What Movie Have You Seen Today?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Not the strongest MCU film, but not the weakest. I don’t think the film lived up to the hype with it being claimed the film was a horror film, but wasn’t really scary at all. The MCU is really missing a big bad behind the scenes. Clearly, Phase Four is about the multiverse, but it has really only scratched the surface of its potential. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch were great as always. Here’s hoping that Thor: Love and Thunder can get the MCU back on track.

2 Likes

Phase 1 only introduced its big bad in the post credits of its final film, so i suspect we’re a way off that yet.

3 Likes

Kevin Feige said we’ll hear about the big bad sometime this year. I’m putting my money on it being revealed in Black Panther 2 in November. I’m gonna guess it’s one of 3 options: Doctor Doom, Magneto, or Galactus.

3 Likes

I thought we already knew the big bad is Kang. He’s been established as a manipulator of multiple realities and we even saw him already in “Loki.”

He’s the main bad guy in the third Ant Man I gather, so I guess we’ll see how he ends up at the end of that.

Wandavision was the set up for Dr Strange 2 as it turns out…and was really important to the plot.

3 Likes

Yeah, time will tell. As cosmic-level, “call out everybody to respond” villains, though, Kang is one of the few on Thanos’ level. Doom is awesome (even if all his best stuff has been swiped by the now-more-famous Darth Vader) and Magneto has his charms, but neither is such a threat, IMHO, that the entire Marvel pantheon is required to defeat them. Galactus is certainly a major threat (and it would be great to see him as more than a goofy cloud), but he’s not really the “slowly unfolding master plot” type. He shows up, dines and dashes. The only way to play that would be with a series of movies where people say things like, “He’s comong…” and “He’s getting closer…”

I will however cede the value of any of those 3 candidates given that they could help fold the FF and the X-Men into the MCU proper.

They sold you on the relationship between Iron Man and Spider-Man being the crux of saving half the universe.

They didn’t have use of Spider-man until Amazing Spider-Man 2 tanked and couldn’t use their Iron Man until they backed up a truck of money to RDJ’s house. That was in “phase 3”

2 Likes

Yeah, the need to plan these things out 5-6 films in advance isn’t great, in practice. The truth is as much as I enjoy watching Marvel films, they’re like cotton candy: sweet but insubstantial. I’m lucky to remember what happened in the last one, let alone the 5th one back, so they could get me from zero-to-Boss Level with a lot less lead time.

3 Likes

image

2 Likes

That was the biggest problem with Spiderman: No Way Home. It relied so heavily on previous films (especially previous Spiderman films), that to fully understand it, you would need to rewatch like 20+ movies.

I remember Michael Douglas saying something like this when they were filming Ant-Man and the Wasp. He said he didn’t understand the script and was told that he needed to go see Captain America: Civil War. It’s honestly a miracle (for them) that the MCU has worked out so well for Marvel.

3 Likes

Magnificent editors.

Never underestimate the power of a good editor.

3 Likes

Problem Child (1990). I’m sorry to say that I enjoyed it. The saddest thing about it is the bad jokes and the bad career that got started: the movie director Dennis Dugan. Director of many Adam Sandler movies and the movie that killed Chris Farley’s soberness.

Titanic (1997)

Despite what I may think about James Cameron, this was and still is one of my 10 favorite movies of all time. A 3+ hour movie that feels anything but. Being a huge Titanic buff, I remember seeing it in the theater when I was 9 with my mom and uncle. Yes, the special effects may be a little dated and we know now, in 2022, that the sinking in the film is not representative of the actual sinking (it didn’t reach a 30 degree angle and the stern didn’t sit upright), it is still impressive and terrifying at the same time. I won’t the lie, the ending still gets me choked up all these years later. Only a few movies are able to do that: Titanic, Toy Story 3, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and No Time To Die.

3 Likes

Here is my only claim to fame in life - I was in the audience for the first screening of “Titanic.”

My hometown of Minneapolis in '97. The Mall of America*. Somebody came up to me and my girlfriend asking if we’d be interested in a free preview screening of “Great Expectations,” so we went.

