See how hilarious this is?!" Shame, because I don't think even kids would like it.

Who is responsible for these decisions? That's the question I asked myself a few times in the theater as I sat through an experience that made Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner feel both more grounded and entertaining in those old cartoons. Wasting powerful characters and an intriguing concept, not to mention a really good motivation for the villain, has been Marvel's specialty in their movies lately. Let's hope all these rumors about them resetting some things about how they produce content are true.

A few more minutes developing each of the main characters would have made a world of difference, but instead they used that time for cat jokes and a musical number. Are they trying to tank their brand?

Weird. Experimental. Worth a shot. Ultimately, though, Tesla was kind of a dumb movie. I like it when directors take chances and we get some original art as a result, so I applaud the risks director Michael Almereyda took. Gotta push the boundaries.

It just didn't work in this case.

If you were expecting a period piece, you'll be disappointed as soon as Thomas Edison pulls out his smart phone at a bar, or J. P. Morgan's daughter pulls up Google results on her laptop. If you wanted a bio pic, you won't be as disappointed but you'll have to deal with Nikola Tesla singing karaoke towards the end of the film and entire scenes that have the narrator announce after that this conversation or event never happened.

Perhaps it's best described as a fantasy of what fans of Tesla want to see about their favorite investor's life. The genius is evident, as was the overreach of his scientific work for the time period he lived. The sense of how things were in the late 19th century, culturally speaking, I think was clearly conveyed, even with the backgrounds of several outdoor scenes obviously just a painted backdrop.

Ethan Hawke is good as the title character because Ethan Hawke can do no wrong (in my eyes). Kyle MacLachlan is eerily perfect as Edison. And was that Jim Gaffigan as George Westinghouse?!

Eve Hewson was smart and stunning as Anne Morgan (the wealthy banker's daughter). She has this look in her eye like she knows what's up, and on top of being attractive, there is an air of confidence and compassion she radiates, particularly for Nikola. To me, she is the star of the film, and, in a way, I think this was done intentionally.

So yeah, check this out if you have any free time and you don't mind taking a risk for approximately 100 minutes.

The original of the classic movie series, and the kaiju subgenre, Godzilla is, in my opinion, high art. The 1954 movie, directed by Ishiró Honda, is something I hadn't seen before today. I didn't expect it to be as serious as it was, but it was still fun and thought-provoking on the way to a very rewarding experience.

The conversion of social/political commentary, sci-fi/horror themes, and the life-is-sacrifice ethos, Honda's work shows how existential threats in the real world can expand artistic expression beyond what it ever was before. Sure, there were monster movies prior to '54, and King Kong was already around, but Godzilla was a beast we created (through hydrogen bomb testing underwater near Japan).

And, much like the recently released Oppenheimer, we also have to decide when the price is too high for victory. Or maybe there is no right answer. This sort of moral quandary is not something I expected in a rampage-through-the-city sort of flick. Even the acceptance of death, in a short but powerful scene of a mother and her kids right in the middle of the movie, somehow brings the darkness and the light together in a way that is completely relatable to the viewer.

And what she says to her kids... damn it. Here I am, watching a man in a lizard costume stomp through toy trains, and I have tears welling up!

Some of this stuff I think is just genius, and I promise I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I get that the concept of a force of nature so great you can't do anything about it can be mesmerizing, so the only thing left to do is marvel at the destruction, and I think that's why this sort of thing has persisted in entertainment. It also provides the ultimate challenge to the protagonists... meaning us, really. The answer usually involves sacrifice, and it may not always resolve perfectly, but again, that's life.

Oh, and peep the sound design! That Godzilla scream is everything.

That's now two movies in a row from Martin Scorsese where I didn't understand the extraordinary length of his film, but his most recent effort was even more egregious in that error. Killers of the Flower Moon was, as a coworker put it to me last night, 2 1/2 hours of torture porn... and then you have another hour left.

I was fortunate enough to read the book a couple of years ago and was really looking forward to the screen adaptation. It had betrayal, violence, historical relevance, culture, mystery, and, somehow, love. The choice made by the director to just come out with the major surprise of the story at the beginning of the movie, instead of towards the end like the author of the book chose, was perplexing to me. It meant the story and characters went nowhere.

That was maybe the hardest part to take: the complete lack of arc for anyone or anything. What the characters were at the end of the whole thing was the same as the middle and at the start. The story, somehow, went nowhere for most of it except for maybe the last 30 minutes or so with some finals scenes in court, at the jail, and at home, none of which were particularly shocking. For nearly every single minute of the 3 1/2 hour movie, it was predictable.

