Deadpool & Wolverine.

Review #2236: Deadpool & Wolverine.

Cast: 

Ryan Reynolds (Wade Wilson / Deadpool), Hugh Jackman (Logan / Wolverine), Emma Corrin (Cassandra Nova), Matthew Macfadyen (Mr. Paradox), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Morena Baccarin (Vanessa), Rob Delaney (Peter), with Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Jennifer Garner (Elektra), Wesley Snipes (Blade), and Channing Tatum (Gambit) Directed by Shawn Levy.

Review: 

I will admit that I liked what I saw of Deadpool (2016) and Deadpool 2 (2018), but there is probably something a bit strange to my inner self that I didn't write as much as I thought I did about why I thought they were good. I am then reminded that the character (as created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld that first showed in publication in 1990) being once described as looking like "Ryan Reynolds crossed with a Shar Pei" apparently sprung a desire for Reynolds to, well, want to involved in making a Deadpool film for years (we do not speak of X-Men Origins: Wolverine) before it actually became a thing (as credited by a certain leak of test footage). I generally forget about seeing films a second time around unless I really feel like it, but I imagine that the pace and energy of those two films worked more often than not to go with commitment from Reynolds that was worthwhile enough for most folks. Honestly though, I didn't really care about the idea of trying to pull the character for spinoffs because, well, keeping things simple really is sometimes better (of course I still can't really get used to the term "20th Century Studios", so there we are). But sure, I suppose six years between Deadpool films is a fair accomplishment, particularly since my interest in seeing comic book movies (particularly sequels) has become more of a coinflip than ever. With that in mind, it isn't too much of a surprise to see five credited writers with Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Zeb Wells, and Shawn Levy (Reese and Wernick wrote the last two films, incidentally) to see both the return of Deadpool and Wolverine (as last played by Hugh Jackman seven years ago that surely isn't referenced here).

It is easy to say the movie is fine. It is comfortably decent in a way that I somehow should have seen coming and yet here we are with a movie that will accomplish its goals of R-rated entertainment in the realm best equated to a checkbox. Okay, maybe that isn't completely fair or meant to be an insult, but there were times during the 128-minute runtime (surprise, that is the longest of the series) where I was wondering where the line was drawn in making the film when it came to the meaning of "restraint" for what is basically a road movie. It seems to aim for being the goofball kind of comic movie that maybe ends up more like the drunk uncle type of goofiness that works best in the actual dynamic between its two main actors more than the bits and pieces of formula, which could either be about its comedic tone or, well, in its action. Jackman practically steps right back into the gear he always managed to achieve without strain or hesitation in terms of a cool loner with physicality and the timing that was a clear favorite anytime he was on the screen in the days of future past. That manages to make for a dynamic with Reynolds that is pretty funny mostly because each actually seem to have a good time being around each other in the style of a road movie. Reynolds and his love of such a gloriously violent silly character is evident still even with such time spent masked, this is for sure. Corrin is slightly effective in the rote sense of adversary (think back to the last two Deadpool film villains and get back to me) without really sticking the landing by the time of the ending because of that usual MCU complaint that still seems true: it's hard to make a neat villain when you know an effects show (or silly cameo) is coming. I actually am a bit bummed at the little time spent with the actual Deadpool supporting cast, particularly when Macfadyen only just manages to distract one in a few neat moments of timing. Evidently, there were plans to do a "Gambit" film with Tatum as the title character that ended up never happening, so here he gets to do a bit with that character, complete with an accent that I'm sure Peter Sellars would've loved in absurdity. But even with that accent, well, Snipes takes the cake as (still) the one and only Blade when it comes to timing. I suppose there is something to say about Garner returning for a bit to an old role, but Keen does better in one little campfire scene than the entirety of Garner and that one particular joke used to clearly draw laughs (there is one other cameo that drags to the most obvious death scene, but whatever). 

