Novocaine (2025).

Review #2360: Novocaine (2025).

Cast: 

Jack Quaid (Nathan Caine), Amber Midthunder (Sherry Margrave), Ray Nicholson (Simon Greenly), Jacob Batalon (Roscoe Dixon), Betty Gabriel (Mincy Langston), Matt Walsh (Coltraine Duffy), Conrad Kemp (Andre Clark), Evan Hengst (Ben Clark), Craig Jackson (Nigel), and Lou Beatty Jr (Earl) Directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen.

Review: 

"We always wanted this to feel like a throwback, and action movies back in the day used to take a little bit more time to meet the characters. They weren’t so scared of losing the audience’s attention back then.”

You may or may know that Congenital insensitivity to pain is a rare condition that select people suffer from. Shockingly, it apparently is important for people to feel pain in their upbringing, mostly in childhood, because people really do need to know if a burn injury is bad. Strangely enough, there is a place in Sweden (Vittangi) that has a cluster of people with the condition. This is the fifth film from the directing duo of Dan Berk and Robert Olsen, who made their debut in Body (2014) after having first met at NYU. The movie was written by Lars Jacobson, who had previously written Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017), and he also served as an executive producer on this film. It was Berk and Olsen who stood firm on having the film start out as long as it does (about 25 minutes) as a romantic comedy rather than the straightforward action that the script had. They also had Jack Quaid in their mind when making their own pass at the story because of his role on The Boys*. Perhaps not surprisingly, they have stated their intent in trying to grab the magic left by films such as Lethal Weapon (1987) and Die Hard (1988) when it came to being "really funny but grounded". 

Well, it has been a bit of while since I got to remind myself of Nobody (2021), which you might remember had an absurd level of violence for a thriller that had its own little twist upon those awakening to kicking ass. Here you get a movie that happens to set itself in the Christmas season (Santa suit robberies) in San Diego**. This film has its own particular twist to move onto the breach of the everyman type of movie, which may or may not work depending on one's level of patience for a movie (110 minutes) that cannot even end cleanly enough. But as an action movie that seems to take its cues from horror in for a particular effect, it works just enough for me to at least recommend it as a curiosity. It is the kind of movie you'll find one day in the pile of action movies when shopping (or, sigh, when looking at a streaming service) and believe, yea, that might work out for a drunken stumble someday.*** The brutality of the action sequences is at least satisfying because you have a lead who basically isn't meant to flinch at any point, and Quaid manages to fit the bill of everyman charm that has to roll on improvisation from the very get-go as one ripped out of the proverbial shell of a life. Quaid and Midthunder make a worthy enough pairing to at least set the trap that arises with making decisions because screw it, you just want to (this is mostly a way of saying that some decisions made by people can be a bit silly but never too stupid). For a film that wisely knows to not have much of a body count, Nicholson leads the group of adversaries with varying levels of effective menace that arises in wayward planning and temperament that is semi-effective. Batalon at least delivers a smidge of wisecracks to carry the movie along a tiny bit, as is the case with Batalon and Walsh. Honestly, I wonder if the movie could've leaned in even more as a comedy, since it barely seems to really need a "narrative pull " (out of the- you know) when one has decided to lean away from being a clear-cut action movie. As it stands, it is sometimes funny but not nearly as consistent as it might have been, particularly since, well, it stretches itself to actually finish to where it ends up. As a whole, the less one knows, the better when it comes to going with a semi-solid action movie that tries to roll in warmth and lands mostly in the sweet-spot for general entertainment. Feeling something for a hero that can't feel the pain is a worthwhile goal to accomplish in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I'm sure at least one of you know what The Boys is.

**I've never visited San Diego, but it is not Los Angeles, so fuck yeah, go Padres. I know the movie was shot in South Africa but hey, whatever.

***Movie Night does not endorse drinking, particularly since the shots I once took on November 7, 2022 tastes like lime. Besides, soda is cheaper.

Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Review #1243: Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jake Gyllenhaal (Quentin Beck / Mysterio), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Zendaya (MJ), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Angourie Rice (Betty Brant), Remy Hii (Brad Davis), Martin Starr (Mr. Harrington), J.B. Smoove (Mr. Dell), Jorge Lendeborg Jr (Jason Ionello), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), and Numan Acar (Dimitri) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming)

Review: 
In eleven years of Marvel comic book films, there has been a healthy stream of elevating heroes onto screen, familiar and not-so familiar that has certainly made its impact onto entertainment, for what its worth. I've enjoyed most of the twenty-three films just fine, although it certainly can prove tiring to go through yet another one of these kind of films this year, particularly after Avengers: Endgame. Being the film after such a big narrative event (for these films, anyway) is a tough task, with this feeling like an epilogue and a new beginning that justifies continuance without being a gasp for doing the same thing over and over again, having the same director and two of the co-writers of the last one (Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers) back in the saddle. I went into this with mild expectation, having been shaped by the good quality of the earlier film (alongside Sony's attempt at making a Spider-Man with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse last year, which ruled) and such. I found it to be an adequate sequel that keeps the boat steady with its narrative while having a few charming moments and fanning the flame of interest for further stories with Holland shining at the helm.

