The Official Review Thread of 2022

[Sabin]

I wonder how Top Gun: Maverick is going to do over the weekend. Not just because it's a nostalgia item but because it's just so different from what young people are getting these days. I have to believe that it'll do some version of well because that's just what happens these days, but if the story broke that it underwhelmed I guess I wouldn't be surprised because its kind of story isn't as broadly in fashion these days. It's less of a military recruitment commercial than the first but that's where it gets its marching orders. There's something sort of interesting about Top Gun Maverick because it has a copy of a copy feel. I'm not much of a fan of the first Top Gun but there's something enjoyable about how clearly nobody was entirely aware of the movie they were making and there's something charming about that. Mark Harris is right that it was beloved by Gen X-ers who were raised on MTV and video games because it was essentially a movie with everything but the bells and whistles removed, like a sugar rush of a film.

Top Gun: Maverick has less spontaneity but a bit more story spine because it's basically an Old Guy Shows Young Guys the ropes, and it's hard not to find some enjoyment in that. What story there is is simple: Old Maverick gets called in by Commander Ice Man to train a young group of unruly hot shots for a dangerous mission to take out a military base. At first Maverick thinks he's going to fly it but, no, just teach, and he's in for a surprise because Goose's Son (Miles Teller) is one of the fliers and he blames Maverick for his father's death. It's a little bit thornier than that though. Along the way, he picks back up with an old flame played by Jennifer Connelly. And we get flying sequences. They are quite good. I assume there are two kinds of experiences you can have with Top Gun: Maverick. Experience #1 is in the greatest theater you can find. I mean, the best. If there is one movie to shell out cash for whatever new sound system and laser screen in your city to drive an extra few miles for, and you feel like seeing Top Gun: Maverick, then do it for Top Gun: Maverick. Experience #2 is watching it in inferior quality and liking it less. After experiencing the former, I feel like I need a back massage to relax. You really feel those flying sequences. They're really something. And I enjoyed it on that level. I'm also astonished to learn that it was 131 minutes because it does not feel it at all. Upon leaving the theater, I was going to praise it for being less bloated than most summer-going fare.

Worth noting: there is ZERO mention of the enemy nation they are doing this offensive operation. At the time of the movie's writing, North Korea is in the news. Today it's Russia.

[Okri]

I think I preferred The Witch to The Northman, but I hated The Lighthouse so it's definitely a step in the right direction. Overall fairly impressed. The backbone narrative is just very strong.

[dws1982]

Watched The Northman too and I have to conclude that Eggers' movies are just not for me. If they're for you, you'll like this one, and for what it's worth, I guess I had a better time with this than the other two. It's very skillfully made.

[anonymous1980]

THE NORTHMAN
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Ethan Hawke, Anya Taylor-Joy, Willem Dafoe, Gustav Lindh, Bjork.
Dir: Robert Eggers.

A king is murdered by his own brother and the young prince is exiled. He returns in order to exact his revenge. Writer-director Robert Eggers is back with an adaptation of an old Scandinavian legend (which was an inspiration for Shakespeare's Hamlet, just in case that storyline feels familiar). I have good news and bad news about this movie. The bad news: This is my least favorite Robert Eggers film so far. The good news: It's still a pretty darn good movie. Although it doesn't quite reach the artistic heights of The VVitch and The Lighthouse, this is cracking good film. It's violent and bloody and bombastic. It doesn't always work but the filmmaking is sublime. The performances are excellent especially Nicole Kidman. Not quite one of the best of the year but a fine piece of work.

Oscar Prospects: Strong contender for Costume, Makeup & Hairstyling, Sound and Score.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

THE UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF MASSIVE TALENT
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Pedro Pascal, Sharon Horgan, Tiffany Haddish, Neil Patrick Harris, Ike Barinholtz, Alessandra Mastronardi, Lily Sheen, Jacob Scipio, Paco Leon, Demi Moore.
Dir: Tom Gormican.