As the movie starts the title “Titanic” comes up and nobody really reacts because I think everyone thought it was a trailer. But then it started to sink in that holy s**t they’re actually showing us the Titanic movie we’ve been hearing about.

If I remember that cut ran almost 4 hours and. It had a lot more Billy Zane being a villain in it. They gave us these surveys to fill out afterward. James Cameron was there but I didn’t know it at the time.

Fun story to tell but I’m still peeved it wasn’t Tomorrow Never Dies :wink:

*If you read accounts of this first screening (Cameron has talked about it before as the first time he knew the movie would work) they always say the Mall is where it took place but I can tell you it was actually shown at a theater called Centennial Lakes about 10mins away

3 Likes

I’ve made my love for Tomorrow Never Dies very well known around these parts. To this day, I could be wrong, but I believe it is still the only Bond film to not open at #1 at the box office because it opened the same day that Titanic opened in North America. As much as I want to see every Bond film outperform everything else, being second to Titanic of all films, is okay in my book.

Fun fact - Casino Royale also opened at #2 in the U.S., behind Happy Foot. However, it opened on less screens and actually had a higher average of revenue per theater than the latter.

6 Likes

KUNG FU PANDA 2 & KUNG FU PANDA 3 on blu ray

For my book on Buddhism and film, I have a chapter on the Kung Fu Panda Trilogy. Watching the two sequels this weekend, I was impressed by how well edited the films are. The action sequences are intelligible, and avoid the pitfall of quick-cut incoherence.

These viewings also revealed how the filmmakers were able to convey a Buddhist understanding of the world while still telling a hero-learns-their-powers story. Po has angst about being the Dragon Warrior, but it never rises to MCU levels of intensity. If I have a preference, it is for KFP2. Its narrative moves swiftly and surely, and its grace notes and nuances are readily accessible, but never push themselves on the uninterested viewer.

2 Likes

M. Night Shyamalan’s

M. Night Shyamalan has always been an interesting filmmaker. There’s always something that, when you’re watching his films, you can point to that just make you know that you’re watching one of his films. There’s often an awkwardness to them that at times can work in the film’s favor (see Signs) or to the film’s detriment (see The Village). Even after taking a few days to process my feelings on Old, it’s hard to say which Shyamalan shows up here.

Old can be boiled down to a simple premise. A group of people who are staying at a luxurious beach resort are taken to a secluded beach that is supposed to be one of the most beautiful, yet unknown, stretches of beach in the world, that only a select few are given the privilege of seeing. That’s where we find our main characters, the Cappa family, and a handful of other characters once the film’s events really kick off in earnest.

What we find out fairly quickly upon their arrival on the beach is that time works very differently there than anywhere else in the world. The people on the beach begin to age very quickly. This is most notably seen in the children, who age so quickly throughout the proceedings that various actors are brought in to play them at their various stages. It must be said that kudos should be given to the casting director on this film, as each of the actors who portray the children in this film look sufficiently enough like each other that it’s a seamless transition between one to the other in terms of their portrayal as a certain character.

Where Old has a rather intriguing premise, it often fails in its execution. Given the nature of the premise, it’s not a spoiler to say that characters die over the course of the film. When they do, however, it happens at times that feel as though they only happen to help keep the plot moving along. The film also features all of the awkwardness that one expects from a Shyamalan film that isn’t firing on all cylinders, with camera movements that, while you can see what he’s trying to achieve, fall just short of the mark.

The dialogue is perhaps the biggest offender in the film. Boy is it clunky. There are some good actors in the film, most notably Gael Garcia Bernal, and they do their best to try to navigate the dialogue, but it so often comes across as being horribly awkward. Often times this derails moments that should be more tense than they end up being in the film, which is a shame.

The film also falls prey to Shyamalan’s need to have some kind of a moment at the end of the film. I’m not going to spoil what that is, but honestly, you can see it coming from several miles away.

Ultimately, Old is an OK movie. In the hands of a better director, or in the hands of pre-The Village Shyamalan, it could have been something special. There’s a great movie that can be made from the premise and I certainly wouldn’t mind somewhere down the road seeing another filmmaker take a crack at it.

2 Likes

I have avoided this one so far.

