Coming off of a very strong year for movies in 2022, the film industry was faced with several obstacles (some avoidable & others unforeseen). From the impact of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes on the fall movie season to the box-office juggernaut of the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon this summer, I found 2023 to be quite a whirlwind of a year for movies. Some critics & commentators are celebrating the comic book movie “bubble” bursting (signaled by films like The Flash and The Marvels bombing at the box office). Clearly, audiences were more excited to watch acclaimed directors like Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan tackle untapped IPs (Barbie) for the big screen or show off original takes on somewhat unknown historical figures (Oppenheimer). Such talk, however, has caused many good & great flicks to be overlooked and underpraised. Thus, as I do every year, I want my final blog of 2023 to give some love to films that you may not have seen or (unfortunately) even heard of.
Admittedly, I have yet to see many of what are considered to be the year’s best films, including (but not limited to): Celine Song’s Past Lives, Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon, and Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things. Still, I want to use this opportunity to shine a light on some of my favorite movies that I haven’t blogged about before. While some are familiar among moviegoers (casual or otherwise), there may just be one or two on this list you’ve never heard of that are nonetheless worth checking out. That being said, here are my thoughts on some of my favorite movies of 2023. A Man Called Otto Having seen the bulk of director Marc Forster’s filmography, I can’t say that I’m the biggest fan of his work. While I do think that his fantasy-comedy Stranger than Fiction starring Will Ferrell is great and I enjoy his version of World War Z starring Brad Pitt (despite not being remotely like Max Brooks’ modern classic book on which it’s based), I find myself in the minority when it comes to the movies he’s made that are considered his best, including Monster’s Ball and The Kite Runner. And don’t even get me started on Quantum of Solace! So when I saw the somewhat positive reviews for his Tom Hanks vehicle A Man Called Otto, I was cautiously optimistic. Maybe it would turn out be another really good (or perhaps even great) movie from Forster. Fortunately, my tempered expectations paid off in full. In remaking Swedish filmmaker Hannes Holm’s Oscar-nominated movie A Man Called Ove (itself based on Fredrik Backman’s novel of the same name) for an American audience, Forster manages to deliver one of my favorite movies of this year (and one of his best films). That being said, I do think that much of the heavy lifting here is done by Forster’s cast (and not just the obvious answer of his lead performer). To be clear, Hanks is the well-deserving star of A Man Called Otto. Like some of his darker performances in films like Road to Perdition, he plays against type by summoning an emotional vulnerability that exists beneath a cold, hard exterior & must be peeled back layer by layer throughout the film. While he’s no machine gun-wielding gangster in the Great Depression, his portrayal of Otto Anderson as a lonely and curmudgeonly widower feels like it’s ripped from the same cloth. In that regard, I found Hanks’ presence in the movie refreshing. To be sure, his more typical work is more than welcome when he does it. However, I tend to really enjoy when he does movies like this because he simply doesn’t do them that often. Unlike so many of his most acclaimed roles, from Forrest Gump to Sully, he doesn’t primarily rely on his signature charm as both an actor & as a person. And that makes his turn as Otto (in my humble opinion) one of his better roles in the last fifteen years. While I expected to at least enjoy Hanks’ turn in A Man Called Otto, I was pleasantly surprised to be swept away by much of the supporting cast that successfully elevate his lead performance. There are many actors from the film that I could spotlight, but I want to emphasize my favorite Hanks co-star: Mariana Treviño, who plays his nosy yet endearing & well-intentioned new neighbor Marisol. Not only is she a strong female presence in a (somewhat) male-dominated story, but the way that her undeniable charm plays off of Hanks’ anti-sociable tendencies as Otto makes for a pretty compelling central character relationship. The “tough love” that Marisol shows Otto from very early on after meeting him keeps what could’ve been a predictable narrative overly reliant on a tropey friendship. Instead, though, Forster (along with screenwriter David Magee) gave Hanks and Treviño the material & flexibility to shine in telling a thematically relatable & rich story about letting go of the past to accept new people into your life & live for a brighter tomorrow. Even if you’re not a fan of some of Forster’s other flicks, I strongly encourage you to give A Man Called Otto a chance. You’ll at the very least find something to enjoy about Hanks’ performance, and (hopefully) be sucked in by the rest of the cast around him that make the two-hour runtime more than worth it. Missing A relatively new approach to cinematic storytelling is “screenlife” which emphasizes a distinct aesthetic meant to emulate using computers, tablets, and/or smartphones as the means of telling the story. Somewhat inspired by the “found footage” subgenre that was popularized by films like The Blair Witch Project, “screenlife” initially found its stride in horror with movies like The Den and Unfriended before expanding its reach to tell stories in different genres. Arguably, a big turning point in “screenlife” cinema was the critically & commercially successful release of the mystery thriller film Searching in 2018. Directed by Indian-American filmmaker Aneesh Chaganty (who co-wrote the screenplay with Armenian-American producer Sev Ohanian), the film grossed more than 75 million dollars on a less-than-one-million-dollar budget. Five years later, after Chaganty and Ohanian teamed up for Run (the “spiritual sequel” to Searching) in 2020, they co-produced the directorial debuts of Will Merrick and Nick Johnson (the editors of Chaganty’s previous two films) for a third entry in this blossoming series of “screenlife” flicks. And, just like Searching and Run, I thoroughly enjoyed Missing for what it was despite its flaws. As a big fan of both Searching and Run, I was somewhat disappointed to learn that Chaganty and Ohanian would not be as hands-on with Missing. With the former no longer being the writer-director and the latter not co-writing the screenplay, I wondered if another “screenlife” thriller with them only as producers would work as well as Searching. Fortunately, since Merrick and Johnson worked intimately on both Searching and Run as editors, much of the visual flair & storytelling sensibilities of Chaganty and Ohanian remained intact. Working off of a story that Chaganty and Ohanian thought up, Merrick and Johnson seamlessly translate it to the screens of iPhones, laptops, security cameras, and many more innovative avenues into the life of teenager June Allen (Storm Reid) as she tries to solve the mystery behind her mother Grace’s (Nia Long) sudden disappearance. With Chaganty and Ohanian’s story (adapted by Merrick and Johnson who wrote the screenplay), Missing offers an intricate web of story threads for the viewer to unravel. And, much like Searching, it’s incredibly fun for the audience to go along with some of the crazier places that this mystery takes us. While this may seem like a turn off, it’s a movie that gives you what you give it. In other words, go with the story being told even if some of it’s a bit implausible or outlandish because it makes up for any flaws in the screenplay by consistently engaging you from start to finish. And much of that value comes straight from the solid cast assembled for Missing. So much credit goes to Storm Reid in the leading role of June. She immediately feels like a genuine teenager whose evolving mental & emotional state while unraveling the mystery about her mother helps invest the viewer in her struggle. When put next to her incredible, single-episode performance as Riley in HBO’s incredible adaptation The Last of Us, Reid had a great year showing some range as an actor. While her chops certainly carried the film, I was pleasantly surprised by Joaquin de Almeida’s performance as Javier. Playing a Colombia gig worker who becomes an unexpected sidekick in June’s investigation, de Almeida initially put me on edge because I found him a little suspect and (potentially) untrustworthy. However, he successfully kept me guessing in his first couple of scenes before ultimately proving his worth as both a capable investigator & source of emotional support to June despite being a total stranger. With her mom missing, June’s changing dynamic with Javier makes for a strong core relationship of the narrative that I was entirely taken by. If you’ve seen Searching, you’ve pretty much seen Missing. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also watch Missing. Despite essentially telling the same story with flipped roles, it’s a thoroughly entertaining mystery thriller that doubles down on the screen gimmick to tremendous results. And if Searching or Run didn’t solidify my interest in Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian as a storytelling/filmmaking duo, then Missing easily did. All I can say to them is: KEEP MAKING THESE MOVIES! 