Now the book itself is a downer, of course, meaning the content is depressing. It's a telling of the remarkable history of the Osage people in the early 20th century and how their land having huge oil reserves made them the most wealthy per capita in the country... and the most sought after in terms of schemes to get their land rights. I do think Scorsese did a good job in conveying their unique tale, expertly juxtaposing the Tulsa massacre with the events in this story.

Yet somehow, we have Leonardo DiCaprio's face on screen 85% of the time in a movie about Osage tragedy. That's wrong. I don't mean morally wrong or anything like that (though one could make that case). I mean narratively wrong. Instead of from the perspective of Molly Burkhardt, played perfectly by Lily Gladstone and who was the central person in David Grann's book, you see things from the husband's perspective, the guy using her and her family to get rich. Would The Sixth Sense have been as mind blowing if we knew from the jump that the little boy could see dead people?

You could also choose to see it from the point of view of the newly formed FBI and the former Texas Ranger who investigated the whole thing. There was a tiny bit of this in the movie, but only after we've been crushed with boredom. We need to have hope in a story, otherwise what's the point? And after we get maybe the most important scene at the end of the thing, where the movie could have rolled credits, we cut to an almost comedic radio show production of the rest of the facts of the story... which includes a surprising cameo... that takes us completely out of whatever emotional impact there was.

Acting was as good as ever, of course, and you can check the cast list for all those who deserve praise. Robert DeNiro, though, did again what only he can do: combine a grandfatherly and caring presence with an evil of pure greed and disregard for human life. It looked like he channeled some Trump in there, or at least how he views the former President.

All in all, I'm disappointed and I would definitely not recommend this movie to anyone. I still give it a 5 out of 10, which would be around average, based on the high production value, the acting, and actually some of the appropriately placed humor written in to break up the monotony of suffering. After this and The Irishman, though, Scorsese forfeited his credibility to criticize superhero films. An average MCU film, for instance, has more heart and meaning than what I saw in the theater yesterday.

Based on a 1925 book by Franz Kafka (which I haven't read), "The Trial" is a 1962 film written and directed by Orson Welles and starring Anthony Perkins. It's easily one of the most, if not THE most bizarre, movies I've sat through, and I'm still not quite sure how to feel about it.

I was lucky enough to be heading home from work when I found out that the movie was about to start playing at the Alamo Drafthouse off South Lamar in 10 minutes, so I reserved a ticket while on the bus, got off at the Lamar Square Station, and made it in right on time to the theater to order some food and start the flick. I'd actually never heard of this film before I checked what was playing today on my Drafthouse app, but I was attracted to both Perkins and Welles, and the fact that I don't often get to see old movies on the big screen.

Once it started, though, there was a feeling of "What have I gotten myself into?" The movie looks and sounds serious, but it's absurd. The main character is accused of a crime and eventually goes in to be interrogated and have his day in some weird court, but he (and we) never learn what the charges are or what crime he is accused of. In fact, the facts don't seem to be the point at all; instead the story focused on the fallacies of the legal system, or possibly even on the philosophies of law itself.

I'm not quite sure what the role of the women were in he story, though, because there were at least three of them (four if you include his 16 year old cousin... awkward, I know) who were trying to seduce the main character, all for apparently different reasons. Even a couple of the men got particularly close to him, and I'm not even bringing up the creepy Welles lawyer character who stayed in bed all day while his assistant took care... and cuddled... with him.

The unsettled nature of the whole thing got to be a little too much for me towards the last third of the movie, but I have to give this an above average rating because the sets, staging, and shots were magnificent, and Perkins' acting was pitch perfect for the nightmarish setting. And there were some interesting scenes that had amazing one-shot camera work, as well as some humorous writing here and there that was a relief to me, almost as a signal to the audience that they knew things were getting too uncomfortable and we needed a laugh.

I know the critics seemed to have really enjoyed this movie, some saying it was Welles' best, but I'm not there yet. Maybe, after some time, I'll try watching it again and see if anything changes for me. At least I'll get to see Romy Schneider's beautiful face again.

These sorts of movies are particularly frustrating for me. Much like when I checked out of Flash during the "baby shower" scene, I checked out of Blue Beetle when the protagonist's family sings a theme song from a novella in the midst of a life-and-death situation.

