First Impressions: Mortal Kombat II

It takes quite a bit to get me to go to the theater these days. Mortal Kombat II (2026)! SPOILERS I guess!

I dug the first one of these, the plot doesn't really exist but the standard for acting in these movies has been pushed down a long long time ago. It had a charming cast, cool effects, was well shot, and had some gnarly kills. What else could you possibly want?

Watching this one I had forgotten that the Tournament hadn't actually started yet and the first one was really just all about how the bad guys were cheating, trying to kill all Earthrealm's champions before it even began. I dig Mortal Kombat, it's probably my favorite fighting game, but I also do not know or care at all about the convoluted lore. So this made it an easy watch.

It was amazing how they introduced that new character in the last film as our protagonist and killed him off immediately here. I got vibes that he was disliked, I didn't feel strongly one way or another but it was surprising and depending on your disposition, cathartic to see his head smashed.

So let's go on to the main new dude, Johnny Cage. I love Karl Urban, but he is miscast here. Not only is his American accent a bit rough but he doesn:t have the natural joke flow reauired. Jean Claude Van Damme was really rhe best pick years ago. The best would really have been a fenuinely washed up action star like Hason Starham, or maybe a Josh Hartnett who is having a resurgence. 

MKII plays fast and loose where it should, delivers the kombat where it should, and brings back or kills characters on whims with decent success. It's got a macguffiny plot that doesn't quite hold up but it's all just to get these guys to fight. It largely conpletely abandons the sub-zero / scorpion plot from the first movie to focus on 

 Kitana and Cage, but I think this is a good thing.

There looks like a lot of money thrown up on the screen. I don't think it did all that well and who knows why anyone pumped a lot into this but I'm grateful. I would enjoy as many more of these as they want to make, always another big bad out there and operating a bit outside the confines of strict character growth or plot somehow only helps this franchise be who it really is.

First Impressions Double Shot! Deadpool & Wolverine / Joker Folie a Deux

We've maybe done a double impression before but this one is special. I'd like to compare these two flicks - Deadpool & Wolverine (2024), which I saw in theaters last July, and Joker 2 (2024), which I saw on MAX a few weeks ago. Both handle fan service in wildly different ways and SPOILER - one was good! You know I'm difficult so gonna say this from the jump, I liked Joker 2 a whole lot better!

Let's rewind. I saw D&W in theaters a year ago (hence this timely post) and I was pretty pumped up. It was a really fun movie, had a lot of great action, enthralling performances, and actually found something to say. I want to go into all that in a bit, but then two things made it fall apart. First, I was pumped when it dropped on Disney+ because I genuinely wanted to ride that ride again but I found it fell totally flat. I think it was really because perhaps more than any movie maybe ever, it was ridiculously reliant on outrageous cameos. Once you know Channing Tatum's Gambit is coming, his actual presence doesn't hold much weight or push the story forward.

There is still a lot I liked about it. Mostly there is an actual thematic resonance there, which is kind of the search for a theme. Deadpool is searching for a reason to matter, which is all kinds of meta when he is trying to find his way in the new Disney / Fox merger that now lets him interact with the Avengers. How can he fit in? Well, that's a really tough puzzle, and just like Adaptation (2002), they just decided to make the movie about that.

This all comes together really well with a not so subtle plot conclusion - the collision of matter and anti-matter. They use Wolverine as a stand-in, since his Logan (2017) was really one of the weightier superhero movies ever, rich with meaning, though, and artistry. Stuff the Deadpool movies generally lack, they're just fun rides (although I really did enjoy Deadpool 2 [2018], I think there's a lot going on there), but they wallow in irreverence, compared to Logan and Wolverine as a character. But it also contrasts with the MCU, which is built upon a lot of big stories that actually matter (okay, fine, they don't, but they do pretend to!).

It made me think of Nathan Fielder's Rehearsal that just wrapped up. Is it possible to create comedy that inspires change? Where is that line? Can you make something silly that is also imbued with enough thematic resonance to actually matter? That is really at the heart of Deadpool & Wolverine. Does it stick the landing? Well, not really, but that final scene is pretty cool. Matter and anti-matter joined together in a climactic sacrifice.

Staying on that point, there were a few things I liked - one, that they didn't show Hugh Jackman's ripped physique until that moment, which seemed like definitely a way to not force him to work out and be shirtless for most of the movie. Again, there's meaning in that joke, though! It works for the theme, giving something goofy the big payoff. I also noted that they kept the mask on him for that, I really wonder if he was CGI...

Also I really hated the mask, a lot of people loved it, I don't think it worked on screen and there was a reason why they kept it off him for 24 years. Whatever, it definitely makes CGI Wolverine a lot easier. But the claws punching the machine was pretty much perfect.

Of course, though, this whole plot makes no sense, like, why was Deadpool rescued by the TVA, only to kill him later as some part of some other plot? It doesn't hold up, none of the TVA stuff really makes sense, you have to squint a lot. The first watch tumbles through on the strength of jokes and excitement. It melts pretty hard on the second watch.

I'll give Hugh Jackman a ton of credit for crafting a pretty different Wolverine than the one in Logan, but still one of the better, richer portrayals. I would have preferred a stronger background for his melancholy, like something out of Old Man Logan where he was tricked into killing the X-Men by Mysterio, but maybe that was too dark? I also noted just how much he said "fuck" in this movie. It's crazy. They really went for it.

Let's get into the rest - I think the whole 'nsync "Bye Bye Bye" gag of cool, violent guy ironically doing stereotypical gay shit is played out beyond played out by now. I feel like Deadpool is ending anyway, which is fine. There's unfortunately not a ton of evolution to be had once you've made that meta commentary. You can't just keep making it, the point is already there. I also found the ending love letter to the Fox-era Marvel movies to be laughable. I literally just ranked these on an unrelated jag and they're all terrible. What are we pining for here? X2: X-Men United (2003)? I mean, that movie's great, but it's not like this nostalgic era. And again, I don't think Deadpool totally earned the right to be sentimental. Deadpool just gets weird when he gets serious.

Okay, so why am I throwing Joker 2 into all this? Well, I really found these to be absolute polar opposite movies. D&W is really built on fan service. You're giving Wolverine the costume and the mask, you have him fight Sabretooth, oooh look it's Pyro! oooh look it's Elektra! oooh look...Gambit... Blake Lively as Ladypool! Like, all this stuff, layer upon layer. Wolverine on the cross, Age of Apocalypse, it's as if it was Leo Pointing at the Screen the Movie. Again, first time around, it largely works out of audacity, and there is some nice throughlines tying it together.

Actually, sidebar, I found it extremely ironic that at some point the plot was just that of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023), where they completely remove a notably smaller grounded story and put it in a weird alternate world where they spend most of the run time. That's totally just what this movie did. Amazing what cameos can do you for you.

Joker 2 does none of this. Like, blatantly none of this. It's mind-blowing. I approached this with a certain disdain for the first Joker (2019). I really think Todd Philips can write and shoot a movie. The Hangover: Part II (2009) is an absolute gorgeous looking film that everyone ignores because it's The Hangover: Part II. Rich film stock, depth of field, high contrast, lights, shadows, a green yellow haze over the film that matches setting to theme and feeling that lifts when they reach their goal. It's really good. So I approached it with curious optimism, but found a disjointed film that wanted to be King of Comedy (1982) but couldn't be and whose plot beats didn't quite add up, and whose intent appeared ugly and was also taken out of context by pretty much everyone.

Joker 2 made me understand Joker, though. Because I finally got it - I don't think Todd Philips gave a rat's ass about making a Joker movie or a comedy movie. He wanted to make a weird introspective gritty 80s movie. But he couldn't, so he did it through DC and made a billion dollars. Then for some reason they let him do whatever he wanted, so he made an even more introspective film about choosing your identity, social pressures, and accidental inspiration, which happens constantly in this.

I am a firm believe that so many more people would have enjoyed this film if they didn't tie it to the Joker. Like, if it was just about a dude named Arthur Fleck, I think most people would be perfectly fine. But since it has to be an intellectual property, which is how these kinds of films are ever going to get made, people put their own expectations on to what should happen. However, I felt less like my expectations were being poured into this than I did for Deadpool & Wolverine! I literally just gave you a slight rewrite a few paragraphs ago. I was just along for this ride.

The first line in the Wikipedia entry under "Themes and Analysis" says "Critics noted that the film was a work of metafiction designed to intentionally antagonize audiences who were fans of the first film." I disagree, I think intentional antagonization is a strong word. I think that's a reaction you have when you are so put back that you must assume it's intentional. It made a lot of sense to me watching it. Joker only works as the Joker when he is remorseless for his crimes. Joker 2 makes him not the Joker by giving him some humanity. He's a beta male who is tempted with alpha male-ness but then realizes what kind of monster that's making him and then owns up to his mistakes and experiences real growth as a human being. It's an astounding high wire act to pull off. GaGa is there totally wanting him to be Joker and he just refuses because that is all she wants from him. It's stunning.

Could you read GaGa as an audience surrogate, or his fans as audience surrogates? Sure, I guess. But I don't think it's extremely telegraphed that way. It feels more part of the story and authentic then a cheap ploy like that, like it's just a gut reaction. And what would that motivation be? To prank a billion dollars worth of fans of the first film?