What better way to make a film with a bunch of sights in Europe that happens to be interrupted by a superhero movie, which can surely help shake up the familiar dynamics seen in these kind of movies (or more specifically, this century, which now has had eight Spider-Man films released) without being completely out of its element. Holland works to his level with reasoned charm, capable of getting a laugh but also capable at keeping interest with the web-slinging hero for zippy effects scenes (sorry, action scenes) and moments besides that. With worse hands, it can prove hard to make a villain worth following up for a comic sequel. I enjoyed the previous film's adversary just fine, so I wondered exactly how they would do with an illusionist con-man character like this. I must admit, the idea of someone trying to forge success in life with a bunch of tricks can make for an interesting motivation in the big picture. Gyllenhaal lives up well to such standards, balancing charisma under said facade with relative ease, and he makes for a fine theatric when its needs him to do so for its second half. Jackson gets a few moments to shine as well, mostly when interacting with exposition or getting a snappy remark on occasion that makes him nice to show up as this character again. Tomei and Favreau both do fine, even if their respective time to shine is spread out a bit thin. Zendaya does well once again, having capable charm and chemistry with Holland when the moment requires it. Batalon and the others do their part without hesitation or interrupting the film's flow for the most part.

It's a summer flick that has some well-done action and a fairly decent story to go alongside things that will work out for the moment needed with not too many bumps in the road. Honestly, the only thing that got me was the way it dumped its villainous plot into gear through a toast, of all things, although at least the climax makes up for it just fine. Its 129 minute run-time tops out just fine, and it will surely prove a charmer for entertainment while keeping the door open for more with these folks in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Review #966: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Michael Keaton (Adrian Toomes / Vulture), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Robert Downey Jr (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Zendaya (Michelle), Donald Glover (Aaron Davis), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Laura Harrier (Liz), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Bokeem Woodbine (Herman Schultz / Shocker #2), Kerry Condon (F.R.I.D.A.Y.), Garcelle Beauvais (Doris Toomes), and Jennifer Connelly (Karen), and Hemky Madera (Mr. Delmar) Directed by Jon Watts.

Review: 
It is astounding at the level that comic book movies have undergone in terms of scope and quality in the past decade, with this being the 16th film in Marvel's film universe (of which I've covered all but one), though Spider-Man has had numerous films within this century, with the first film (the only one I've watched - #611) being released in 2002, only 15 years ago. It also isn't Holland's first appearance in the role, seeing as he was in Captain America: Civil War (#796) just last year. Once again, it was time to go to the theater for a comic book film.

Baggage or not, I can say this movie is pretty good. There is a numerous amount of things that I liked from this movie, and it starts with Holland, who is instantly enjoyable to watch on screen; there is just something about him that clicks in each scene, whether as Parker or the titular hero, and I look forward to watch him in further films. Admittedly, I did wonder how the villain would be in this film, considering how they usually aren't as memorable in a good deal of these Marvel films. For me, Keaton does a fine job in trying to get around that problem, in part because his character is actually compelling to watch on screen, and I think it's because you actually get a sense of what he's doing and why he does it without it simply devolving into something one dimensional. Favreau and Downey are pretty good in their scenes, with the latter having a chemistry with Holland that works pretty well with the flow of the film. Tomei, despite not having too much screen-time, is fairly enjoyable and fits well with Holland. The rest of the cast is fairly watchable as well, contributing to the film for some laughs along with the story; as comic relief, Batalon admittedly could be hit or miss, but I found him to be relatively harmless (in terms of annoyance), and he felt useful enough to the film without seeming empty. There's just something relatable about the world that the movie builds that seems ripe for more adventures.

The film doesn't go too much into the origins of the character, but it doesn't feel necessary to have, mainly because the movie operates itself fairly coherently enough to get past that. The action scenes aren't particularly great (with the shaky cam definitely being hit or miss), but it doesn't look too muddy to hurt the experience; though the action isn't great for the climax, the build up and the acting for it is well enough to keep that from being a disappointment. There is a light but fitting atmosphere that goes for some laughs while not bogging itself down in being generic. What other film can have a scene where characters try to build the Lego Death Star? That's the fun thing about these Marvel films, they are diverse enough in their approaches and style that make these films irresistible to watch for me. It's easy for me to recommend it (if you already haven't seen it), but it's also easy to say that this is a fine installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.