It only just manages to hit the line of not overrunning its welcome (more times than not) in humor, but I sure as hell can understand where that schtick can really please or really drag, and this was one of those films where even liking a film means having a moment where you hold your hand in a twirling fashion and I think you get the picture. I'm sure there are folks that will enjoy that deluge of Deadpools in its diversionary and amusing tactics, but you know, I do wonder if someone got drunk when watching Spider-Verse and thought, "hey!". I find it peculiar to see this as a sort of tribute (well, the logo is found in the sand at one point but it plays "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)...which is a song old enough for me to remember hearing it in my elementary video-book nearly 20 years ago) to those days of 20th Century Fox-Marvel films, because like an old high school friend that you used to know, that stuff was already buried neatly without the need to bring it all up again (such as the yellow suit, which I don't really understand why people care that much when the "actor" is what matters, but whatever; however, I will not argue on saying the mask looks too goofy for that one scene it gets used). As a whole, I don't usually find myself trying to wrestle with assessing a film as average as this one, but there is a strange sense of trying to figure out where the line gets drawn between having one's patience tested and accepting the overall finish. I was fine with the movie in terms of where it finished for entertainment in the plundering world of familiar images and bits that come and go that one could be forgiven for thinking of as a pastiche or even a pastiche of a pastiche. The enjoyment of the film for me lies firmly in the middle, one that proves the importance of not pushing and rushing everything in fulfillment even when just making it in the margins.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: another theme month for August.

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.

The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

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.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Review #1095: Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Cast: 
Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Woody Harrelson (Tobias Beckett), Emilia Clarke (Qi'ra), Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian), Thandie Newton (Val), Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (L3-37), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Erin Kellyman (Enfys Nest), Jon Favreau (Rio Durant), and Linda Hunt (Lady Proxima) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, and #1085 - Willow)

Review: 
Note: Gee, seems like I am a bit late to the party - if there ever was one for Solo. Honestly, timing issues was the reason for the delay in doing this film (which was also the case with Upgrade). Hopefully you will enjoy this review in any case.

Admittedly, the world of Star Wars is vast with the amount of worlds and characters it can show over the course of the numerous movies that have been released since the original in 1977, and I suppose it only makes sense to make a prequel, since this franchise loves to do that trend every so often, particularly in recent times. The fact that this is the fourth Star Wars film in the past three years does tend to inspire the idea that perhaps the franchise is suffering a bit of fatigue with storytelling. The debacle involving the replacing of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller midway into production with Ron Howard taking over directorial duties and having reshoots doesn't help matters, either. I am reminded of its prequel cousin Rogue One (#888), which mostly utilized characters we had no recollection of prior to its release, and it made the most of what it wanted to tell with a tinge of seriousness and a fair story.

With this film, there is a share of old and new characters, and the appeal of the movie depends on how much appeal they bring to something that generally hits more than it misses, but it also will depend on how you see Ehrenreich in the main role. There is no understating how Harrison Ford managed to make this charming rogue of a character come to life through the four films he appeared in, and it may not be something you can just have someone take over and have a smooth transition. Needless to say, Ehrenreich is a bit shaky at times in this role, particularly around the first half (and any sort of close scene with Clarke), but I feel that he does tend to seem a bit more comfortable around halfway through, and he manages to handle the climax fairly well. Perhaps a better actor would've served the film better, but the best thing that can be said for him is that at least the writing for the character tends to compliment him enough to where it isn't a terrible experience to see it played out. Harrelson plays his mentor role with some relish that make the part seem alive at times, sticking out fine in his time on screen. Clarke is okay, but I feel that she is slightly underdone by the writing on her character, which isn't always consistent to make her seem interesting to follow at times, with the chemistry between her and Ehrenreich not being particularly too great (although I won't say it kills the film's spirit at least). In a film about one charming rogue, it is the appearance of another charming rogue that steals the show, as Glover captures the character originally played by Billy Dee Williams without any sort of doubt, capturing the cool nature of why he is compelling to follow with from his first appearance in the movie. He's fun to watch interact with the others, and I suppose I really did need a scene with a room dedicated to all of his capes that he wears. Newton is okay in her brief time on screen, with Bettany proving to be a fair adversary. Waller-Bridge is fine, although some of her bits can prove to test one's patience with a droid with moxie - for better or worse. The rest of the cast prove just fine to watch. The action sequences and effects are finely done, as one might expect, and the movie tends to move at a fair pace, without becoming bogged by cliches or too much predictability. The writing by Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (who had served as writer for films involving the character in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens) has a fair amount of focus to making sure that the characters do tend to have interactions with each other that prove fruitful and occasionally amusing, even if tends to tread familiar lines, although at least it doesn't plod too much through its 135 minute run-time. Is it an entirely necessary movie? I suppose it depends on if you really wanted (or needed) to see an adventure of a younger version of a character you (probably) liked. The film likely won't win any new converts into the Star Wars mythos, but it will prove to be satisfactory entertainment for people looking for a good adventure, and I think that is likely the best hope one can have when watching a film sometimes.

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.

The Break-Up.