I will admit, it's hard to see why Philips went in this direction. It seems like a direction that no one really liked, except maybe GaGa and Joaquin Phoenix. And me. It does feel a bit like a really expensive prank, but if so, I don't know why Philips wouldn't have owned it (like Fleck!) and instead supposedly spent opening weekend on his isolated ranch with the phone unplugged. It's confounding. Like, it was so brave to make this movie the way he did, and then he kind of slunk away in shame.

I can't think of a better commentary on our current culture. Deadpool & Wolverine went for cheap (well, probably not so cheap) cameos, hauling out 90-year old Hugh Jackman, and made fan service the movie and made all the money in the world. I'm not going to totally knock it, but it seems to me like it will struggle to have staying power. Joker Folie A Deux could have done that. They could have gone for big hammers and hyenas, and Batman, and whatever else. Instead, they just bucked fan service at every turn and made Joker into an actual human being and was one of the biggest flops of all time. Yay.

At the end, it does appear as if Fleck inspires the actual, possible Heath Ledger-esque Joker and that's a fun out. But I could live without it. I just keep thinking about how good this thing looks. And why the hell anyone would ever sit through a 2 hr and 18 minute courtroom drama about maybe one of the biggest character misrepresentations since Taskmaster. Why didn't it piss me off, though? Maybe because the Joker is an awful character. I mean, literally, like an awful person, maybe one of the worst people in fiction (but American, dammit!), so if you're going to make him your protagonist, you need to do something interesting with him? Or make him sympathetic in some way? I think it might be as simple as it's just well-constructed, well-shot, and well-acted movie, and those three big things are going to win me over every time.

So, listen, you probably read all the non-sense and wrote off Joker 2, I suggest you go see it. It's the least fan service movie of all time, and I really think that's more in service of crafting a good narrative rather than purposeful antagonization, which is supposedly what we all want. If you're fed up with recycled garbage (Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom! Superman again! Jurassic World: Afterbirth!), maybe check this thing out, I thought it was cool, and bold, and if it truly was just a massive career ending Todd Philips studio prank, well, I'm down for that, too.

First Impressions: Sinners

 Hello there! It's been a while since I saw anything in the Theaters and I was happy to break that streak with Sinners (2025) which has gotten magnificent reviews and widespread acclaim. I didn't like it that much! I do think my criticisms are totally in line with any of the reviews that have been harsh on it, so I'll try to add to that fire. There were bits that were so rock solid in this as well, though. SPOILERS FOREVER, let's get into it!

The best summation is that this movie has an unreal first half that's grounded, interesting, well-produced, and frankly, amazing, and then a big turn into supernatural nonsense that goes completely off the rails. Let's talk about what works in the first half first and then how it all falls apart.

Longtime collaborator Michael B. Jordan rejoins Ryan Coogler in dual roles here. It's nice that this isn't really a gimmick, it's pretty motivated. Jordan plays both Stack and Smoke, twins from the Mississippi Delta region who went up to Chicago to be gangsters and then came back home to open a Juke Joint. Everything about the character set-ups are really great and the performances are fantastic. Michael B really nails playing two characters, who are separated by red and blue hats, but also in subtle personality differences and mannerisms. Stack is a bit kinder, more empathetic. Smoke is more ruthless. But they both support each other and it feels pretty real. They're also both nuanced characters. Smoke will shoot a thief in the street on principle but also has the more stable and loving relationship. Stack will argue that hardworking sharecroppers should get a break, but he's also going to insult them (Cornbread) until they buy in. It's all really great stuff.

Delroy Lindo has had a resurgence with this and Da 5 Bloods (2020) where he also shined. He's a little bit comic relief but he has an intensity to him as well. Sammie is the guitarist whose soul is on the line (although it never really feels like it, probably because Michael B. Jordan is just too charismatic to be a tempter), Wunmi Mosaku plays a weary exposition dumper but also shades of empathy. The two Asian shopkeepers really have a nuanced relationship that's developed rapidly and they end up being the most stable love story that's really sold. I loved them dancing to the blues, it's a jarring but fitting mix of multi-culturalism. And they actually have a pretty pivotal part to play.

Then there's the white folk. This gets into the second half but the acting and characters are all great. This is B movie material that is elevated because of the commitment to these roles. There's a lot of structural problems here, none that have to do with acting or characters, except the Head Vampire was the one dude whose motivation was muddy as hell, but we'll get into that.

The first half shows this step by step set up of the Juke Joint. The Twins go around town, doing their thing, recruiting everyone they need. It's all motivated, no one is random, nothing really out of place. It's shot with impeccable composition and high contrast. The endless cotton fields of Mississippi have never been seen on film like that. They center around black neighborhoods and gatherings and it feels like a really coherent world. You get bits and pieces of backstory, constantly caught in a middle of a conversation but it's clear enough that you can figure out each characters' relationship. It's equally brilliant and sadistic when Stack gets Slim to play their joint by offering him a cold beer. It speaks to his desperation, alcoholism, Stack's moral gaps, and Slim's background, that a cold beer would be so rare that he'd instantly throw away his regular Saturday night gig. Stuff like that is amazing.

The movie puts all its pieces in place and then gets them all in one room for a huge party. The Juke Joint is great but the first flaw rears its head in that the spacing is difficult to establish. It's hard to know where the entrance is, where those huge barn doors are, where the backrooms are, all of which play a really important part but it's all kind of random. I kept thinking about The Hateful Eight (2015), which plays in a similar enclosed wooden place but has such a crystal clear sense of geography.

I also find it insane that Coogler seems to have trouble lighting black faces at night. There was a scene where Stack is talking to Hailee Steinfeld and he's wearing a hat and you just can't see the work he's doing at all. The white girl is fine. He eventually takes off the hat and you see him better. I couldn't really believe that Coogler would drop the ball on something like that, but all the great contrast and lighting in the first half evaporated in the second half.

Before we start trashing this, let's talk about the obvious best scene, when Sammie starts playing unreal blues that connects to music and ancestors from the past and future. It's a really cool moment (and one that shows good spatial geography!) and you see African drummers, modern funk guitarists, DJs, and you get this really great sense of everything. It's a soulful scene, one that I think people mistake for the whole movie when they call it good.

Immediately after things go off the rails from here. Vampires stop by and start killing people. So, the idea of vampires invading a party and a group led by two gangster brothers holding out until morning is basically From Dusk Till Dawn (1995), except much less zany. Where the movie trips is that all that careful plotting and character set-up and foundation of arcs immediately starts getting rushed. We don't get a ton of pay off for Delroy Lindo, who cuts his wrists to tempt the vampires but he doesn't really take any of them out with him nor does he really buy any of the survivors more time. It's a huge waste. Other important, established characters die really quickly without getting a moment.

I did get FROM vibes, which was cool. They were pretty strict about the vampires being unable to enter houses and they did a good job trying to trick people to come in. But maybe most importantly, I do not understand how the vampires in this film operate at all.

What is their deal here. Wunmi talks about how their souls are caught between life and the only way to free them is through death. But that is wildly inconsistent. We know that when you're turned you start sharing a collective memory. But what does that mean? Is it good to be a vampire? Like, they seem instantly happy but also instantly evil? Or is it even evil to want to turn others? Do they want blood or do they want to increase their brood?

This is going to sound weird, but I started thinking about Neighbors 2 (2016), which I though really fell apart by making the opposing sorority way too sympathetic. They spent so much time justifying every motivation that you didn't know who to root for and then felt bad when the good guys won. Sinners does something similar, but skips the motivation part. Are we supposed to sympathize with the Irish vampire whose culture was also taken away? It's just a hard pill to swallow and reeks of neo-conservative "Irish were oppressed, too!" bullshit, which is true but the Irish are so ingrained in white American culture by now that it's just not a leg anyone can stand on.

The reason why this sticks is because it seemed like the Irish Vampire's big desire was to bite Sammie so that he could co-opt his music to connect with his ancestors. This is just thematically all over the place. Is it a metaphor for white people seeking to dominate black culture and call it their own? That's what it seems on the surface but it also feels like the vampire's desire to connect with his past comes from a place of genuine pain and longing, not pure evil white folk stuff. But also, wasn't that whole dance scene a metaphor?! He didn't actually bring back his ancestors, right?! It seems to confuse all this stuff and just blows apart all the good work they did.

My understanding would be that when you're bitten, you're just a part of the vampire collective. But they explicitly say that killing the head vampire won't bring everyone back. Once you're bit, that's it. Fine, so kill them all to give their souls peace. But they they don't do that! They blatantly refuse and after Stack is bit, Smoke really should have been the one to kill him, although there is zero catharsis there. Stack needed to have some kind of sin, something to atone for, some big issue. They touch on their father and his abusiveness, but Smoke killed him, seemingly without regrets. There's not really an emotional motivation in the film for Stack to become a vampire and then it does not make sense that Smoke would not be able to grow enough to let go of his brother to kill him.