Nick Cage, a fictionalized version of Nicolas Cage, is a famous actor struggling with his career. He accepts an offer of a million dollars to appear in a rich guy's party and then finds out he may have kidnapped a daughter of a presidential candidate. This entire concept of Nicolas Cage playing off his persona and sending up his career is a clever meta gimmick but does it go beyond being just a clever gimmick and do they do something interesting and entertaining with it and not be self-satisfied with its own cleverness? The answer is yes! Though it's far from perfect, it is a pretty darn funny action-comedy with Nicolas Cage giving an appropriately crazy Nicolas Cage performance. But the film works because of the supporting cast, especially Pedro Pascal and Sharon Horgan who grounds the crazy meta concept of the film and makes it an engaging story. A solid comedy all-around.

Oscar Prospects: None. But I think Cage should get a Musical/Comedy Globe nomination for this.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Benedict Wong, Rachel McAdams, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Xochitl Gomez, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jett Klyne, Julian Hilliard.
Dir: Sam Raimi.

The second solo Doctor Strange adventure has him asking the help of Wanda Maximoff because trouble is brewing in the multiverse as a young teenage girl with the ability to travel in between universes is being pursued by someone who wants her powers. This is directed by Sam Raimi and I have to say, I wonder if screenwriter Michael Waldron was told "Raimi"-up his script when he signed on because the film is often very Raimi in its visuals, themes and horror elements. It made this film so much fun. It won't be every MCU fan's cuppa tea but I personally had a good time with it. The MCU should definitely let its directors have fun with their movies more often. Yes, I would also recommend at least perusing the WandaVision Wikipedia page to give you a better idea of what's happening. It may be mid-tier but it's still overall good entertainment (give Raimi the money to do whatever he wants, I say).

Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling and Original Score.

Grade: B+

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Way back 70 years ago, people started saying television would destroy the movies. The moguls thought it would happen because people wouldn't bother leaving their homes. Paddy Chayefsky thought it would happen because it would destroy people's brains.

But it was something more subtle, and took all these years to manifest. Television has now taken many of the grown-up writers and pushed them into long-form/series writing. And it's made movies, for a vast audience, into television, where you have to watch every episode to know what's going on. That it's now extended to needing to watch a literal TV show to fully understand a movie would have sounded absurd 10 years ago, but now it's just the next logical step.

They call it synergy.

[Mister Tee]

The first Doctor Strange was one of the better MCU films, a coming-of-age film laced with real melancholy, how saving the world doesn't mean saving one's self. I wouldn't dream to call it profound but I have no qualms about calling it affecting. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness registered to me as a disappointment for a character I quite enjoyed. It’s just…. not really a movie.

The biggest problem has to be called out first and foremost: if you haven't seen WandaVision, you're going to be lost. We're firmly in territory now where these films expect you to be very current. There's no effort to catch you up. That's pretty wild. The next biggest problem is that it has a lot of balls in the air but none of them involve telling an emotionally satisfying story for Doctor Strange. The groundwork is there at the start: the love of his life, Rachel McAdams, is marrying another man. The film plays lip service to themes of happiness and being present but it's all window dressing and not remotely integrating. It's such a shame because if the film didn't have to set up this new character, wrap this other character out, tease these other characters, and forward a new plot development for this next movie... um, I could have had a satisfying movie about the main character on the poster? What world do we live in now?

Sam Raimi deserves a bit of the blame for not paying off the emotions of his story. What he does very well is bring a boatload of passion -- as well as his singular flourishes -- to every scene. He clearly loves this material and he's a good fit. Moments and shots occasionally carry the emotion lacking in the story.

I'm mezzo-mezzo on it. If you're an MCU film (and you've seen WandaVision) certainly go see it. If you're not (and you haven't) don't bother.

EDIT: I recently did a rewatch of the MCU films Iron Man to Endgame and made a list. The remaining films were fresh in my mind so I left them at single watch. I’d probably rank ITMOTM somewhere around the mid-mark. If feels of a piece with the post-Endgame features. There’s a flat, bombarding quality to it, which is why I generally prefer Shang-Chi as well as the first half of Black Widow (and only the first half) of the lot.