You throw away story momentum and character intrigue for a cheap joke, and suddenly the cinematic experience is reduced to waiting for the next "yuk yuk" of a muppet show. This could have been the perfect sling-shot of a film to move the DCU into the rebooted universe. Instead, it's yet another example of how the superhero genre is weakening by the month.

I don't blame the casting, though. Xolo Maridueña is solid as the lead, Jaime Reyes. Bruna Marquezine, who I'll admit may just have helped me confirm what my "type" is in a woman with her sheer beauty and presence, did plenty of heavy lifting fot the emotional center of the film as Jenny Kord, niece of the villain of the movie (played expertly by Susan Sarandon). And yes, George Lopez wasn't bad.

There's just too much silly family stuff to make me actually believe in the family aspect of the story; like someone trying so hard to be liked it makes it difficult to like them. I guess I blame the writing, primarily, but the director has also got to pick a theme. Is it like a Batman film directed by Joel Schumacher or Christopher Nolan, because you can't have both.

I do think this would be a decent family-friendly film. The special effects are top notch, the fights are believably choreographed, a few jokes actually hit, and there is not only an origin story but a redemptive arc, as well. So it's not an awful movie by any stretch. It just could have been much, much more.

Hard movie to watch. It's well made and the acting is the real reason anyone should check it out, but it's quite the downer. I'm usually fine with darker subject matter, but this was two hours of "damn, that's sad."

Bill Skarsgård is credited first, but it's really Tom Holland's movie. Robert Pattinson, Sebastian Stan, Jason Clarke, and Riley Keough all had prominent roles in the film, and they all succeeded in making you hate humanity just a little more than you already do. Holland's character is what we think we would be doing if we were caught in the middle of all that.

I gotta give it to Skarsgård, though, because he acted his ass off and made us feel all kinds of not-so-good things whenever he was on screen. For Holland, who also was excellent, I think it was a definite choice to take on a role so counter to his Peter Parker stuff.

Antonio Campos, who I've never heard of, directed the film. Again, just because I didn't really enjoy it all that much doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie. He apparently likes the intense assignments, having directed episodes from The Sinner and The Punisher, as well as supposedly in talks to direct a prequel of The Omen.

Okay, so THIS is now my second favorite Mission Impossible movie. And maybe my #1 (but MI3 is so good). Anyway, just read my last review, on MI5, and crank up things a notch for MI6. It had more of everything, yet still managed to not feel saturated. Christopher McQuarrie deserves a big chunk of the credit, having directed the last couple of entries in the franchise.

Mumble Man is back again as a villain, but maybe they tweaked the sound a bit because I could hear him a little better. Henry Cavill is an exciting addition, Angela Bassett brings more gravitas to the cast, and Alec Baldwin returns to be the legitimizing force for the IMF team.

It's the most action-packed MI movie yet, which I know is saying a lot. You still get your tough choice moments, your switcheroos, your team banter, and a touch of love. I also enjoyed Tom Cruise bringing a little more humor and vulnerability to the Ethan Hunt character than in previous installments.

I'm glad Cavill didn't shave the stache for Justice League, by the way. It works, particularly for this character.

My second favorite Mission Impossible movie so far. Really has a little of everything one would enjoy from the franchise. It's great seeing Alex Baldwin bring a bit of Tom Clancy style realism to the fantastical world of the action blockbuster, and Rebecca Ferguson is excellent as the mystery agent, also bringing in her own version of authenticity... both in her acting and with her athleticism.

With the IMF on the ropes, the CIA is after Ethan Hunt, looking to bring in the loose cannon who is now viewed as a conspiracy theorist. [Oh, and I finally got to see that holding-onto-a-plane stunt Tom Cruise is famous for.] Simon Pegg, playing Hunt's loyal guy-in-the-chair Benji Dunn, finally gets to do some action scenes with Cruise, and the regular members of the IMF team all do their part to help Ethan out. By the way, I still haven't seen anything Jeremy Renner has done where he hasn't been fantastic.

The villain had the potential of being one of the better ones in the series, but he mumbled too much, and when push comes to shove he didn't impress me very much. The plot was solid, though, and I appreciate the bookends the movie provides, with a couple of callbacks at the end to some stuff in the opening scenes.

Not a great documentary, but good enough to make you feel something.

I appreciated the history of USA Men's Basketball provided in the first half of the movie, though. It was fairly thorough in covering major events like the 1972 controversy, the 1988 loss that prompted the introduction of pros with the 1992 Dream Team, the 2004 team that had multiple losses, and even a couple of FIBA World Championships. I think they should have covered the 2000 team because that was when everyone knew the world had caught up to the United States in basketball (and so they would show that Vince Carter dunk).