But then the ending entrenches further in two big ways. First, it does seem to ease off the vampires as being the main villains by just having a bunch of white former Klansmen show up and becoming a revenge fantasy for like, two seconds. Again, I kept thinking about the incredible spatial composition of a super similar scene in Rebel Ridge (2024), which is set up with such careful tension. Here it's just time to kill white folks. Again, Tarantino-esque in justified fantasy, but it didn't seem to have anything to do with the story or Smoke's arc. It was just a reason for him to be badass.

The moral of the story seems to be don't trust the white man? Or worse, that all black-businesses are doomed to failure? Shut up and keep sharecropping? They all die because they were tempted by making a bit of money! Or maybe it's that white folk come in and ruin everything with their cultural assimilation. There are some questions there. Would we be better off with a homogeneous and harmonious cultural stew or should we appreciate black businesses and black culture for its own sake and honor those differences? I'm not sure this movie has an answer, and that's not totally a bad thing.

And then there's the mid-credits scene. Little Sammie grows up to be Buddy Guy and has a great blues career and then is visited in 1992 by Stack and Hailee Steinfeld for some reason. First, I found it insane that Steinfeld literally didn't have a line here and is more a trophy in a film that has honestly been pretty great for female characters. This was the big clincher - is it bad to be a vampire or not?! Like, they just never show the horror. Are they even killing people if they're just turning them? They seem to have their memories and personalities intact. So where is the regret? Where is the conflict after being turned? Where is the struggle? Wunmi says "That's not your brother anymore!" to Smoke. ... Is he? Is it all manipulation by the Head Irish Vampire? I kind of feel like it isn't. Maybe killing the head vampire freed them of his memories? I don't know.

All of this is just from packing in two decent ideas into one movie. I think if it was to go this deep into mysticism we needed some kind of foreshadowing of vampires, some kind of set up for emotional catharsis, and some kind of pay off for all the work they did in the first half. I think about the title, who were the Sinners and what was their sin? I don't think I need stuff spelled out but when there's so much conflicting motivation present it makes it really muddled. This movie makes me angry for how good it could have been. It's not like just watching a bad movie. It's like watching the Atlanta Falcons in the Super Bowl. You had it! And then blew it.

I will say again - the acting is amazing, the characters are so rich, the shots and progression in the first half are so good it makes this movie worth watching. 

First Impressions: Across the Spider-Verse

 Hey Folks! What a long strange couple of months. I never get personal here, but needless to say, I've been busy. Mostly a lot of travel, including a few cross-hemispheric weddings this summer, playing a lot of Tears of the Kingdom, and also my wife is pregnant. I have seen a decent amount of films, although August was the lowest month in years. I have not been exploiting Netflix DVD's last ride quite at all, I'm afraid. I also failed to make a post in August, which is the first post-less month since we started this in June 2009.

So is this done? Maybe? I can't really see me ever being done, but I'll certainly take a step back with impending children and whatnot. But I've seen four theatrical movies this summer and it's our solemn duty to review each one, dammit. So let's pretend it's June, 2023 again and talk about Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023).

More and more I really think Into the Spider-Verse (2018) is not only one of the greatest superhero movies, greatest animated movies, but straight up greatest movies of all time. It created this new visual style which has finally started creeping into other mainstream works, it echoes and comments on a very old superhero story and still finds something new to say, is incredibly funny, and most importantly, all three aforementioned aspects relate to and enhance the actual story being told. It's amazing. So how do you follow this up?

Well, just do it again. I might give Into the edge because of its novelty, and it's always hard to really strike out on your own when you're following up such a project, but damn Across really comes close to surpassing it. It is an excessively long movie that never feels quite so long. It takes a tremendous time with its characters and dealing with all their problems and sincerely fleshes out both Gwen Stacy and Miles Morales. At first it seemed like it would just be a Gwen movie, and you could still make the deuteragonist argument, but then they circle back and give Miles both an organic advancement of his story from the first movie, but his own sincere stakes as well.

That sincerity is something that it seems like some filmmakers are having trouble coming to grips with. This and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) are so deeply, deeply silly, but the characters have real emotions and they react like real people when conflict arises and when obstacles emerge to interrupt the path to both their tangible and subtextual goals. It's why these are films people can actually connect to and why something like Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) completely falls apart, despite being equally (or more) silly. We continually learn the wrong lessons, but nothing is new there.

The basic premise is that Miles is a few years into his career as Spider-Man now (maybe even one year), but he's visibly older and more confident, although like all Spider-Men, he's having a tough time balancing school and family and all that good stuff. Gwen, having her own issues with her father and struggling to find her place after her best friend Lizard Pete died, joins a multidimensional Spider-Person task force. They succumb to temptation and see each other and then the whole world gets into a mess.

There is a lot more going on here. First of all, this series is adept at consequences. Even very minute things from Into seem to echo here. And that is also the whole point of both this movie and Spider-Man himself. This movie centers on what it means to be Spider-Man and not affecting "canon" events, or arbitrary moments that every hero deals with like deaths, that try as they might, they cannot affect lest they not learn the lesson they need to learn. This is inherent to Spider-Man. Don't do your duty and stop a burgler? Well, he killed your Uncle Ben.

It's revealed that the whole reason why Miles became Spider-Man is because of an intradimensional spider got loose and bit him, giving him both slightly odd powers and a misalignment with the other Spider-People. His universe got two Spider-Men after all, although Miles' presence got the Alpha Spider-Man killed (or so he's blamed, I mean, choose your own interpretation of what happened).

The butterfly effect carries from there. He threw a bagel (maybe everything) at a guy and he got caught in the dimensional collider and became the Spot - a great perfect throwaway villain that they joke about being an A-lister, who then turns into an A-lister. Spider-Man has too many great villains to not use them in a movie (I guess all I'm really waiting for at this point is Kraven...and no, that movie does not look good. Where's my Stegron?!). Maybe a proper Scorpion. At the same time, we've seen a lot of these jabronis on screen already, so it's fun to find a new antagonist. But then that antagonist becomes Spider-Man 2099, who treats Miles harshly for both refusing to comply with his rules about canon and frankly, for being a different, out of place Spider-Man.

And this core concept has so many ramifications. For one, what does it really mean to be Spider-Man? Or a hero in general? Are we a hero because of the tragedies that made us or can we just forge our own path and make our righteous decisions? What does it take to actually be a Spider-Man? And what doesn't seem to be written about that much is the huge elephant in the room - that Miles Morales is a Latino African-American Spider-Man.

There was this whole undercurrent in the first film that Miles had to prove he could be his own Spider-Man and do it his way. This involved the infusion of a lot more black culture than the typical Peter Parker, who is the whitest dude on earth. Not only is this a way better update for a contemporary resident of Queens and the downtrodden underdog that Spider-Man is supposed to be, but it pushes the other-ness of the character. Folks write him off, or say that he can't be a real Spider-Man. Like the best sci-fi this is interdimensional on the surface, but the subtext is racial.

The truly amazing feat is that this was all there in Into, but it's fully formed in Across. He's outright rejected as a Spider-Man because his background isn't the same as everyone else's. But he shows that he can be the best out of all of them. He outwits hundreds of Spider-Folk and earns the admiration and trust of both new and old friends because of his character, drive, and righteousness, not because it's automatic. And it's not automatic because he's not a white Spider-Man.

Continuing this theme, the first movie felt like it had a satisfying ending and could have been done, and it's also amazing that this movie makes that feel like a necessarily first installment in a trilogy. I'm not sure I've ever felt that way, maybe in the John Wick movies. Like, this is such a perfect second installment in Miles' character journey. He's no longer the naive kid, he's an experienced hero, but the big thing he needs to learn is that he doesn't know everything yet. He thinks he's got everything down pat, but he has a long way to go. It's such a crystal clear character progression. You can really see that he will hopefully become a fully formed hero by the third installment. Suddenly there is meaning to everything from the first film that echoes here.

Against all this we also have Gwen, which is where the film starts, then we get a big Miles section but she comes and goes. You can feel her pain quite a bit here, with her conflicting feelings about protecting Miles, even that means abandoning him, but that's all because of Lizard Pete. She's guarded but the movie earns it, with some of the most brilliant abstract art on film to display emotion that I've ever seen. The whole movie is gorgeous but they saved the most stunning aspect for the Gwenverse.

And apparently the animators were treated like shit, so it's important to remember workers rights. The art on display here isn't some tortured artists enacting his or her vision at all hours of the night. It was paid professionals executing someone else's vision toiling under pretty rough circumstances. Every movie needs a disclaimer now! Nothing is ever fun.

What stuck out the most is the juxtaposition of radically different animation styles simultaneously, which is downright breathtaking to behold. This of course only works because everything else is firing at such a high level. It is thankfully not the kind of film where you say "the story sucks but you gotta see it for the visuals!" You definitely need to see this for the visuals, which seem to somehow push the genre even more further than the first film, but it's also for the characters, the story progression, and the tight as hell thematic resonance.

Also SPOILER here, although if you're still reading you should know the deal with this website, the ending is mind-blowing. You can see it coming quite a bit but it doesn't deaden the impact. My only real gripe is that for again, an excessively long film that ends on a cliffhanger, it definitely Return of the King (2003)'s its ending and you're sitting there like, "Okay, I get it, let's go" but it still has a tremendous impact. I'd like to think that mostly this is because this movie series is so obsessed with genuine consequences that this should carry on for the whole third movie, with three antagonists. It should hopefully be a lot of fun.