Way back 70 years ago, people started saying television would destroy the movies. The moguls thought it would happen because people wouldn't bother leaving their homes. Paddy Chayefsky thought it would happen because it would destroy people's brains.

But it was something more subtle, and took all these years to manifest. Television has now taken many of the grown-up writers and pushed them into long-form/series writing. And it's made movies, for a vast audience, into television, where you have to watch every episode to know what's going on. That it's now extended to needing to watch a literal TV show to fully understand a movie would have sounded absurd 10 years ago, but now it's just the next logical step.

[Sabin]

The first Doctor Strange was one of the better MCU films, a coming-of-age film laced with real melancholy, how saving the world doesn't mean saving one's self. I wouldn't dream to call it profound but I have no qualms about calling it affecting. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness registered to me as a disappointment for a character I quite enjoyed. It’s just…. not really a movie.

The biggest problem has to be called out first and foremost: if you haven't seen WandaVision, you're going to be lost. We're firmly in territory now where these films expect you to be very current. There's no effort to catch you up. That's pretty wild. The next biggest problem is that it has a lot of balls in the air but none of them involve telling an emotionally satisfying story for Doctor Strange. The groundwork is there at the start: the love of his life, Rachel McAdams, is marrying another man. The film plays lip service to themes of happiness and being present but it's all window dressing and not remotely integrating. It's such a shame because if the film didn't have to set up this new character, wrap this other character out, tease these other characters, and forward a new plot development for this next movie... um, I could have had a satisfying movie about the main character on the poster? What world do we live in now?

Sam Raimi deserves a bit of the blame for not paying off the emotions of his story. What he does very well is bring a boatload of passion -- as well as his singular flourishes -- to every scene. He clearly loves this material and he's a good fit. Moments and shots occasionally carry the emotion lacking in the story. And it is a very playful film in the margins.

I'm eh on it. If you're an MCU film (and you've seen WandaVision) certainly go see it. If you're not (and you haven't) don't bother.

EDIT: I recently did a rewatch of the MCU films Iron Man to Endgame and made a list. The remaining films were fresh in my mind so I left them at single watch. I’d probably rank ITMOTM somewhere around the mid-mark. If feels of a piece with the post-Endgame features. There’s a flat, bombarding quality to it, which is why I generally prefer Shang-Chi as well as the first half of Black Widow (and only the first half) of the lot.

[Sabin]

I liked Owen Gleiberman's take on The Northman in that it's two movies in one. It's a commercial revenge film while the other is an un-commercial window to the Viking world. Robert Eggers only gives you glimpses of the latter (like in the opening minutes), and most of it plays like an odd marriage of the two. It never quite decides if it wants to play it straight or be an art prank, with purple dialogue, strange elements, and get off on its own viking-ness. Which... y'know... I don't really want anything else from a viking movie. It's a horrific era co-opted by metal heads for a reason. So, I more or less enjoyed it as escapism on a Sunday afternoon, except for one scene that I hated: this tracking one-shot that takes us through a raid and pillage of a village. The film adopts an amoral standpoint where we just sit back and watch as the innocents of a town is destroyed, and we're to take it in as an example of how this is some sort of godless world devoid of morality. But instead it just comes across as edgelord posturing.

[Sabin]

The Adam Project didn't work for me. My problem wasn't its theory of time travel, although its depiction of linear time travel is stupid. My problem is that it's the second Ryan Reynolds-Shawn Levy joint where it feels like they had a really fun first act situation worked out (guys realizes he's in a video game! guy travels back in time to meet his younger self!) and the subsequent movie that follows ends up busy because it must escalate. Really, someone could teach a class on story vs. situation off of these two films. Free Guy was a mostly pleasant affair, but The Adam Project never had me despite the fact that Kid Meets His Older Self is a pretty fool-proof notion. Some of this is due to the fact that I found Walker Scobell as young Ryan Reynolds to be a deeply annoying child actor. Hate to pick on a kid. But mostly, I don't get the sense that anyone involved with The Adam Project has any idea what they want to say about time travel or do with Ryan Reynolds' character past meet his younger self (the farting wound gag is inspired) and apologize to his mother for being a lout, so there's a flailing quality to it. I don't know what's worse: the generic action scenes or the endless therapy-like scenes of characters who we won't care about apologizing to each other.

