Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Review #2015: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 

Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Woman), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Luna Lauren Vélez (Rio Morales), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Jason Schwartzman (Dr. Jonathan Ohnn / The Spot), Issa Rae (Jessica Drew / Spider-Woman), Karan Soni (Pavitr Prabhakar / Spider-Man India), Daniel Kaluuya (Hobart "Hobie" Brown / Spider-Punk), Oscar Isaac (Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099), Shea Whigham (George Stacy), Greta Lee (Lyla), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis), Andy Samberg (Ben Reilly / Scarlet Spider), and Amandla Stenberg (Margo Kess / Spider-Byte) Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson.

Review: 

You know, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse grew on me. I mean, it was a pretty good movie when I first saw it in the winter of December 2018, but the fact that it became the type of movie I found myself wanting to watch it as some sort of annual tradition makes it especially apparent in how entertaining it was. It was an entertaining animated comic book movie that felt vibrant and different from not only animated adventures but also Spider-Man films in general. It did do references when it came to citing the various incarnations of the character (such as say, a cartoon parody with Spider-Ham or ones based in 1930s noir or anime) without losing what really mattered in the end: anyone can wear the mask. Undeniably, a sequel was going to happen. My surprise (aside from it winning the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, because hey, when do comic book movies win awards?) was that not only would it take five years for a sequel to come out but that there would also in fact be another Spider-Verse film after that (of course, don't take my word for it, since I also thought Halloween (2018) would be a one-off, and then they proceeded to make two ridiculously mediocre back-to-back sequels). The film was written by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham (Lord co-wrote the first film while also serving as co-producer on both Spider-Verse films with Miller), and it is the fact that they wrote such an expanding story that necessitated a third Spider-Verse film which will be called, wait for it, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse.

Irrational or not, a sequel has to overcome the thought that nags in my head all the time: how does the film go in the various aspects that matter beyond originality? One thing is for sure is that the film is about the same level of enjoyment as I hoped to have in a pretty good sequel, one that has to balance the double-edged sword of being a sequel and also basically being half of a two-parter. There are a handful of Spider-Verses visited here, each meant to look like a different artist drew them, which goes to show that one can make scope in a comic book film without clouding it in similar shades of CG. I think being just a notch below the sequel territory of films like The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is a compliment. It presents a new step in the arc of trying to maintain oneself after making the step from having a suit and actually being able to use it: just what does it mean to be a hero, especially when it means to be Spider-Man? Power this, responsibility that, but how does one handle a situation you may not be able to solve regardless of how prepared you are? The film is a visual treat in the manner you would expect from filmmakers and animators that clearly want you to pay attention to what is on screen and what strikes out from the various locations and also the various characters, particularly with Spider-Punk. The film has its share of humor to go along with the growing chemistry between the two leads as played by Moore and Steinfeld and the set-up to bring each of these Spider-folks together and how one exactly sees a cliffhanger coming in a film series that says that anything is seemingly possible. In that sense, it makes a suitable adventure for 140 minutes that shows the benefits of animation (which, you know, is just as much a form of film as live-action) that ironically shows up yet another earlier Spider-Man film made by a certain cinematic universe (which actually tried to do their own "multiverse" film) that liked to do their own "easter eggs". The action (when seen among the various locations) is vibrant and interesting to follow without seeming blurred in staging or in overwrought timing, which is par for the course for what you hope animated films (or films in general) would do. 