First Impressions: The Machine

You know, sometimes I really love this blog. The entire Internet is ablaze with The Flash (2023) and Dial of Destiny (2023), and maybe even Rise of the Beasts (2023) sort of, but what does Norwegian Morning Wood go out and see? Bert Kreischer's The Machine (2023), of course. And it's genuinely one of the best comedy films to come out in a long time, so let's get into this!

Bert Kreischer has been a quasi-popular comedian for a while, I'd say far from a household name, but his shirtless stand-up is certainly notable and memorable. His best bit, about becoming The Machine in Russia as a college exchange student and accidentally getting involved with the Russian Mafia is easily his most-well known routine. I can't remember another movie totally based on a single comedy routine, but the story is goofy and rich enough to earn such distinction.

This ends up being a pure Kreischer vehicle like we just don't see any more. It really exists purely to give him bits to riff on, and despite that it has a surprisingly amount of focus and pathos. The core conceit is continual flashbacks to the core story, featuring younger Bert, played by Jimmy Tatro, in some of the best casting of all time. It's all motivated by the current Russian mafia's search for a watch, which brings Bert on a present-day tour of his old trip in sort of an E-MC Hammered situation where he's trying to remember his time as a blacked out college student. It's an ingenious way to have this play out - we get all the regret of adult Bert and all the nonsense of young Bert.

It's uncompromising but not necessarily offensive, and it's bizarre that so many current comedians can't seem to find a way to balance all this. When Russia rules the world and we think differently about them, will we change our tune? They're the only country left no one has a problem making fun of anymore. And to be sure, it was filmed and cast mostly by Serbians. No love lost.

The cast is great, Bert does a serviceable job, and Mark Hamill as his dad is a relevation. It makes me regret that we really didn't get to see actor Mark Hamill for a very long time after Star Wars. There's just not a ton in his non-Joker, non-Luke filmography, except for recent works like Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) and Brigsby Bear (2017). He plays these old twisted weird dudes so well, it aches me to see what he could have been cranking out in the 90s if he could have escaped Luke's shadow. I think he literally had to age out of looking like Luke Skywalker to find his success.

He plays the overbearing dad well, even if the physical resemblance isn't there in the slightest. The only bit I didn't quite buy was his turn and then re-turn near the end, but the movie keeps pushing forward. Iva Babić as our main antagonist that sort of becomes our hero's main ally is also fantastic and somehow has the most coherent arc in the movie. She has a tough role balancing the ferocity necessary to be a female gangster in a very patriarchal society while stepping up to everyone around her, including when she gets shot and has to stay tough while recovering. It's fun to watch.

There are a lot of other stuff going on here. Irina has a few brothers, one is dispatched remarkably quickly (I did not pick up that it's in the trailer), and then our main bad brother emerges. It works because they're all antagonistic and we always have that momentum. The ending to all this was sublime as Irina does finally take control. SPOILER, I don't know, it's a comedy, it's going to end nice. Sort of.

That's because there is a fair share of violence here. It's mostly comedic, in the sense that decapitation can be comedic. But there's this happy-go-plucky vibe with these two dudes completely out of their element in the throes of the Russian mob, where things aren't so cute as they were back in the day when Bert was drunk and innocent.

I do really want to talk about the direction and editing, because this movie LOOKS amazing. In an era where mainstream movies seem obsessed with looking dingy and without contrast, this was one of the best shot and edited films I've seen outside of Spider-Verse in a long time. There are these amazing framing bits, panning and matching shots to convey flashbacks, and some genuinely Birdman (2014) - level editing here. It really stuck out to me. I can't think of another comedy movie where I left the theater being so impressed with the direction.

The director was Peter Atencio, who hasn't done much, but did do Key and Peele's Keanu (2016). That movie doesn't have as nearly as strong of a script, but I just watched it, mostly because I saw The Machine, and the direction holds up there, too. This dude needs more work and to join the underrated comedy directors' club like Steve Pink and Nicholas Stoller.

If there was one thing lacking, I would have liked to have seen it get into somehow even MORE cuckoo bananas territory. There is a bit where Kreischer lights his cigar on a live AK-47. We needed more of that energy. Just ultimate party energy. For a movie about 1997's number one partier, we didn't really get a classic party scene for the ages or for him to drink a beer and get super powers like Popeye. That's the biggest thing, just drink a beer and get super powers like Popeye.

I really enjoyed this, I have no idea if it's even in theaters anymore. It has also clearly had no cultural impact. Cult classic? I don't even know how films become cult classics anymore. I don't mean that as a whining old guy, I mean I literally don't know. Our culture is utterly fractured and it seems both immensely difficult for a film to stand out, but also we have all this groupthink that has anointed Game Night (2018) as the only good comedy movie in the past decade. We're in this weird realm of simultaneous fracture and homogeneity. Maybe they lead into each other? It's very dangerous when we lose our way and may easily cave to the whims of despots. Whomp-whomp. Go see THE MACHINE!

First Impressions: The Super Mario Movie

Crap, I think this was the first movie I've seen in theaters since 3000 Years of Longing (2022). That was a long dark winter. But Mario is here to brighten up your day! This will be our official SPOILER-heavy impressions where we just ramble on for a while about this film, so stay tuned.

I liked this bastard a lot. It somehow felt really fresh despite being full of one of the most-repeated video game stories of all time. I sat there watching it thinking, "This would make a good video game!" which was a positively bizarre sentiment. I honestly don't know why I liked this. The gripes I usually have were all there. It was rushed, full of fan service, and most character decisions were blatantly unmotivated. But it drilled down into the most important thing a movie can do - be charming and fun! It is truly amazing when this aspect is nailed, how many more small details can easily be forgotten.

There are some great story beats right off the bat. Mario and Luigi are starting their own plumbing business in Brooklyn, NY, USA and are called on to fix a wealthy couples' house. Luigi steps on a dog bone, breaks it, and amazingly, there are real consequences! The dog attacks, the house is ruined, and they're forced to seek bigger and better jobs. It's cunning writing from a "this happens so this happens" standpoint.

Don't get too excited. There is a lot that is just there. I'm curious how a lay-person would feel in this film. Bowser is there with his huge army because he's Bowser. This is just a conceit we have whenever we boot up any innumerable Mario game from the past forty years. It's weird but at this point it's iconic so we give it a pass. Power-ups, mushrooms, it's all just there and we accept it. My guess is I would have had a tougher time rolling with nonsense had I been a bit more unfamiliar with the whole deal. The movie does a good of a job as it's going to just letting us swallow this stuff, they definitely focus on power-ups a good deal, which is fine, but that's the only bit that felt slightly like cheating. Like, when Peach whips out the Ice Flower I can imagine folks being "Oh, that's just super convenient writing!" But no, the Ice Flower is totally thing and definitely plausible! They probably should have hinted at it earlier to make the writing more crisp.

There is a lot of just going with it. Mario arrives at Peach's Castle and asks to join her to convince the Kong Army to defeat Bowser so he can save his brother, Luigi. Peach is like, "Sure, pass this platforming challenge and you can come!" Mario definitely fails but she's just like "That's okay, we need to get on with the movie." This happens constantly. Things are just there for fun. Mario definitely cheats to defeat DK for the right to employ the Kong Army, and Cranky's just like "Hey, that's cool, now we need Karts!" and then it goes into a whole Mario Kart Sequence.

But this didn't make me upset. I know, it's shocking. Maybe it's just how they found an organic way to recreate World 1-1, or throw in Easter Eggs ranging from scuttlebugs to Cappy. There's elements of almost every game from Galaxy to Odyssey. A surprisingly lot from the latter, actually. All I really wanted was for Mario to spin Bowser by the tail like in 64. And he does!! I cheered. That's so fan service-y of me. The Rainbow Road was most similar to Super Circuit. Bizarre. But it branched off like Yoshi Valley. Now I want a Rainbow Road Yoshi Valley. I truly wonder how much of this movie will seep into future games, because movies do tend to standardize things. And Mario aesthetics (not gameplay) are getting stale anyway these days.

There's one genuinely horrifying moment of Luigi in the Dark Land fighting off Dry Bones, Shy Guys, and Snippets. It's a wonderful test of character. I love how Luigi is just known as the scared joke character now. In fitting fashion, most of this movie is about how Luigi isn't in this movie. More 64 references! It was a great turn to make him into the typical Princess Peach role. The moustache in distress. Because Luigi sucks anyway, and to stay true to the character now is to sideline him from the adventure.

And since we're massive Kong Fans, oh boy was there a lot in there for us. This had to be a testing ground for a DK movie, right? Why else would you include Chunky Kong? DK was a pretty nuanced character here, with daddy issues, big and brash, but childish. Where is our Brothers Bear movie?! My other fist bumping moment was the DK Rap. The Fucking DK Rap, people. You want to talk all-time character introductions? It all fits spectacularly well. The DK movie needs to be coming.