This was apparently a hot script called "Our Name is Adam" by T.S. Nowlin (who got The Maze Runner off of it) in 2012 with Tom Cruise set to star in it. Languished in rewrite hell with two additional writers until Ryan Reynolds brought it to Netflix with a fourth writer on it. I'm very interested in knowing what this script started out as. Judging from Nowlin's subsequent output, I can't imagine it's that great but I'd hope there's more personality and ideas than this.

[anonymous1980]

THE BAD GUYS
Cast: Sam Rockwell, Marc Maron, Awkwafina, Craig Robinson, Anthony Ramos, Zazie Beetz, Richard Ayoade, Alex Borstein, Lilly Singh (voices).
Dir: Pierre Perifel.

Based on a series of children's graphic novels, this is an animated feature film about a group of "bad guys": a wolf, a snake, a tarantula, a shark and a piranha attempting to try and change to become "good guys". One of the delights of watching this film is that it is basically a crime/caper film in the vein of Quentin Tarantino and Steven Soderbergh....but for kids. There are some genuinely funny gags here involving that. No, it doesn't quite reach the levels of PIXAR but it's an overall very solid, very well-made with a style of animation I actually dig. It also features some excellent voice performances from the entire cast (especially Sam Rockwell and Marc Maron). It's solid family entertainment.

Oscar Prospects: Animated Feature and Original Song is possible.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

THE FALLOUT
Cast: Jenna Ortega, Maddie Ziegler, Niles Fitch, Will Ropp, Luma Pollack, Julie Bowen, John Ortiz, Shaleine Woodley.
Dir: Megan Park.

A high school girl survives a school shooting in her school. Her shared trauma with a school mate makes them form an unusual friendship as they cope with the, well, fallout of the incident. Jenna Ortega is having a breakout year. I have seen her in two horror films so far this year and in this case, she is acting in a different type of horror, one that happens in real life. And she gives a really good performance in this. She keeps the film from veering into made-for-cable lifetime melodramatic hysterics by giving a grounded, honest portrayal, even peppering her character with a sense of humor to keep it from being too miserable-ist. The film itself isn't perfect since some parts feel repetitive and stretched out but it does handle its potentially delicate subject matter with care and good taste. An overall solid drama.

Oscar Prospects: I believe this is eligible for Emmys instead of Oscars.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

X
Cast: Mia Goth, Jenna Ortega, Martin Henderson, Scott Mescudi, Brittany Snow, Owen Campbell, Stephen Ure.
Dir: Ti West.

It's 1979 and a group of filmmakers go to an isolated farmhouse to film a pornographic movie. But the elderly residents of the area may not be too pleased with that. This is the newest horror film from Ti West whose previous film that I saw, The House of the Devil and In a Valley of Violence, has all the hallmarks of an excellent filmmaker. He continues that trend here, even though I have to say, I'm not quite as big a fan of this particular one over the other two that I've seen. This film is a loving tribute to both the porno AND horror films of the era, stylishly combining them in this sexy and gory romp. The payoff is a tad disappointing though. But overall, I liked it. It's still a very well-acted, very well-crafted piece of work.

Oscar Prospects: Makeup is possible.

Grade: B.

[Okri]

Okri wrote
Yeah. I'm excited to see it, but the tenor of the positive response in certain segments of social media has me wary.

I would say just try to experience it as a wacky thing that you kind of can't believe got made. It's certainly an achievement.

Pretty much. I think I liked it more than you, but yeah - it's exhausting. I too enjoy Michelle Yeoh's awesomeness (I enjoyed the entire cast in general) and the general imagination of the whole thing works more often than it doesn't. On the other hand, it wears out its welcome.