Overall, I'm just not a big fan of the players on the 2008 gold medal team. From Melo to Bron to Wade to CP3, it feels like a lot or entitlement in one locker room. My favorite parts were pretty much anything Kobe was in. I can't say I was a Kobe fan during the majority of his career either, but no one could ever claim Bryant felt entitled to anything. He worked for everything he got, and his example taught the other guys how to be better prepared, more committed and disciplined, and more engaged in the game.

I still think Argentina would have come back to beat Team USA if Ginobili hadn't gotten injured, but aside from that, it did feel good to have Coach K and the revamped USA basketball program comeback an dominate the sport again. I'm watching some of the highlights from the current FIBA tournament and the young guys look good. The point of the film is that the changes made 15 years ago got us here, and they may be right.

Generally, it's difficult for a sequel to approximate the magic of the original hit, but Rian Johnson succeeds in doing just that with Glass Onion. The cast is where it's at, with Daniel Craig reprising his role as Benoit Blanc, Edward Norton playing the host of a weekend-long special event at his personal island, and Jenelle Monáe present as a sort of wildcard.

Since it is a mystery, that's all you'll get from me. Fun flick, and we get to hear a British actor captivate us with a ridiculous Southern drawl the whole time. Oh, and the set designers probably had a good time, too. You can never have too much glass, right?

In one of Christopher Nolan's best works to date, Oppenheimer provides us with a real life "Kobayashi Maru." And while the director pulled out all the stops to pull us into the heart and mind of the "Father of the Atomic Bomb," it's the ensemble of actors performing at their highest level that drives the movie home into our hearts and minds.

Feeling like three movies rolled into one, it can get heavy. While it's not all doom and gloom, the tension is there throughout the entire three hours, so the audience member may feel a bit worn out at the end. Before and after the famed Trinity Test in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the story revolves around the controversial leader of the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer. I say controversial because of his mix of political activism, personal indiscretions, and the quiet arrogance of a genius who, despite the availability of icons like Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, really has no one to turn to for advice on how to end the war without ending humanity as we know it.

The jealousy of other people take their toll on him, particularly after the Japanese surrender and he is deemed a hero to many around the world, but he allows the punishment to go one. Is it penance for being the "Destroyer of Worlds?" We may never truly know, but what appears clear is how haunted he was by what can be considered his greatest achievement.

Nolan mixes a variety of techniques to convey the characters' motivations, convictions, or just basic feelings of vulnerability and despair. Cillian Murphy can finally take his place among the A-List of Hollywood leading men, while Robert Downey Jr gave perhaps his best performance (no, I'm not exaggerating) as a character actor, the Salieri to Murphy's Mozart.

In an embarrassment of riches, Nolan had a slew of the best actors around in this project, to the point where a couple of Oscar winners just had cameos. On top of that, Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt gave their usual shine to raise the bar even further, showing that Oppi had more than one no-win scenario to contend with.

I will definitely see it again in the theater. There is a lot to chew on in this movie, so I'll enjoy picking up on things the second time. While I wasn't a fan of Dunkirk or Tenet, and I was about to hop out of the Christopher Nolan fan bus, Oppenheimer brought me right back on board.

I give it a 6 out of 10. Let me get the crud out of the way first so I can finish with the good stuff (spoiler free, don't worry).

It feels like an imitation of an Indiana Jones movie rather than an Indiana Jones movie. As if someone was told what the character and films were about, described some of their favorite scenes from the earlier versions, and then had ChatGPT come up with a movie. What was created was an approximation. So you get similar, but not the same, stunts and jokes and treasures and chases and blending-in-to-hide moves and lucky-to-be-alive moments. They're just not as good, and certainly not as original.

Some of the CGI isn't good enough, de-aging technology had mixed results, and, to me, the chase scenes through towns are kind of cringe. Through it all you're thinking "There's no way a man in his 70s is doing all of that." They throw in a couple of appearances from familiar characters, just so you can point at the screen and yell "I know that person! They're from the other thing!"

I suppose it's the execution that bothered me the most, then. This is a little surprising because I consider James Mangold a good director with an excellent track record when it comes to executing compex film ideas (or even simple ones). This is where I'll transition to what I liked about the Dial of Destiny.