Review #789: The Break-Up.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Gary Grobowski), Jennifer Aniston (Brooke Meyers), Joey Lauren Adams (Addie Jones), Cole Hauser (Lupus Grobowski), Jon Favreau (Johnny Ostrofski), Jason Bateman (Mark Riggleman), Judy Davis (Marilyn Dean), Justin Long (Christopher Hirons), John Michael Higgins (Richard Meyers), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Dennis Grobowski) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man)

Review
A movie I had to watch for a Speech class? That's one good opening sign. To be clear, I had to do an assignment that dealt with stuff that happened in the movie that relates (for the most part) to what we are currently learning, such as the escalation (and de-escalation) stages of a relationship, and to the movie's credit it does at least fits the bill for an assignment and is reasonably something that could used a tool for at least some sort of learning.

It's a shame the movie isn't enjoyable as well. Yes, the movie does have a break-up, in fact it happens quite early on in the movie, a little over 20 minutes into it. Which means the rest of the time is dedicated to their attempts at trying to make the other move out of the condo they live in. This is such a miserable movie to watch mainly because not only do you know they won't get back together, you really just want the movie to end. The movie might've been better (if not at least slightly more tolerable) if it had waited longer for the two to break-up. All we really see of them before the breakup is them meeting at Wrigley Field (in probably one of the more weirder meet-cutes in recent record) and...a bunch of photos of them together over the opening credits, before the set up to their breakup. The vagueness of their happy relationship means that we never really get to care about the fact they break up. Seeing them bicker (And trying to get back at each other) is more tedious than mean-spirited, and while Vaughn and Aniston are at least passable leads, they can't save a movie that makes them feel so under developed, with only the latter seeming remotely close to being likable, and the latter barely edging towards likability near the end. The supporting cast isn't much better, barely ranging an emotional response from me that wasn't just a dejected sigh, save for D'Onofrio, who manages to be one of the only really interesting (if not weird) characters in an otherwise boring flick. Ulimately, everything seems so forced, and consequently I couldn't find myself to care about anything that goes on during the movie. The ending in which the two meet up a few months (or whenever) later and exchange pleasantries and regrets (compounded with a smile) just feels forced and (mercifully) is the final scene in an otherwise dreary movie that is neither memorable nor interesting. It is sometimes funny, but not enough to carry a movie.

But hey, at least it isn't Four Christmases.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Four Christmases.

Review #772: Four Christmases.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Brad McVie), Reese Witherspoon (Kate), Robert Duvall (Howard McVie), Sissy Spacek (Paula McVie), Jon Voight (Creighton), Mary Steenburgen (Marilyn), Kristin Chenoweth (Courtney), Jon Favreau (Denver McVie), Tim McGraw (Dallas McVie), and Katy Mixon (Susan McVie) Directed by Seth Gordon.

Review
This movie is awful. If I wanted to, I could leave it that. But if I did, then someone might wonder why I only said it was awful and watch it for themselves (just go with the idea that people actually use these reviews as an influence). If you watch about 10-20 minutes of the movie, you will start to have a few questions:

1. Why do Vaughn and Witherspoon look really miscast as a couple?
2. Why can't they arrange the four families to meet at one place instead of having to go to all four in one day?
3. Why did I decide to watch this?
4. Are all romantic comedies like this?
5. Have you ever put a spending limit of $10 for each Christmas gift you gave someone?
6. Are there any likable characters in it?

The answers to the questions are as follows: Pass, Pass, Pass, Maybe, No and...Yes (Jon Voight, who is only in the movie for the last 20 (or so) minutes, and manages to be not only the least annoying character, but also the one who has the least screen time. Go figure.). None of the situations that are set up here are really that funny, feeling either standard or just downright odd. Tell me if this sounds like a goldmine of hilarity: Our main character getting tackled and wrestled with by his two other brothers, and this isn't just one time, no it happens (I think, I lost count) twice more. Of course the movie tries (read: tries) to phone in a happy ending, because I guess having the movie end with them not getting back together seemed not "cheery" enough for Christmas. This a movie that manages to be unlikable at times, but more often than not it's just boring. Why should I care about anything that goes on with these people? It fails as a comedy, it fails as a romance (chemistry clocks in at zero), it fails as a drama (read: last half hour), and its greatest failing is that it fails as a Christmas movie. This isn't a movie you watch to be cheerful around the holidays, this is a movie for people who honestly want to find any reason not to visit their relatives, because they very well may just be as crazy this year as the people in this laugh-forsaken movie. That, and apparently being married and having kids is the only way to be happy. I'd advise you to eat fruitcake before watching this over literally any Christmas movie. Except Deck the Halls. (Yes, I would watch Santa Clause Conquers the Martians again. Even Jingle All the Way). Stay away from this garbage.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Elf.