The Mario Kart sequence, while definitely forced, was amazing. There's literally a Kart Selection scene straight out of Mario Kart 8. It made me think of Battleship (2012), how the best scene in that movie is the somehow organic re-creation of the actual board game. Like, it was super faithful but also felt natural. Amazing. Also, now I really want Mario Kart game where if you're hit with a shell your Kart actually explodes and takes damage and you have to find or steal a new one. Or where you could climb on other Karts. That would rule. I'm going to go ahead and plug our sideblog, Blue Shell News here...

Now, it's not all great. We were skeptical of the voice acting when it was all announced, and yeah, we were right to be. Chris Pratt isn't great, I just never lose myself in him. Charlie Day is a bit better but still not great. I hate to say it, I think they would have done better to stick with the accents they put on in the Commercial to start out. It's a cartoon, man, it can be cartoon-y. Anya Taylor-Joy doesn't bring much Joy to Peach and Fred Armisen just doesn't sound like a grumpy old Cranky Kong. It doesn't really work.

Except Kevin Michael Richardson as Kamek, Keegan Michael-Key as Toad (I can't tell it's him at all), Seth Rogen surprisingly fits Donkey Kong despite being very Seth Rogen-y (maybe it's just voice experience?). And Jack Black is a magnificent Bowser. He doesn't scat at all! He does get some songs in, which are just wonderful. It's underrated how much Jack Black is accepting his back-up roles in his older age but remaining very weird and funny. You can definitely hear his Jack Black-ness but it's not that distracting.

I also didn't really like the Penguin and other Head Toad character having these uber-serious voices that are immediately undercut. It's not a very good joke, if they're cute, let them be cute, like how does that reality work? I could do with out it all. Cringe, baby. So cringe.

This is all a big turn for Illumination, who is usually just the worst damn studio there is. I don't even know how many Minions movies they have out now, but they basically churn out that drivel for kids along with Sing (2016) and Secret Life of Pets (2016), which just have no value at all besides celebrity voices. I was honestly sitting there watching previews for all this sheer crap like a new Trolls movie and even Pixar's new Elementals (2023), which looks like the same fucking movie they've been making for the past twenty years (admittedly with some really cool looking Fire animation) and then Migration (2023) dropped and I took notice. That looks really beautiful and mellow. I'm into it. I can get behind this. I've never seen a studio put so many clips of their own crappy work in a trailer before. It was almost to serve to show how much they're willing to change and move beyond the vapid colors and shallow efforts of the past. I'm surprisingly down with Illumination now.

That's also because The Super Mario Bros Movie largely avoids the kind of cringe humour of adults trying to be cool or chasing trends like so many of these and Dreamworks' movies do. It's remarkably fresh while being stunning to look at.

I really dug this - heavy recommend, maybe especially for non-fans. I'm eternally curious if you'd be able to make any sense of this thing or if you'd just be along for the ride like I was!

First Impressions: 3000 Years of Longing

I can sum up my reaction to this film as a great overwhelming, "huh. Okay." I genuinely can't tell if I liked this or not. I think I did. There were some parts I really did. I'm not sure if I will revisit this film's brilliance in later years but I can't recall going from being so high on a film to such a crater in recent memory. Let's talk spoilers for Three Thousand Years of Longing (2022)!

This got a lot of hype for being George Miller's first film since Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). I wasn't totally expecting a non-stop thrillride since I know this is also the dude who made Babe: Pig in the City (1998) and the Happy Feet movies. He crafts great stories, but it's not like he ever ties himself down to one genre. In fact, as soon as you do that, he explodes and does something really wacky. Like this!

The premise centers around a Narratologist, played by Tilda Swinton, who likes being alone with stories. She travels to the Levant, in and around Istanbul, unleashes a Djinn, and then they spend most of the film chatting about life in a hotel room while the Djinn narrates his previous three incarcerations. It's all a brilliant set-up, a BOTTLE story (my wife came up with that one), and works well as a film centered around storytelling. I am typically someone who finds no use for narration, but this film is almost all Idris Elba narration, but it works somehow, because the whole premise is that this is a fairy tale.

Swinton and Elba are two of the best in the game right now and you totally lose yourself in their characters. The idea of a central conflict growing out of a woman who is granted three wishes and doesn't really want to use any of them is also a fantastic concept. The film starts off immeasurably strong, with hallucinations (OR ARE THEY), a dynamic color palette that's vibrant and contrasting without resorting to neon, and a camera that feels sneaky and floaty, composing each shot with intention and thoughtful framing. There is some dodgy composition work, particularly a shot where Tilda is in the foreground and a massive, room-filling Idris is in the background, but it's nothing egregious.

Most of this flows through the first story, which is Djinn's love for the Queen of Sheba and her leaving him for King Solomon. It's engrossing, full of intriguing mysticism, and brings us into the ancient magic of the olden days. This ends up being the peak of the film. The middle story is stretched overlong and starts to feel disconnected with the narrative. What narrative is this movie even supposed to have? It is a story about stories I suppose, but even a collection of stories should have some kind of momentum or propulsion towards some kind of unifying theme or point. Tilda argues this in one instance, suggesting that all wish stories end up being cautionary tales. There is that vibe in the Suleiman Era stories, but it's not as strong as it could be because the focus is never on the wish-maker, but rather on the family she falls in love with (on that note, since that was her wish that Tilda later repeats, she doesn't seem to be learning or growing from this fable).

It got me thinking a lot of whose movie this was supposed to be. Ostensibly Tilda is our focal point character, and our gateway to this world. And she's fantastically interesting, even if it's through her un-interestingness. We get a lot of hollow connections. Zefir mimics her study habits. A woman in her modern entourage reappears suspiciously as an Ottoman. But there's never any learning or irony from these strands. The movie seems to introduce many of these concepts and then drops them, like the ghosts that bring her into this world in the first place. They never return or are mentioned again, which means they're just there for the sake of being cool, a mystery with no pay off, a tease with no fulfillment. It's frustrating.

But Djinn's story is literally the story that most of this story tries to tell. It's his 3000 year life we're flashing back to at points. It might be more his story than hers. And dual protagonists aren't anything new, it just leaves this particular story a little cluttered. This comes to a head in the final act (which might be Act 4? 5?). Tilda, out of nowhere, decides she wants to wish for longing, and decides to focus on the Djinn himself. It is a bit too much of a stretch, not only because it's weird to think of this Djinn banging all these white girls (he definitely does in every story, and his lovecraft is apparently pretty hot). But the pairing feels very forced and rushed and it's hard to grasp that these characters would love each other. Djinn was impressed by the strength of Sheba and the drive of Zefir. Tilda exhibits some of these characteristics but is far more demure than either. She admired her ex-husband, Jack, but maybe wants to exploit the forced loyalty of Djinn? That gets into some really fun toxic stuff, I dunno, it's kind of murky.

Should we jump into the problematic section? Always tricky when a white dude is portraying Middle Eastern cultures, but nothing seems too stereotypical here, everyone is fleshed out, but it did strike me that in a movie inspired primarily by 1001 Arabian Nights (itself subsequently spun through the lens of "The Djinn in the Nighingale's Eye" by A.S. Byatt), we get a white girl and a black guy as our focus and all the Arab characters are largely without lines or a real spotlight. I get it, as I said, Tilda and Idris are both fantastic, and their names are what is greenlighting this movie, but it just seemed like there were obvious opportunities here to not further a colonial narrative.

And there it is, like, these stories are out there. There are so many stories available for marginalized communities and we're just on the tip of accessing them, but these gatekeepers are still strong. We just aren't as far along as some folks think we are. And I get it, like, there ARE interesting white people stories where it wouldn't always be appropriate to cast people of color. But that argument falls apart because here is a story just begging for representation but roles are yet denied to say, Turkish people for an opportunity to have a big speaking role in a major Hollywood production. It's just more and more bizarre the more you can see the cracks and the dwindling excuses.

Anyway, Tilda wishes them to be in love! And then the movie breaks its own cool attempt at a Djinn bottle movie and heads back to London where we get a flurry of title cards and events that rush towards an ending where we see the Djinn broken down by the electromagnetic pulses in the air caused by our modern infatuation with cell towers and satellites. All this is ham-fisted as hell, it works better as a metaphor. Tilda at the beginning said that legendary figures and gods are reduced to mere myth as our technology increases. Man, just do that here instead of trying to explain him away as made of electromagnetic pulses. Like, that doesn't explain his magic, so just let it be magic It felt LOST-y and weird. But the Djinn starts dusting and eventually Tilda wishes him to go home (basically wishing him free like in Aladdin [1992]). Then he visits from time to time, presumably banging her.

There's some genuinely good commentary here about our technology lessening our ability to joyfully consume stories and magic and I liked all that stuff. But it felt like it needed an entirely new movie to fully develop instead of racing towards the end.

I'm really torn on this. It looks gorgeous, although I'm again split on whether it's actually good cinematography or just a good guy sitting at a computer. Still a good skill set I suppose. It opens so strong, in my head I was like "Movie of the year candidate!" then it biffs its landing so hard. Remarkable, really. There were moments I really dug and moments that completely baffled me. Like I said, I wonder if its brilliance will show itself in time but for now, I don't think it becomes something worth recommending.