Moore (as the fourth theatrical Spider-Man, remember) has proven well in this title role, with his charm always managing to come through even when balancing the lingering doubts that still arise from, well, you know, and the doubts ahead. His scenes with his on-screen family in Velez and Henry feel just as interesting as ever in establishing the differences that matter between parent and child (particularly with Velez in a scene where she tries to understand just what is going on with her son as he tries to grow up and maybe tell her something important). Steinfeld proves just as worthy in her own type of wavering confidence, wrapped up in trying to make her own choice in what is most important in terms of saying vs. doing. Among the new folks is folks played by Rae and Soni (each are fine) with the stick out being the one with firm punk elements (no labels) in Kaluuya, who is actually pretty entertaining. Issac (now with a starring role after being shown briefly in the end-credit scene of the last film) makes for a quality balance among the spider-folk in the art of logistical force, which given the amount of screentime could certainly be thought of as just as adversarial as Schwartzman, who does hold his own in the sudden shifts from would-be villain relief to creepy threat. The confrontation sequence between Moore and a "Spider-Society" in what really matters when handling what seems like fait accompli is especially important to understanding the film at its heart, if you think about it. Of course, Johnson does return from the earlier film as well, having emerged from the cocoon of mentor-in-theory to parenthood, which does lend itself to a few amusing moments. As a whole, I think the first film is probably a bit better, maybe because it managed to endure quite well in my head over the years, but the second film will likely have its own worthy place in viewing without trouble. Of course, sticking the other part of the cliffhanger next year would certainly help, since nobody likes to be left hanging without a net. It is a vibrant and effective sequel that makes all the right moves in what you would expect from an animated film or a sequel in general that has plenty of spectacle and heart to make one curious for what could be next.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Nope.

Review #1865: Nope.

Cast: 

Daniel Kaluuya (OJ Haywood), Keke Palmer (Emerald Haywood), Steven Yeun (Ricky "Jupe" Park), Brandon Perea (Angel Torres), Michael Wincott (Antlers Holst), Wrenn Schmidt (Amber Park), Keith David (Otis Haywood Sr), and Donna Mills (Bonnie Clayton) Written, Directed, and Produced by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out and #1203 - Us)

Review: 

"I wrote it in a time when we were a little bit worried about the future of cinema. So the first thing I knew is I wanted to create a spectacle. I wanted to create something that the audience would have to come see."

Admittedly, Jordan Peele has made an argument for being the modern example of an auteur director, one with a distinct approach to his material that he has written, directed, and produced for three feature films in the span of five years, with each falling along the lines of horror (debatably, Nope is more of a genre-crosser than the other two, but more on that later). For the most part, these films have worked on their ambition to tell a story that would probably make Rod Serling give a compliment to (I say this knowing Peele was behind a reboot of Serling's The Twilight Zone, (2019-20) although I never saw it). For me, Get Out (2017) was the clear distinct captivator in staging and social critique (so in non-pretentious terms, a movie for the age that doesn't forget to be scary without forcing it). This time around, Peele aspired to make a movie involving spectacle that touches upon human nature in the art of alien encounter: trying to take an image of it in flight. Oh sure, there are other things that happen too involving strange clouds and animals running amuck, but the nature of spectacle isn't too far from one's attention. A good chunk of people seem to have a habit to take photos of something that looks interesting every day (for better or worse) that has come ever since the chronophotography days of the 18th century, as referred to in the opening with the showing of Eadweard Muybridge's The Horse in Motion (1878), which were a series of cabinet cards that (as mentioned in the film) feature a black jockey on a horse. There are a handful of inspirations that Peele has listed such as King Kong (1933), Jurassic Park (1993), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Signs (2002), and The Wizard of Oz (1939), although one could also make a case for seeing seeds of Jaws (1975) in there as well. This is more of a compliment than anything, not saying the movie is a shameless patische, since it does play with the expectations lended out by Peele to useful effect.

I think it works out decently for the goals laid out by Peele to do spectacle that generally rewards the viewer's patience for 131 minutes with a semi-solid outline and a decent ensemble to carry things around in the pursuit for whatever is out there for sensationalism without just being a movie making easy targets. Was it anything special? It is a good movie, but I believe it to be firmly in the middle between his previous works (probably a bit above Us for execution), and it says something worthwhile about the director when his first three films are each pretty good in unsettling its viewer with the foibles of modern times that makes a quality sci-fi horror movie with a look upon the age we live in the art of filming things where the line between being the viewer and being the one viewed can be blurred where one can be tested with filth and possible contempt. Truthfully though, I think I appreciated the movie best in the scope of images one can see and hear rather than the dialogue itself, which is fine. Kaluuya makes a quality lead performance in understatement, a strong-and-silent type who might've fit for a Western (such as say, Buck and the Preacher), which means he is the ideal straight-edge presence in the face of a chase. Palmer has a bit of charm in energy that makes for a quality sibling-pair in terms of the occasional bit in horror or humor. Strangely enough, Yuen makes more of an impression than Perea despite not being the key support of the ensemble, probably because his huckster attitude to what has happened around him, indicative of being a participant of spectacle in numerous ways. This isn't to say Perea is the weak link, it just means that his moments aren't exactly as captivating in spectacle relief, particularly when Wincott is the understated dry gem used sparingly as a look upon the filmmaker from a filmmaker (meta, if you want to say that). 