Story is super solid, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones (no matter what age or movie), some of the character interactions appear genuine and moving, Mads Mikkelsen has never been anything short of magnificent in any of his roles, Phoebe Waller-Bridge is really good when the script let's her be, and that ending is one of the best endings I've seen in an Indy film. This may be a movie with a high level of rewatchability built in, so my change my mind in the future.

Though a little too wacky for my taste, there is lots of comedy, action, and adventure. Having Ford reprise the title role one last time gives it a sense of believability, even when things pop off in a ridiculous way. Once again, that last part of the movie is made real for us because of how Indiana Jones reacts to it. And his interactions with his family/friends make it touching in just the right amount.

Personally, I love the history aspect of these movies. In this one they get into topics like Syracuse and Archimedes from Ancient times, the 1969 moon landing and what American culture was like then, and, as per the usual, what those Nazis were up to during WW2. The clues and hunting and passageways with mystery around the corner, that's classic Indiana Jones and that's definitely here.

I will say the trailer is misleading. Jones hasn't been looking for the Dial for all of his life. They make that abundantly clear in the beginning of the movie. He is looking for something else, maybe something he can't have... or maybe he can.

I was fortunate enough to be invited over by my next-door neighbor this evening for a dinner of Vietnamese food and to see some "Arrested Development". I think it was a discussion about Jeffrey Tambor that "The Death of Stalin" came up, a movie that came out five ir six years ago that I've been wanting to see since it opened. Turns out it's one of her favorites and she had already bought it, so tonight was the night.

It was as great as I thought it would be. The dark humor, the choice to have all the actors use their real accents rather than a Russian one, the switch of tone towards the end of the movie, the treasure trove of memorable lines, just all of it was executed well. Steve Buscemi is one of my favorite actors, and he shines as bright as I've ever seen him in any role.

Tambor plays the "next in line" leader, Simon Russell Beale almost steals the show as the sinister head of security Beria, and Jason Issacs channeled his inner-Lex-Grossman to play the general of the Red Army. There are many more notable performances, and the director (who I think did some Veep episodes), let them all play.

It's Buscemi as Nikita Khrushtchev, though, that did the heavy lifting for me. He can operate is such an absurd environment, as he does in many of the movies he happens to be in, and still make you believe he is annoyed or relieved or upset or serious about something. I get that he is classified as a "character actor," but the man is a lead in my book.

If you don't see this movie soon, I'll put you on "the list."

Highly entertaining, a wild ride from beginning to end, all the cameos and jokes you can eat... but not a great movie. Andy Muschietti, who directed the "It" movies, did what he could to creatively move things along while also tethering the story to its emotional core, but ultimately "The Flash" is a very studio-driven movie. It's good, and I'll probably see it again, but right from the outset the tone is set for silly humor and pop culture references galore.

However, this weakness in the film, like not taking itself seriously, could also be a strength. It does feel more grounded to see Barry Allen struggle so much, despite having maybe the most impressive array of powers on the Justice League (outside of any Kryptonian, of course). He is a sympathetic hero, for sure, and Ezra Miller does the heavy lifting needed to have us believe it.

Although I know the trailers have revealed much of the plot and some of the characters, I don't want to mess it up for the reader going in unaware. So be prepared for a lot of "no way!" moments, and kind of a deluge of nostalgia, especially if you've been around for a few decades. A lot of stuff is paid off along the way, but particularly at the end.

Yes, Michael Keaton is in it, and yes, he is everything you'd hope he would be. Ben Affleck is probably at his peak Batman/Bruce Wayne in this film, Sophie Calle shines as Kara, and Miller plays a second role in the movie that allows for a hell of a lot of introspection within Barry Allen regarding what he should do versus what he can do.

The best scenes were the ones with Allen and his parents, and Ron Livingston and Maribel Verdú played them perfectly. This is where I feel the movie excelled: the death of his mother matters because we see her and him having that completely relatable mother-son relationship. In fact, it is such a healthy and natural love that would be so traumatic to lose, maybe if you were in Barry's position, you also would not think about the destruction you could bring about to the world if you had the power to time travel and bring your momma back.

So yes, The Flash does things I've always wanted to see in a major motion picture with the Scarlet Speedster as the headliner, and for sure it was fast-paced and funny and trippy and incredibly touching in certain parts, but it could have been better. Considering how long it took to make it and all that was going on outside the set, though, I am grateful we got something positive out of it.

Now if I could only get my hands on that Flash ring. And the Flash suit. And the Speed Force.