First Impressions: Bullet Train

I was pretty jacked up on seeing this one, folks! I thought the trailer was fun, the cast has everyone who is good, and it all around felt like the kind of madcap loose action film that belongs in the mid-2000s like Smokin' Aces (2006) and Shoot 'Em Up (2007). This is in that zone, but it also focuses on mental health and zen wellness. It's also not very good. OR IS IT? That is the eternal question - spoilers here dear readers for Bullet Train (2022)!

The premise is simple enough. Brad Pitt is an assassin of some kind but he's not very good (he claims to be unlucky), and after some time off he's trying to do a simple snatch and grab assignment as sort of a warm-up. However, the case he's supposed to grab is on a bullet train headed from Tokyo to Kyoto and also full of the baddest assassins in the world!

If the premise and world-building feels a little John Wick (2014)-y, that might be because this shares a director in David Leitch who also directed Atomic Blonde (2017), Deadpool 2 (2018), and Hobbs & Shaw (2019), which is in fact an insane three years for the quality of action in all of those films. I think Leitch might be coasting a little too much here though - to be quite honest, my major gripe is how action-less this film is.

We get spurts here and there. Most notably with a spike in creativity and energy towards the end. But much of this film feels lifeless despite desperately trying. We get thorough backgrounds for every character but our main one, and while Pitt exhibits charisma rarely seen and proves again and again why he's one of our last remaining real movie stars. He's doing hardcore Brad Pitt stuff here. He's just cool, kind of wacky, and definitely in a different movie than everyone else. All other actors are stone cold serious, especially the scant Japanese ones. Let's just get into this.

The film opens on Andrew Koji from GI Joe: Snake Eyes (2021) all sad because his son was pushed off a roof. His father, Scorpion from Mortal Kombat (2021) (Hiroyuki Sanada) is greatly disappointed. This opening is flatter than it sounds and doesn't really kick off the kind of zany, madcap action thriller we'd expect. Koji and Sanada are in an immensely serious Japanese film. Everyone else is a ham.

And let's get this out of the way right now because it's been brought up elsewhere, but I will say that it's painfully noticeable here. There is a weird dearth of actual Japanese characters in this movie set in Japan. Apparently this is a whole thing and even the book's author was okay with it (this was a book? what the hell?), but it's still very conspicuous. I get the idea of like, people from every continent converging in Tokyo, but the actual Japanese characters are sidelined until the end of the film. It's more weird that the main villain is a big Russian bro (lol Michael Shannon) who just has like, a Samurai fetish or something? Because he took over the Yakuza. It just all seems really weird. I thought we were over this.

Anyway, inside the case is a $10 million ransom for Michael Shannon's son and Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry are two assassins assigned to bring both the son and the money back to Michael Shannon. Brad Pitt obviously snatches the case and hilarity ensues! Again, no one knows what movie their supposed to be in. Taylor-Johnson is playing pretty broad but doesn't quite have the comic timing, although he does have the physicality. Henry is the opposite, he has some of the best lines and moments, but isn't totally convincing as an unstoppable killer assassin. I mean, these guys are both pretty dumb to be feared so much.

Bad Bunny shows up for some reason! In literally one scene then HE DIES. I said spoilers. Sorry. It just made me pissed, he gets this whole long intro, is by far the most visually interesting character, has the most defined motive and exudes charisma nearly on a Pitt level and he's axed off immediately. It's a bizarre choice. The same thing pretty much happens with Zazie Beetz, who is an assassin who kills with boomslang venom that they've been trying to find for a while (snakes on a train!), so her presence is around for a while, but same deal. She doesn't get much screentime and as soon as we see her face she's taken care of. And not even any Atlanta reunion with Brian Tyree Henry. What's the deal man.

Joey King is here and I swear this girl is so damn familiar, but she hasn't done too much. Well, okay, she's done a ton and starred as the little kid in like every 2010s movie ever made. But never a role like this. She's refreshing, a true chameleon manipulator who messes with the heads of every single other person on the train. She's ten steps ahead of everyone and a total psychopath. It's fun to watch.

I'll tell you one thing, though - I'd sure like it if modern Brad Pitt movies quit teaming up to beat up young women. I mean, why does this keep being a thing. Sure, in both movies they deserved it, but also both movies consciously created their artifices to make the women deserve it. What is going on here, man. I think we really should just add a whole section to these reviews called "Problematic Stuff." That happens in every movie.

And I don't mean to whine like a millennial but it's blatantly ignoring opportunities to be inclusive, failing to read the room, and stuck in an older mentality. Also quite frankly, just lazy writing. There are so many fridged women in this movie. Like how is a film made in 2022 still featuring primarily male characters whose motivations stem from dead wives? Like, the end features Zod vs. Scorpion fighting because they killed each other's wives. Michael Shannon's wife sets this whole thing into motion, like, women can do more than just die in order to motivate the male characters. This is like the Christopher Nolan school of filmmaking. It's just played out at best and adding to problematic tropes that we are long past at worst.

Anyway, here is where I thought this movie actually gets kind of good. Yeah, I know I just said all that stuff, the motivation is problematic but the end result is actually interesting. See, there's both this subtext and open dialogue throughout the film about luck and fate and free will and possible redemption and throughout the film it all just feels coincidental. And that's fine, it's a movie, you have to have coincidences or else we literally don't have a fast-paced and interesting story. But as it turns out, nothing was really coincidental, it was all planned by Michael Shannon!

Normally I hate this kind of "Aha! I am the master of all your torment!" kind of big villain reveals, but everything is actually really motivated here. Everyone took actions that lead them to this train and it's subtle, but the reveal is quick and relatively free of clunky exposition. I do love when a films themes actually tie into what is happening on screen, and everything starts hitting towards the end. There's even a really terrible cliche when a character is hit by a bus at the end, which is totally just a quick way to end a characters' story without any attempt at growth. BUT we see that it was Tangerine as revenge! Actions tend to be motivated and it's generally satisfying. I dug it.

There are also a surprising amount of cameos. Channing Tatum and Sandra Bullock show up for some reason. Why is this Lost City (2022) reunion a thing that needs to happen now? I was really thrown by the Ryan Reynolds cameo, but then I did remember that Brad Pitt showed up real quick as Vanisher in Deadpool 2. Zazie Beetz, too. Leitch I guess is starting to assemble a cadre of repertory players. No idea how The Lost City connection was a thing. Something was wrong with Sandra Bullock's face, it was either plastic surgery or airbrushed to hell. Most of the film looked pretty good, but you get the sense that the eponymous bullet train was all a nice closed, COVID-testable set and the outdoor shots are super dodgy CGI.

I did want to talk about how few bullets there actually are in this film. Towards the end, sure, but before then there are hardly any guns fired. I thought that was the whole point! Like, that's the pun, right? I just expected more. The film is fun enough, I do think it drags on a bit long. There's also this weird bit throughout where they flashback constantly to remind us of earlier references, like items or things that happened. It gets irritating and shows a total lack of trust in the audience.

I shat all over this movie, but I did generally enjoy it. I'd say it was worse than I had hoped but better than what the reviews are saying. I need to think a bit more about the cultural context and how odd this film feels in contemporary cinema. I did like how much the plot connected to the theme and its commentary on the nature of fate. And the ending fight is cool. Brad Pitt rules. I laughed a few times, especially at the snake in the toilet bit. Anyway, this will probably be on streaming or something, probably worth a Friday night mindless thing but not terribly much more.

First Impressions: NOPE

NOPE (2022) is the latest from Jordan Peele, who is quickly becoming our most notable horror auteur and a driver of original cinematic content in theaters. It's bizarre to see something new on screen. Almost like stepping back in time. Which is what this movie is all about! And aliens! SPOILERS FOREVER.

Yes, I did keep staring at her shirt in this scene. What the hell is that shirt

This is unpopular, but I think Peele is like, okay. Get Out (2017) was fine, I do think it was ruined for me since I knew the twist going into it. I maybe just had a sub-optimal viewing of it. I really liked US (2019), but that had a handful of problems. None that should really get in the way of the movie, and to be sure, we shouldn't get bogged down by things like how this secret underground society couldn't really exist. Like, it's the premise of the movie, go with it.

NOPE clears all this up and I will catch up to calling Peele one of our greatest current directors. This is one of those "fires on all levels" movies. The acting is unreal, the plot is staggeringly original, it develops complex themes through action, metaphor, and parallelism, it's shot in both breathtaking vistas that serve the setting and plot while moving the story forward. Everything here just works, man.

It opens on Daniel Kaluuya and his father Keith David hanging out on their horse farm. They used to do a lot of Hollywood stunts but that's gone out of favor with CGI. This is a persistent theme in the background that runs through the whole movie. On the surface it's basically about the exploitation of animal labor, but it's also about the shifting development of spectacle in Hollywood, our relationship with technology, photographs in particular, and in a broader sense, our lack of respect for nature and what happens when that happens (it's not great...).

Keith David gets a quarter to the brain and suddenly Kaluuya and his sister Keke Palmer are left high and dry. This is more of a Kaluuya movie than a Keke movie, which I wasn't entirely disappointed by because he does a stunning job and it's a worthwhile story to tell, but the trailers just seemed to hint that Keke would be the lead. Let's jump into that first.