Review #677: Elf.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Buddy Hobbs), James Caan (Walter Hobbs), Zooey Deschanel (Jovie), Mary Steenburgen (Emily Hobbs), Daniel Tay (Michael Hobbs), Ed Asner (Santa Claus), Bob Newhart (Papa Elf), Faizon Love (Gimbel's manager), and Peter Dinklage (Miles Finch) Directed by Jon Favreau (#135 - Iron Man and #334 - Iron Man 2)

Review
I admit, this movie probably should've been covered earlier in our four year run. The fact that this is the anniversary day only magnifies minor missteps and also films I should've covered. But hey, now I can cross this one off my own little list (I'm sure your lists are much more reasonable than mine). I admit, Buddy could be an annoying character with the wrong actor. But Ferrell manages to give off a lot of energy and makes the movie a lot more fun, especially when around Caan, who is just an array of sunshine. If it was a cold star, anyway. The cast is charming, especially Newhart, who is fun to watch, even when weighted down by Ferrell...literally. The movie has some cheer and charm to it, and I think my favorite scene is when Buddy decorates Gimbel's at night. There is something funny about making snowflakes and a Lego Empire State Building (with a train!) all in one night. That, and Peter Dinklage attacking Buddy. I was surprised that Jon Favreau directed this film, but everybody has their duck in a chicken coop (Or something like that). The movie does a good deal of Christmas cheer to it while also being enjoyable. And because of this movie, I now know who (or what) a Zooey is, so I guess that's something. Very nice voice. The movie is quirky enough and manageable enough to be a classic, so I'd say to go watch it. And then get a big tree.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Daredevil.

Review #443: Daredevil.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Matt Murdock/Daredevil), Jennifer Garner (Elektra Natchios), Colin Farrell (Bullseye), Michael Clarke Duncan (Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin), Jon Favreau (Franklin Nelson), Joe Pantoliano (Ben Urich), and David Keith (Jack Murdock) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson.

Review
On November 2, 2006, Ben Affleck stated his disintrest in being Daredevil again, saying "by playing a superhero in Daredevil, I have inoculated myself from ever playing another superhero... Wearing a costume was a source of humiliation for me and something I wouldn't want to do again soon". Irony is a terrible thing isn't it? Yes, Ben Affleck will be Batman. Yes, I would've liked to hear about much better things, like a Wonder Woman movie, or when the Hulk will get a film that will actually get a sequel. But hey, at least Affleck has some experiance as a costumed hero, and it was a success, right?...Sort of. It was a financial hit when it first came out, and yet all that this inspired was an Elektra spinoff...and no sequels. It's a stand alone film, and an unfocused one at that. My first question for this film came when you first see Daredevil's costume. Maybe it's just me, or my complete non knowledge of the comics, but Daredevil's costume is hilarious. Maybe it's the shade of red, or how it looks at night, but it looks very funny. The film starts off...normally, and the action is okay, and than we get introduced to Elektra 30 or so minutes in. You'd think that the subplot between Elektra and Daredevil would be entertaining, but it's mild in its approach, and it makes you yearn to see the over the top Colin Farrell (Who I last saw being harassed by Kiefer Sutherland in Phone Booth), or wonder why Michael Clarke Duncan isn't seen in this film too much even though he is an entertaining villain. Affleck isn't too bad, and I admire his attempt to be like the character because he apparently read the comics as a kid. The film...just can't support itself. It's not a great or good comic book film, but it could be passable for some, and I give this more credit then other early 2000's comic book movies (Catwoman, Fantastic Four, or even Green Lantern) that weren't as good. I've heard that people like the Director's Cut more than the original version, but at this point I just want to keep this review under a millenium words long. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 3.

Review #396: Iron Man 3.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Iron Patriot), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Ben Kingsley (Trevor Slattery), Stephanie Szostak (Ellen Brandt), James Badge Dale (Eric Savin), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ty Simpkins (Harley), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), William Sadler (President Ellis) and Miguel Ferrer (Rodriguez) Directed by Shane Black.