For me, the movie takes a while to really get going in staging attempts, and it can be said that your highlight scene is probably different from my highlight, which involves a chimpanzee that may or may not relate to the story. But maybe it relates to the bigger picture of what one might expect (or don't) for a film in spectacle, horror or not. The aerial sight depicted in the film is an interesting one, since it lurks around with only eyes on its target much like a viewer that has eyes only on what could pop up next on screen that has no time for dialogue (that, or the Medusa legend). Sometimes it isn't all about blood and guts, although you will find it worthwhile in unsettling nature with a scene spent trying to make a show out of UFO bait with horses being particularly well-done in timing. The climax is handled pretty well, in the general pursuit of how you would hope it goes in carefully planned staging that leaves a worthy final shot. As a whole, the patience required for what Peele wants to say about spectacle and the people who look to show it makes for a fine payoff, one that unsettles its viewer in ambition and a quality staging to make a solid movie that will reward some spectacle viewers better than others.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Black Panther.

Review #1050: Black Panther.

Cast: 
Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Michael B. Jordan (Erik Killmonger), Lupita Nyong'o (Nakia), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross), Daniel Kaluuya (W'Kabi), Letitia Wright (Shuri), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Sterling K. Brown (N'Jobu), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Forest Whitaker (Zuri), Andy Serkis (Ulysses Klaue), Florence Kasumba (Ayo), and John Kani (T'Chaka) Directed by Ryan Coogler (#760 - Creed)

Review: 
The Marvel Cinematic Universe films have had a scope and quality to them that make for a consistently entertaining series of movies, and it is hard to believe that it has been ten years since the release of the film that started it all, Iron Man (#135). While it can be argued that these comic book films do tend fall along traditional formulas, it is the tweaking of certain aspects that make for the successes that have occurred, whether with a tinge of humor or with a tinge of humanity to it. After all, this is the 18th film in the franchise, and while you could equate them to products in a line, at least they are fairly solid products. In the case of Black Panther, this is a good movie that pushes most of the right buttons to make for a solid winner. The best quote that can be said about the movie comes from itself: "Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved".

As mentioned in my review for Blade (1998), the film had originally been slated for development with Wesley Snipes in mind in the 1990s, although it languished in development for two decades, with Chadwick Boseman eventually being cast in the role in 2014. Black Panther (based off the comic book series of the same name that was originally created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby) had already been showed on the big screen prior to his own film, as he was introduced in Captain America: Civil War (#796) two years ago, and I remember he had made a fine impression on me. Obviously this film gives Boseman more time to show his character off, and he excels, managing to be an interesting hero with enough gravitas that manages to holds his own in a cast with a good deal of variety. Jordan does a great job, managing to show a good deal of charisma along with fury that makes for an interesting villain that stands out, particularly for a film universe that has not had the best of villain portrayals. Nyong'o and Gurira manage to provide capable performances that are fairly strong along with interesting to watch on screen, each having their own respective moments to shine. Freeman doesn't have much time on screen, but he does provide a satisfactory enough performance. Kaluuya doesn't have a lot to do with his character, but he does the best of what he can. Wright does a fine performance, having some clever charm along with characteristics reminding me of "Q" from the James Bond series while also having some amusing scenes with Boseman. Serkis manages to have a good scenery chewing time, for the time that he gets on screen anyway. The rest of the cast do a fine job in their respective roles and functions, such as Duke and his adversarial but crucial role or Whitaker and his mystical nature.

The themes of the film work to the film's advantage, presenting its arguments without being ham-handed in approach. There are other things deserving praise, such as Rachel Morrison and her cinematography and Ruth E. Carter's costume design, both working fairly well to complement the film, making for a worthy atmosphere to watch. The action sequences are fairly hit and miss; while I do appreciate some of the fight sequences, there are times when it feels a bit too standardized, with the climax serving as mild entertainment when not utilizing too much effects, and the resolution to the film is fairly satisfactory, with its 134 minute run-time being acceptable enough for me. I do appreciate that the movie doesn't try to tie itself to other films of the comic franchise too much (aside from a flashback or so), being a film that is interesting in just showing itself off without lingering too much on little details. Ultimately, this is a film that is a pretty good success, achieving its goals well without betraying its principles.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Get Out.