Kaluuya impressively plays a largely passive protagonist. This is hard to pull off. His character is shy, nervous about himself and his place amongst his family and legacy, and isn't really worthy to carry on his father's mantle. Keke isn't worthy, either, but for entirely different reasons. She's charming and confident, but also a flighty schemer who doesn't care enough about said legacy to be invested in it. Combined they could really be powerful, and they do work together well, but hey, that's why we have a movie. The acting really is something to behold, but it's more subtle than it's gotten credit for.

Steven Yuen rounds out the cast but maybe we can just have a whole Gordy section later? We've also got Brandon Perea and Michael Wincott, who both fill their roles exactly as needed, but people are probably a little too hard for Wincott. He's fine, here, a little more showy. I'll take this moment to complain that I don't think this film passes the Bechdel test, and it notably sidelines Keke during the final confrontation (although she IS the one who gets the final shot at the end). Just saying, it's weird how much this does come up a little short with its female character, despite her phenomenal screen presence.

Weird stuff starts happening. Power goes out, stuff falls from the sky, horses get spooked and go missing. This mystery is unraveled through out the first half and many of these answers are filled in through implication and matter of fact storytelling that doesn't call attention to itself. You know...like a good movie. It's shocking to witness a film that doesn't spoon-feed us every answer like a Wikipedia page. Is it weird to even call this good direction, but it does require a deft hand and Peele is proving himself to be a master.

So, when will Keegan Michael Key show up in one of these? I know, I think he wants to distance himself from that stuff. It's like how Mel Brooks took his name off of producing The Elephant Man (1980). I just kept thinking about like, an Oscar-winning KMK performance in some mind-blowing Peele picture. That'd be unreal. It would just feel better than him showing up in bit parts in trash like The Predator (2018), The Bubble (2022), and The Pentaverate lately. Man, it's tough to see how far one of their career has gone while watching the other.

NOPE seems to be primarily about animal exploitation and how we can't control nature. Animals don't do what we want them to do. This hits home for me, from Tiger King to Rabbits at the County Fair, I just don't understand why we have anything to do with imprisoning, showing, or messing with animals. Just let them be wild animals, we don't have to mess with them. I am all about animal CGI to get them out of human hands. It's bad for humans and no good for the animal. I don't even care if it looks fake. NOPE instrumentally uses CGI for its alien and of course Gordy, but does use live horses. I wonder if they gave some work to a real life Haywood Ranch some work. But it presents the thematic contrast within the film itself - is there a difference between using real horses that offer that realism, while they are treated with kindness and respect in the Ranch (note how no one listens to Kaluuya when he tries to explain their danger) and the more obvious out of nature exploitation of Gordy? Let's dive into both of these because they're the same thing.

Kaluuya isn't able to articulate the safety needed around horses or the danger they impose because of his character. He's just not a confident, vocal dude. It leads to people getting hurt and his company being sacked. But it does, however, offer that mentality that he has inherent respect and deference for animals. It saves his life with Jean Jacket.

Steve Yuen learns all the wrong lessons. He was the only surviving cast member (okay, the girl whose face got ripped off kind of) of a horrible Monkey Tragedy. But Gordy gave him a fist bump at the end of his rampage (in one of the most chilling scenes, let's say...ever). He either didn't learn any lesson at all, thought he was special and could control animals, or thought he learned a lesson about how to be safe and exploit them but really didn't change his behavior.  Yuen is a product of a particularly cruel Hollywood machine incapable of learning respect because he believes he deserves a higher status. It's capitalist, it's corrupt, it's exploitative, and he pays a damned steep price.

I was also struck by how much this film is obsessed with images. It seems no coincidence that the first thought these millennials have when they suspect the existence of alien life is to get a picture of it. That's really the impetus for the entire movie. It's to get the perfect framing for insta. We see this later with the TMZ guy who when his life is at stake still can't let go of getting the perfect shot. And it's not actually just a millennial thing, old af Michael Wincott dies so he can get the perfect shot of prey being gobbled by a perfect predator.

It's the intersection of artistry with vapid narcissism that forms the foundation of our 2022 culture. Everything must be documented. Our first instinct is to capture a moment for later rather than living in it now. And fine, that's a boomer complaint and maybe that's just the lens that I watched this movie through, but it seemed to crop up again and again. There was no desire to alert authorities, make contact, exploit technology. Just get a picture. That's the basis for everything they try to do in this film.

Then it all parallels the animal stuff. There is an older generation with a luddite camera, digital motion sensors linked up to home security systems. The final shot where they actually capture the beast on film is through a very old school, novelty contraption. It's fitting that she has to keep inserting tokens to get a snap. The pictures always cost us - wha ho!

From an actual directorial standpoint, this is a sublimely crafted film. The vistas of Southern California, the imposing balloon structures, near-experimental shots of the alien innards where it's hard to tell what is even real, the unraveling mystery, it's all peak. The tension is mind-blowing. When Kaluuya is getting punked in the barn is more disturbing than all of IT (2017). No question. And that Gordy scene. You just want it to end! It's strung along like fine twine and broken at a perfect moment.

We should talk about the blackness. I love that the reaction is "Nope" so often because that's a very black reaction to when things get sour. White girls always run and fall and white guys seem to always want to split up and check out what's in that spooky closet. I love how they crafted a film where every character could go "Nope" and peace out while still being so damn scary and effective. I think black folk are just more cautious and skeptical with insane shit because they live with that stupid shit every day. I'm a white dude, so feel free to call out my stereotyping in the comments. But the refreshing thing about Peele is that he's a black voice giving black stories with black characters instead of someone being forced in some way to write something inauthentic.

This is great, easy one of the top films of the year. Everyone should check it out - I do recommend a theater for the inherent bigness. Don't be like when I watched Get Out on a tiny screen like a year after it came out. This has everything going for it, so boom watch it.

From Predator to PREY: Examining Each of the Predator Movies in Respect to their Eras

PREY (2022) dropped on Hulu last Friday and if you haven't already, you should see it. It really deserved a theatrical release, but whatever. That helps movies become bigger event films but frankly, I'm perfectly content to watch it snuggled up with a few beers in me in my own home. Anyway, as these kinds of movies often do, it inspired me to think back on previous Predator movies, which I realized I'm always in a mood for. So let this serve as both a review of PREY and a walk through memory lane of the last five decades of Predator movies. Let's start there and work backwards:

PREY: Early 2020s Competency and Reactions to Reactions

Is that a weird way to describe modern blockbusters? Like, they try really hard and just become good movies. I think of Mortal Kombat (2021), the Top Gun: Maverick (2022), even something like Bloodshot (2021). But the key is also that most of these are well known IPs. It's like we're entering another phase in the lifetimes of these franchises. We've gone in really weird routes, and now it's time to scale back and focus on a smaller story.

You see this a lot, actually. There is quite a bit of over-correction like Ghostbusters Afterlife (2021), Dark Phoenix (2019), or Bumblebee (2018). There is less interest in telling a new edgy story than telling a different, good story. They just kind of surf with the IP and have fun with a smaller story. However, in all three of these cases the end result was also a much less interesting story. It feels very weird to criticize competency, but I'd rather have a bombastic failure than a boring safe movie. That's the worst a film could be. I recognize the insanity of me preferring The Last Knight (2017) to Bumblebee, but I want a movie to at least be memorable.

I think this started with either Logan (2017) or maybe even the John Wick movies. As with most things in Hollywood, it started with good films that unfortunately made a lot of money and got high critical praise. I know I'm going to be unpopular for saying so, but the John Wick sequels assuredly fall into that boring yet competent zone of action films. They're all good - really good action movies full of unbelievable practical sequences. But can you recite the plot of John Wick 3: Parabellum (2019)? I cannot. The recent Planet of the Apes movies are totally in this zone. Like, I don't remember the last two. But they were good! It's such a weird phenomenon.

Assuredly, PREY is not in this category, but you can tell it got greenlit to be in this sort of zone. A pared down, competent, and most importantly, cheap action movie that could be sold to streaming. I know that it was originally intended for a theatrical release, but it's also the kind of film that 20th Century Studios could feel better about sliding into streaming. I'm suspicious of Disney's motivations, as I always will be with films that were in development during the Fox Merger, but however you slice it, it's a huge get for Hulu, which rarely gets buzz like this around its movies. And it's a prefect Friday night film to check out in your living room.

So let's actually talk about it. What if a Predator landed in the northern great plains of North America in 1719 and encountered a tribe of Comanche warriors? That is all you need. Amber Midthunder is trying to prove herself as a hunter and ends up going against the most badass thing in the galaxy. Everything is firing here.

First, it is a thoroughly Comanche movie with an all Indigenous American cast. It is rare that we get a movie like this that focuses on an American Indian perspective without the lens of white dudes. We do get the French fur traders in the last third of the film, but they're kept at a healthy distance, not only because we never get their language subtitled. There is good balance here - they definitely affect the proceedings (we see how they recklessly kill and skin the buffalo - there's a great fake out there when you assume the Predator did such things. Nah, not worse than white guys), and at the end Midthunder tells them they need to move on because white folks have entered their territory, but it's never the focus of the story. It does a nice job of keeping the film moving on target but also acknowledging necessary historical issues.