Review
In Review #372, I reviewed 42, but this was never the original purpose. I went to the movie theater (big shock, I actually got out of the house), and because Iron Man 3 was sold out, so I picked 42 on the spot. 42 was a fine film, but it always bugged me that I missed Iron Man 3 on that day. 37 days later, I went to the movie theater to go see Iron Man 3, to complete the cycle of the Iron Man films I've reviewed (#135 - Iron Man, #334 - Iron Man 2) and to see if Shane Black could do a good job directing as he does writing (He screenwrote #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout) for a film like this. So was it worth the wait? Yeah, pretty much. Robert Downey, Jr does a great job once again, evolving the character more, but still keeping just like we like Stark. Paltrow works well with Downey, given the amount of screen time, which is alright. Cheadle does well, consistant as always. Guy Pearce (Who I never had heard of until this film) does a fine job, not too bad a villain. As these films evolve, the villains get harder to beat, a bit more detailed after a while, which works well. I liked Ty Simpkins, not a bad child actor overall. Kingsley is allright, even if I think he's a bit underused for the film. The action works well, and the level of spectacle is at an all time high. The story flows allright, not doing too bad. This film is slightly better than Iron Man 2, not better than the first film, but still a good way to continue this film series. I do wonder if there will be a fourth one though. But at least now my..movie journey is complete. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Replacements.

Review #370: The Replacements.

Cast
Keanu Reeves (Shane Falco), Gene Hackman (Jimmy McGinty), Brooke Langton (Annabelle Farrell), Jon Favreau (Daniel Bateman), Rhys Ifans (Nigel Gruff), Orlando Jones (Clifford Franklin), Brett Cullen (Eddie Martel), Faizon Love (Jamal Jackson), Michael Taliferro (Andre Jackson), Jack Warden (Edward O'Neil), and Ace Yonamine (Jumbo) Directed by Howard Deutch.

Review
This is at heart...an epitome of generic sports movie. This is a movie filled with sports cliche on top of more sports cliches. In fact, you could count the amount of cliches and play Cliche Bingo. What is Cliche Bingo? Think of the cliches that make up sports movies, such as:

The washed up player who is trying to redeem himself.
The grumpy coach.
The romance subplot between a player and cheerleader/person.
The crazy owner.

The big man.
The crazy guy who has a lot of power.
A speech about needing heart/determination/the guts to win.
Playing a strong team and being the underdogs yet somehow winning.

The antagonist who could also be one of their own.
The comic relief character.
Being down at halftime/near the end of the game.
Dramatically diving/slding/slapshooting/moving by a player.

I realize that's only 12 and you would need 12 more to make an actual bingo card, but let me tell you a secret: You can find the rest if you look hard enough. The acting is decent enough, though I do wonder what exactly motivated Hackman to do this movie. I know what you're thinking is the reason, which might be the reason for Welcome to Mooseport, but that's neither here or there. The football action is at least watchable, the movie's not horrible, it's just a typical sports movie that is sickeningly sweet to the point where by the end of it you just want to watch actual football, at least that isn't acted out. Most of the time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 2.

Review #334: Iron Man 2.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff), Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer), Mickey Rourke (Ivan Vanko), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Garry Shandling (Stern), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Jon Favreau (#135 - Iron Man)

Review
This is the tenth Marvel film reviewed here (X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers), the fifth in the Marvel film Universe that has been taking place the last few years. This is the sequel to Iron Man (Obviously), but does it hold up to its predecessor? In some ways, yes. Downey does a fine job once again, keeping that distinct, yet fun personality. Paltrow and Downey mesh well once again, and Cheadle (though not the same actor from the first film) works well into the film. And then there is the villain. Rourke is good, but I feel that the film doesn't focus on him enough. While the first film had a villain that gradually came to be only in the end, there was a feeling for that character. And yes there is another villain (sort of), but it's not exactly a feel of a villain. But oh well, the action is still entertaining and it doesn't really have other real big flaws. While it may not be as good as the first, it still is good enough to work out in the end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man.

Review #135: Iron Man.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Terrence Howard (James "Rhodey" Rhodes), Jeff Bridges (Obadiah Stane), Shaun Toub (Yinsen), Gwyneth Paltrow (Virgina "Pepper" Potts), Faran Tahir (Raza), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), Leslie Bibb (Christine Everhart), and Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson) Directed by Jon Favreau.

Review
Normally, I do not use some words to describe films here, because they don't feel right to use in that context. But I think this is an exception. In a word, this film is...Awesome. The acting is good, with Downey and Bridges doing the best jobs of this film. The action is good, with a story that changes from one act to another, along the style. The directing is good, with an alright climax that sets everything in motion, such as setting for the sequel, and setting up the arc that would lead to the Avengers, with two of which that already have been reviewed in Thor (#041) and Captain America: The First Avenger (#060).

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.