My favorite animated Disney movie of all time is "The Little Mermaid," so I had mixed feelings about a remake. Though I hadn't read or watched any reviews of the just-released version, I generally heard positive stuff about it through the grapevine. I still hesitated for a week or two because I just didn't want to taint a fond childhood memory of mine.

Today, I took the plunge (pardon the pun) and am relieved to report it was very good, very much worth the risk to fans of the older version, and a suitable introduction to this story for a younger crowd who may have never seen the animated one. It did much of what I wanted it to do, without it just copying scenes.

In fact, my quick phone-typed analysis goes like this: the 2023 version did a couple of things better than the 1989 version, did a couple of things worse, and did a couple of things different. Don't want to lead the reader in any direction on specifics in the movie because everyone can have their own unique experience with it, but I did have the feels more than a couple of times during the course of the movie... and I don't think that was purely from nostalgia.

Halle Bailey is perfect for the role, and I mean perfect. It's weird trying to compare a beautiful human face with a beautiful cartoon face, judging to see if she is anything like "my" Ariel, but then it's probably weirder to think a cartoon face is beautiful in the first place, much less one that I claim to be my girl. But seriously, she knocked it out of the park in every way.

Similar praise can be directed to all the principle actors: Javier Bardem as King Triton, Melissa McCarthy as Ursula, and whatever his name is as Prince Eric. McCarthy as the Sea Witch was better than I expected, though I don't know what I was expecting. And no disrespect toward the Eric actor, I'm just not familiar with him, but he portrayed the Prince as someone who a Princess could really fall in love with.

Overall, once I got used to the slightly off-putting effects of faces underwater, the movie captivated me much like the cartoon did when I was 11 years old.

I still like the animated one better, but this Little Mermaid should be proud of herself.

With a spontaneous idea to try and watch all of Wes Anderson's movies by the time his latest one comes out next week, I started with his first one, a short called "Bottle Rocket." It was black and white, 13 minutes, and hardly had any of the trademark stylization of what he has become famous for since. But hey, it was 1992, I think he and fellow writer Owen Wilson just decided to do this without worrying about quality, and maybe it was a project left over from their days at UT-Austin, I don't know.

The movie itself wasn't really to my liking. Almost pointless, but it was cool to see Wilson and his brother Luke do some acting before they both made a career out of it. It had a lot of that dialogue-heavy thing those early 90's movies had; Tarantino may be most famous for that kind of writing. There was a basic plot about a robbery, but the focus of the movie was on these two guys kind of being low-lifes with positive outlooks.

I wonder if the feature-length version of this introduces some of that famous Anderson style? We'll find out soon.

I couldn't agree more with an acquaintance's review of "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse," so I decided to simply post it on my Insta and Substack to save me some time. The screenshot image I used had their thoughts in it, which I can't post here, put the gist was this:

I didn't believe when I heard that the sequel was better than the original because that first one was not only one of the best animated movies ever, it was one of the best superhero movies of all time.

The sequel was better than the original.

I could easily add more, but I would just be gushing and maybe risk spoiling something.

So go see it. And take the family. Then go see it again.

31 years later, I finally watched "Glengarry Glen Ross" and it was almost exactly what I thought it would be: thrilling to behold an ensemble of heavy hitting actors while the movie in general was dialogue heavy and clunky in direction due to David Mamet's play being transferred from the stage to the screen. The plot, which connects the characters in almost an old whodunit style, really starts to move a third of the way into the film, and how it ends was still a surprise for me.

After the initial "coffee is for closers" meeting of the salesmen scene, where Alec Baldwin shines in one of the best cameos of all time, the thing drags for about 20 minutes. It's a lot of "we need the leads!" and "that's what I'm talking about!" strewn about. I know the purpose was to build the desperation up and set the table for how everything rolls from there, but it seemed a little overdone.

Once we get to a certain restaurant scene, when you realize a master is at work, the masterclass of thespiansim is in full swing and the story picks up.

In addition to Baldwin, we have Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, and Jack Lemmon, all legends, all acting their asses off. Even a non-legend in Jonathan Pryce (no offense) had an important role and played it well.

I'm not that familiar with the director, James Foley, though after looking him up and finding out he also directed "Fear," which I liked, and a dozen episodes of "House of Cards," which I loved, he seems adequate but not special (sorry James). But there were several moments... basically all the key moments... he got right. It seems he excels at knowing just when to flip the proverbial switch in a story.