The film follows Midthunder as she seeks to prove she can hunt as good as the dudes. At first it feels Mary Sue-ish (a term I'm trying to use to critique women written as poorly as underwritten characters with no agency by dudes who overcompensate by giving them no challenge to overcome, not the blanket term for "women" that has been co-opted by incels lately), but we quickly see that even though she thinks of herself as a great hunter, she has a lot to learn. She screws up! A lot! And we see her grow!

I kept thinking about how refreshing it was to see actual character growth demonstrated through action. I realized I'm too used to films where the growth is either "superhero learns to use powers" or "superhero learns that saving people is good." The film (SPOILER) ends up heading into similar territory as Predator (1987). Everyone else dies, so she uses what she learned to set traps and tricks this monster into killing itself. Yet we get no sinister laugh at the end!

And that's probably the one thing that this movie comes up short with - ultimately it IS a film we've seen before. I kept thinking at multiple points, "Boy the Predator series sure has an interesting relationship with mud." I fear that we are just past the point of novelty. We're at a stage where all films are devoid of new concepts, so we can just hope the old crap is remixed in an entertaining way. That's entirely the point of this post, as a matter of fact. When and why does that remix fail? More on that later.

We don't get a ton of on the nose references. "If it bleeds we can kill it" of course. And mud. There is a lot of set-up and pay-off here, the mud being one of the more obvious examples. There were some fun bits downgrading the Predator's technology, although I dunno, it's still capable of intergalactic space flight, it can probably still have energy cannons. I mean, the Iron Man targeting stuff was still cool tho. I did wonder a bit if the Predator understood how its own technology worked. I guess at the end it was trying to just manually aim because it was so close to her? Didn't work out for Preddy. Preddy Woman. Now that's a crossover!

Everything else was a cool downgrade. I dug the boneskull-like mask. Was it a Super Predator from Predators (2010) underneath? It kind of looked like one. I really dug how just like in the first film, bravado and masculinity is useless. Using a female protagonist to demonstrate this is inspired. I called Arnold a Final Girl in my write-up from a few years ago. It seems like this movie is exploring the same territory. Like, Predator '87 is the most muscle-bound movie of all time, but the point is that none of that matters when facing the sheer oblivion of an otherworldly threat like this. The real hunter hunts with her wits, not her brawn. And as Ra's al Ghul says, always mind your surroundings!

This is a gorgeous film to look at, too. It's easy when you're on the forests and mountains on the edge of the Great Plains. I'm not familiar with where this was exactly filmed, I'm assuming Montana or something? But hey! It's real! Director, Dan Trachtenberg hasn't actually done a ton, but he did do 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016), which is underrated and spectacular. He isn't really known for capturing shots like this, so hopefully this pushes him into more serious director territory. Maybe he'll get to direct an Apache Chief DC movie!

I am also going to support the use of CGI animals - if it prevents animals from getting injured and exploited, I'm 100% for their use, I don't care how fake it looks. Except for the dog. Easy Dog of the Year candidate right here. Some close calls!

PREY is great and seems to fit in really well in the 2020s. Now, let's take a look back in time...

The Predator: Late 2010s Trying too Hard

We're not that far removed from The Predator. I was pretty psyched for this, and thoroughly disappointed when it came out. What even is this, it's just a mess. The cast was and is pretty unreal. Boyd Holbrook, Olivia Munn, Keegan Michael Key, Thomas Jane, Trevante Rhodes, Sterling K. Brown, Yvonne Strahovski. Unreal.

I previewed this back in 2018, along with A Simple Favor (2018). Who could have guessed that A Simple Favor would have been the FAR superior movie. That movie rules. Anyway, no one enjoys this movie. It's a fine line between ironic winking and genuine shallow writing, and while writer / director Shane Black usually knocks this stuff out of the park (and just did so with The Nice Guys [2016]), nothing works here. It just kind of bumbles everything.

And that's the late-2010s. It's a reaction to all the sincerity that came before it. It doesn't feel like it can tell a straight story, so it has to lampshade everything and pretend it's better than its pulp origins. It's not, and nothing about the film revolutionizes anything, so it feels hollow. I think of like, Hotel Artemis (2018), also starring Sterling K. Brown (he was really cast as these sarcastic intelligent characters in this era), the Deadpool movies, the Guardians movies, or Kingsman movies that all just felt like being far too clever. And I like all these movies, but it sort of leads to some significant hubris when it's pushed to far. I think this was really trying to be meta and edgy, but it reeked of too much corporate universe building and fell on its head.

2010 Predators: The Team-Up Movie

This is actually the same exact movie as the first one, but somehow the Predator hunting parts are spread out more. There are more people at the end, it's less witty, and no one figures things out for themselves. They just learn about what the Predators' deal is from exposition from Laurence Fishburne and Alice Braga.

But, it has two academy award winners. I mostly said my peace here, but I'll reiterate that it's weird to cast Adrian Brody as the King of Badasses. It's even weirder that he almost pulls it off. This remains now the third-best Predator film because it has one of the best openings ever, displays enough twists to the formula, and has a likable cast of the baddest motherfuckers on earth. Basically what The Predator was trying to do.

Looking back on 2010 there was a surprising amount of team-up movies. The Losers, The A-Team, Inception, and The Expendables all come to mind. They were making solid movies back then, and looking back now it feels like this time period of uncertainty in films. We were definitely in the Superhero world but the only movie that came out that year was Iron Man 2. At that point we had had ten years of this stuff, and they were popular, but far from dominant.

Somehow five of the top ten films of the year were animated, and it was also the year of big 3-D releases like Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland. The latter along with Despicable Me portended the following decade of live action Disney remakes and Minions movies dominating the landscape. It's this weird transition zone that is somewhat underrated. It's also the eve of Netflix and all that good stuff. I'm not sure 2010 knows what it wants to be. In drops Predators out of the sky, which feels out of time, it's not entirely edge but it does feel like a mission movie, somewhat aimless, somewhat pulling from its previous IPs but more in a matter of fact way than a reverential way. The memberberries aren't quite hitting so hard yet. 

And Walton Goggins calls Predator a Space Faggot. It seems really late in our culture for the word Space Faggot to be thrown around, but here we are.

2004-2007: AVP movies, Just ridiculous

The mid-2000s brought us the first crest of staleness and we seemed to not care about spicing things up in major ways. We had Freddy vs. Jason (2003), and then these movies. The people who grew up watching this nonsense finally had the clout to make movies and smash their toys together. CGI allowed us to do so. Requiem is notable for the only Alien movie ever to take place in a modern day setting on earth, but really doesn't work. AVP was made for the masses and Requiem felt like one that was trying to course correct for fans who wanted more violence and ridiculousness. It's like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011) being the more hardcore version of Ghost Rider (2007). But the attempt is in stupid vanity.

We got into this a bit in 2010, but people didn't have the reverence back then. It was just another stupid movie and the 2000s really had fun without having very high stakes for this kind of stuff. This was peak Resident Evil years, we had the Star Wars prequels and Shrek, and all these meme factories to shape foggy childhoods. There is an extreme amount of baffling carelessness and what I'd call the first wave of old IPs crashing and folding in on themselves.

Look at Rocky, which is great because it also exists in every time period at once. We had Rocky Balboa (2006) which is an earnest attempt that falls flat because its premise is obviously insane. It takes a while for that to morph into Creed (2015) where it gained its self-respect through telling its own grounded story.

1990: Predator 2: The LA Cop Movie

It's just in LA. I mean, that's really it, but it feels like the apex of Joel Silver insane 80s thinking maximized to 90s potential. There are so many explosions. So, Predators like hunting Aliens, commandos, Comanche warriors, and....what, 90s Los Angeles cholos? Yeah, that's what it's about.

I dig this movie because it follows that Predator mantra of again just making a movie and then dropping a Predator in there. See, Predators and The Predator were too obsessed with centering a movie around a Predator. No, you need to make Commando (1985), Lethal Weapon (1988), and uh...The Last of the Mohicans (1992) and just drop a Predator in there. That is the secret. And Predator 2 is really just outshone because its predecessor is perfect, but it does a fantastic job of nearly parodying 80s/90s Los Angeles cops movies (see The Last Action Hero [1993]) and their excess, but then just adds a Predator to make it a slasher flick. It's phenomenal genre combination.

It's also bizarre how this much maligned flick ends being like, the THOR: The Dark World (2013) or Fast & Furious (2009) of the series. It is definitely bottom-tier but has the most important Easter eggs. So we are obliged to watch it to understand lore and connective tissue. Thanks, guys.

1987: Predator: The 80s Muscle Fest

I summed up everything I needed to here. I even mentioned the masculinity thing, the governor thing, and predator's laugh, which they definitely need to bring back. But ultimately this is a movie made out of insane 80s muscle-bound macho heroes and serves as the high point of this kind of movie making.

This series over the years tends to reflect its eras. Some of these bleed in and out of each other, despite not having time to do so, but the point is, I really enjoyed PREY and I hope there are more films of this scale but also of this level of interestingness in the future.