I loved Shyamalan at first. But I increasingly felt the need to defend his movies until I couldn’t anymore.

Yes, his budgets have shrunken, so many aspects of his previous work could not be kept. But this only highlighted his basic method of having one intriguing premise stretched out for too long, with the ending ultimately unsatisfying. He would have been much better as a writer for Rod Serling.

1 Like

Star Trek The Motion Picture restored 4k
Finally the boys and I saw it! Big screen - mesmerising, even the toning if the colour grading somehow made the uniforms more palatable. It packs a lot of philosophical debate into its runtime. Absolutely loved it

4 Likes

The history of Hollywood is littered with sequels. Most are vastly inferior to their predecessors, mere attempts to cash in on an idea that didn’t need expanding upon in the first place. Then you have sequels that improve upon and expand the original idea, films like The Godfather: Part II and The Empire Strikes Back. These types of films are less common, but they’re out there. Then there’s Top Gun: Maverick, a film that is so vastly superior to its predecessor that one can’t help now but look back at the original Top Gun as being simply the primer for Maverick.

I’ve never made any secret of my adoration for Tom Cruise’s filmmaking. As truly our last great movie star, Cruise has elevated the art of moviemaking to a level once though to be unattainable, trading in the safer, more conventional computer generated imagery for real death-defying stunts that at times literally take the audience’s breath away. Whatever you think of his exploits away from the movie screen, Cruise’s dedication to the cinematic artwork is unrivaled, and as a result, the product that he puts out is always of the highest quality. Top Gun: Maverick is the pinnacle of a career that continues to produce new heights on a fairly regular basis.

Top Gun: Maverick is everything that you could want in a follow-up. There is nostalgia for the original film, but rather then simply bathe in that nostalgia and call it a day, Cruise and director Joseph Kosinski use it to inform this new story, which finds Cruise’s Pete “Maverick” Mitchell essentially on the outs with the military. His latest mishap draws the ire of Ed Harris’ Rear Admiral Chester Cain, ultimately leading to his return to Top Gun to teach a group of pilots how to carry out a virtually impossible mission behind enemy lines.

The new recruits are a fun group and, while they each serve to fill the various cliches that one would expect to find from such a group of characters, the actors do a good job of rounding out these characters and getting you to care about them more than you might expect to from what is simply written on the page. Glenn Powell’s Hangman, Monica Barbaro’s Phoenix, and Miles Teller’s Rooster, who also provides much of the film’s emotional core opposite of Cruise, are absolute highlights here, bringing, in the case of Powell and Barbara, a sense of fun to the proceedings while Teller and Cruise really play up the tension between their two characters in a way that helps to connect this film to the original but also to drive the story forward in a way that doesn’t entirely rely on that nostalgia as well.

As fun as the characters are, however, what you’re really coming to Top Gun: Maverick for is the action. To say it is superb is to undersell it. Cruise and Kosinski deliver an experience here that is unrivaled. The action is intense and is among the most beautifully shot action that one will ever see in the cinema. A reliance on the use of real planes elevates this film to heights that other films that take the safe way out and use CGI could only ever dream of achieving.

I think it’s safe to say that Top Gun: Maverick will be an active participant in the upcoming awards season due to Lady Gaga’s instant classic “Hold My Hand”, but I would argue that it deserves much more than that. This is Best Picture material. While it’s not the arthouse fare or social commentary style film that usually dominate the nominations for the top prize at the Oscars, nominees for that top award should be films that elevate the cinematic art form. This is precisely what Top Gun: Maverick does. It elevates what we should expect out of a film of its kind. Cruise’s dedication to making it all look as easy, and as effortless, as possible is something that should be rewarded when the time comes for the nominations. The fact that Cruise is walking around without an Academy Award to his name is borderline criminal, and the level of expertise for the craft of moviemaking that is on display with this film should be, in some way, recognized by the Academy. Tom Cruise is our last great movie star, and Top Gun: Maverick is him planting his flag to claim that title, signaling to the rest of Hollywood that they need to up their game if they even want to merely compete with him. If you haven’t seen Top Gun: Maverick, see it now. This is what the cinema is all about.

6 Likes