Review #909: Get Out.

Cast:
Daniel Kaluuya (Chris Washington), Allison Williams (Rose Armitage), Bradley Whitford (Dean Armitage), Catherine Keener (Missy Armitage), Erika Alexander (Detective Latoya), Caleb Landry Jones (Jeremy Armitage), Lil Rel Howery (Rod Williams), Keith Stanfield (Andre "Logan" Hayworth), Stephen Root (Jim Hudson), Lakeith Stanfield (Andre Hayworth / Logan King), Erika Alexander (Detective Latoya), Marcus Henderson (Walter / Roman Armitage), and Betty Gabriel (Georgina / Marianne Armitage) Directed by Jordan Peele.

Review:
Get Out is certainly a movie that interested me when I first saw the trailers for it a few months ago, in part because of how strange and alluring it looked, without reminding me too much of the tropes that plague horror films (overuse of fading to black, premises that inspire laughter over fear, etc). In any case, I wanted to see this on opening weekend because I figured that it was the best chance I would get to see it, and I guess seeing it with a crowd helps. At the end of the day, Get Out excels at how it is crafted by writer-director Jordan Peele, who makes a movie that is thrilling along with being funny.

It never comes off as boring, with every scene having a purpose while also being crafted in terms of the acting and pacing. Kaluuya and Williams have fine chemistry together, having some charming lines together along with being good at adapting to the tension the movie builds over time. The characters are introduced neatly, with every character having a purpose and no sense of irritating factor to them (okay, maybe Jones' character, but it makes sense). Whitford and Keener are also pretty good as well, giving off the right kind of vibes that don't border on ridiculousness nor unbelievability. Howery is fun to watch, having good timing along with being more than just a comic relief, with an edge of casualness along with competence. Root doesn't get much time on screen, but he certainly helps in making an already tense mood a little bit weirder. The movie presents itself and its themes well, with everything crisply lit and crisply set up. There isn't a time when the movie is being unintentionally hilarious when dealing with horror nor un-entertaining when having humorous lines. I don't want to spoil the plot away. especially a climax that is rich in delivering a great payoff along with irony. The ideas the movie presents have a degree of familiarity and inspiration, but inside this movie is a careful sense of precision, where the plot does not bend to any sort of cliche (such as dream sequence fake-outs). However, I can definitely say that while it may have a bit of a reliance on jump scares, it certainly has a good enough of chills and thought-provoking ideas to make for a really entertaining film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sicario.

Review #753: Sicario.

Cast
Emily Blunt (Kate Macer), Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie Wayne), Maximiliano Hernández (Silvio), Victor Garber (Dave Jennings), Jon Bernthal (Ted), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), and Raoul Trujillo (Rafael) Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

Review
Sicario (a term for hit man) is a tough movie to write words about. It's a good movie, I can say that much. But I can also say that it is not for everyone. The movie certainly had a mystique on me, given that it was the first R-rated film I saw in theaters. The movie had gone into full release in October, yet I was watching it in November, with not much of a crowd (six, including myself) but perhaps that made the movie a little more isolated and intriguing. The movie certainly deserves its R-rating, but it also deserves accolades as well. What we have here is a tense and brutally effective thriller that is both unrelenting and interesting to watch. The main three are brilliant in their own ways. Blunt is certainly a lead character we can identify with as an audience to follow with. As for del Toro, he always seems to lurk around but still manage to be interesting and entertaining to watch, especially as his story comes full circle. Brolin has a grimy charm to him that makes him enduring to watch as well. The movie isn't really about hunting down a villain as much it is about seeing the progression of our lead as she sees the methods Brolin and his team uses, especially with regards to del Toro. The movie works because the drama and action balance each other out really well, especially at the end with del Toro. It's a great movie to look at, especially the night vision scenes. Ultimately, this isn't a movie for the faint-hearted, but it is a good movie to watch for some entertainment that may make you think hours after you watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.