😊 Air Despite having only directed a handful of movies in the last quarter-century or so, Ben Affleck has a fairly strong filmography to his name (having not seen Live by Night, I can’t say I’ve seen him make a bad movie). And while many film fans seem to remain committed to arguing that his Best Picture winner Argo (which I did thoroughly enjoy) is still his best movie, I think he outdid himself this year with Air. As someone who cares not one iota for watching or knowing sports but quite enjoys many sports movies, I think Air is one of the best modern examples of the genre. Even though it’s not a traditional sports movie (which makes it all the better). For the uninitiated, Air tells the story of the incredibly lucrative 1984 business deal between Nike and then-up-and-coming basketball star Michael Jordan. The deal itself was spearheaded by Nike’s talent scout Sonny Vaccaro (Matt Damon) and backed by its co-founder and then-CEO Phil Knight (Affleck), the former being taken with Jordan’s potential & raw talent to the point that he successfully convinced the latter to devote the company’s entire basketball division’s budget to courting Jordan to be their spokesperson. The film also spotlights the work of Nike’s lead shoe designer Peter Moore (Matthew Maher) in conceiving of the “Air Jordan”—a shoe worthy of Jordan’s talent—and the lengths that Vaccaro and Nike had to go to assure Jordan’s mother Deloris (Viola Davis). I’m pretty stunned that Amazon Studios delivered my favorite movie of the year for two years straight (Ron Howard’s Thirteen Lives being my top film of 2022 which YOU MUST WATCH if you haven’t; it did not get near the amount of love last year that it deserved). I never would’ve guessed that Jeff Bezos’ company that began as an online bookstore would emerge decades later as one of the leading film studios in terms of consistent quality (and not just in movies; the success of The Boys is evidence enough of that). Perhaps the most impressive thing about Air is that it’s essentially a dramatized Nike commercial/full-throated love letter to Michael Jordan. In the hands of another, less skilled filmmaker, it easily could’ve felt like that. However, Affleck does an incredible job (along with screenwriter Alex Convery) of injecting just the right amount of engaging drama & inspirational pathos into the movie’s narrative to overcome any kind of perceivable pap. Which, in my humble opinion, makes the achievement of this film all the more impressive. Of course, much of its success (aside from the team behind the camera) is thanks to the strong cast. Beyond just the solid supporting performers, from Marlon Wayans and Jason Bateman to Chris Tucker, our three leads do an incredible job of focusing the story of Jordan’s emerging partnership with Nike on the affirmation of mutual respect between people. Part of that is unquestionably due to Damon and Affleck’s worthwhile chemistry. The former’s more curmudgeon and grounded, yet quietly hopeful, take on Sonny Vaccaro does wonders playing off of the latter’s ever-so-slightly zany personality as Phil Knight (a dynamic that Ridley Scott tried, but somewhat failed, to capture in his film The Last Duel from two years ago). On top of that, their passion for securing the deal with Jordan—equal in measure (if not always evident in Knight’s reluctant business instincts)—keeps the viewer invested in both their “love-hate” relationship & the progress of Nike’s deal with Jordan. While it’s great watching Damon and Affleck play off of each other on screen, Viola Davis undeniably steals the show from both of them. I can’t imagine it being controversial for me to assert that she’s one of the best actors living today given her incredible turns in films like Tate Taylor’s The Help and Gina Prince-Bythewood’s The Woman King (not to mention her Oscar-winning role in Denzel Washington’s Fences). Surely, her role as Deloris Jordan in this movie is quite different from those others in terms of time, place, and narrative context (she isn’t lopping off leads in 19th-century Africa or confronting verbal & emotional abuse as a housekeeper in the Jim Crow South). However, she effortlessly brings a strength, grace, & tenacious spirit to Deloris whose protective motherly instincts and unyielding pride & belief in her talented son shine through within minutes of her appearing on screen. Furthermore, her presence in the latter half of the movie helps spice up the cast of (mostly) male corporate suits (albeit some with strong personalities). Ultimately, Air was clearly a labor of love for Affleck as well as his cast & crew. Fortunately, that love produced a great movie that manages a very tricky proposition of balancing real-life events about a business deal with drawing the audience’s interest & focus to a cinematic version of those events. I can’t stress enough to sports movie fans, lovers of sports history, and just cinephiles generally that Air is one of the best movies of the year. Even if it doesn’t get recognized with a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars next year, it certainly deserves it. Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. By the time the credits rolled on The Edge of Seventeen, I knew that I was utterly enamored by the filmmaking of writer-director Kelly Fremon Craig. In teaming with old-school director and producer James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets), she crafted one of the best coming-of-age movies of the 21st century (and, arguably, one of the best in the genre. Period.). Thus, when I heard that her sophomore feature would adapt the 1970 novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” by the acclaimed novelist Judy Blume for the big screen, it instantly became one of my most anticipated films of this year. As expected, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. did not disappoint. In telling a story set in about Margaret Simon (Abby Ryder Fortson) wrestling with puberty, relationships, and religion, Fremon Craig beautifully captures the universality of growing up without generalizing or minimizing the utter specificity of a girl becoming a young woman. As a writer, she effortlessly humanizes all of her characters (not just the three leads) by leaning into & highlighting their flaws without villainizing or demonizing them. As a director, she seamlessly brings the audience into Margaret’s interpersonal world (on top of the homey, idyllic atmosphere of mid-20th century suburbia) by relying on the talent of her actors to drive a character-focused narrative with ease. While Fremon Craig’s attention to detail and solid director of her cast make the film very good, it’s the performances of the cast themselves that (in my humble opinion) makes it great. Starting with our lead performer, who is a somewhat unknown (despite excellently playing Scott Lang’s adorable & charming daughter Cassie in the first two Ant-Man films). Abby Ryder Fortson is an utter delight as Margaret. She develops her acting chops by showing more emotional range with Margaret being put in several uncomfortable situations (some more embarrassing, while others more unnerving). Furthermore, her ability to draw the audience into Margaret’s journey through the early stages of puberty demonstrates how effective her creative choices are as an actor. Beyond the immediate empathy that she evokes as a young person figuring out her identity (an experience we all go through at that point in our lives), Fortson gives a solid performance as the lead alongside the likes of an Oscar nominee and an Oscar winner. Which brings me to the other two shining stars of this movie’s cast. To hopefully nobody’s surprise, both Rachel McAdams and Kathy Bates kill it in their respective roles. The former plays Margaret’s sweet and sensitive yet tough mother Barbara who is constantly there for her daughter while being on her own emotional journey facing her past & her strained relationship with her fundamentalist Christian parents. Simply put, McAdams gives one of her most mature & amazing performances to date. By showing restraint in how Barbara expresses her inner turmoil to Margaret (particularly in the dinner table scene), McAdams exemplifies how much she knows this character. It also works as a refreshing contrast from Fortson’s material that’s immersed in the melodrama of adolescence. The least (and, somehow, most) surprisingly pleasant performance comes from Kathy Bates as Margaret’s grandmother and Barbara’s mother-in-law Sylvia. In this role, Bates presents the nuances of generational relationships in how tough she can be on Barbara and her son Herb (Benny Safdie) despite her incredible love & protective instinct for Margaret. And she performs this duality incredibly well. Even when she becomes a bit of an antagonist in the film’s third act, Bates never lets the character come off as a straight-up villain. Instead, she elevates Fremon Craig’s dialogue for Sylvia by portraying this lonely older woman as an understandably flawed person whose motives for her actions are relatable & human. She also has some of the funniest lines & line deliveries in the whole movie, which is just the cherry on top. If you happened to sleep on this film, either because you didn’t know about it or felt turned off by the seemingly exclusive premise, please give it a shot. Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. is another solid film from Kelly Fremon Craig that only cements my love for her sensibilities as an artist. Without a doubt in my mind, she’s up there with Greta Gerwig, Marielle Heller, and Gina Prince-Bythewood as a relatively young & new female filmmaker to look out for. I’ll certainly be watching whatever she makes next, and you should, too (after seeing this movie, of course)! Joy Ride Adele Lim, an accomplished television producer, screenwriter, & editor of Malaysian descent, has only recently made a name for herself in film. By co-writing Jon M. Chu’s Crazy Rich Asians and the underrated Disney animated flick Raya and the Last Dragon, Lim cemented herself as an emerging talent in Hollywood. Thus, it was only a matter of time until she directed her own film. Coming out early this July to strong reception but ultimately being overshadowed by “Barbenheimer,” Joy Ride is a comedy flick that deserves more attention than it received this year. Instead of writing her directorial debut herself, Lim developed the story with frequent writers on Seth Macfarlane’s shows (Family Guy, American Dad!, and The Orville) Cherry Chevapravatdumrong and Teresa Hsiao. Together, these three women succeeded at their mission of making a film starring Asian-American women who are “messy and thirsty, but have so much heart.” With their screenplay, they deliver a breezy triumph of raunchy comedy that puts cultural representation at its center without letting the story’s heart or celebration of female friendship distract from the many laughs they invoke in the audience. And there are many. With a solid screenplay to work off of, the film’s four leads work wonders to humanize their characters while also making them the butt of dozens of jokes over the course of the runtime. To begin with the two best friends that are the focus of the story: the ambitious lawyer Audrey (Ashley Park) and the aimless freeloader yet passionate artist Lolo (Sherry Cola). As the evolution of their relationship makes up the heart & soul of Joy Ride, these actresses play off of one another incredibly well in both the comedic & more dramatic moments. In moments, both of them are unlikeable (albeit for different reasons). However, their coming to understand & accept each other despite starting to grow apart works well enough as the emotional climax of the third act. Furthermore, I appreciated Cola not overplaying her rivalry with one of the other lead characters to the point of it feeling cartoonish. The more overt sources of comedy are Audrey’s college roommate Kat (Stephanie Hsu), an aspiring actress who’s trying to overcome her highly promiscuous past, and Lolo’s socially awkward cousin “Deadeye” (Sabrina Wu), who just wants some real friends. Coming off of her Oscar-nominated performance in last year’s Best Picture winner Everything Everywhere All at Once, Hsu demonstrates a greater range here by playing into her comedic timing to great effect (particularly as her life starts falling apart). Wu, on the other hand, deftly maximizes their screen time with some superb line delivery & strong instinct for physical comedy (particularly during the K-pop music video sequence). This is especially impressive given the fact that Wu hasn’t really acted before. Simply put, Joy Ride is frickin’ hilarious! It doesn’t overstay its welcome thanks to great pacing & plenty of even greater jokes that occur often. On top of that, the cast is quite charming as they elevate the screenplay to make it thematically universal despite the cultural specificity that exists on the narrative’s surface. Like the next film I’m going to discuss, this movie is proof that comedies can still work with modern audiences if they’re well-written & have something to say. Needless to say, if you’re in the mood for a really fun, raunchy comedy whose message enhances its jokes (as opposed to detracting from them), check out Joy Ride. You’ll likely have a coke-infused blast!! 😉 Barbie Due to how big of an impact that it had on cinema & pop culture this year, I couldn’t write this blog and not address at least one half of the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon. And while I commend the ambitious endeavor that was Oppenheimer (particularly Jennifer Lame’s well-paced editing & the awards-worthy performances from Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey, Jr.), I simply enjoyed Barbie more. Which surprised me considering my cautious optimism for it going in. Despite loving Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s solo directorial debut, I wasn’t as taken with Little Women as many others were. Thus, I sat down in the theater for Barbie hoping to like it but being prepared to be disappointed. Fortunately, the opposite happened. Not only did I thoroughly enjoy my first viewing, but I liked Barbie even more the second time around. As not only the director but also the co-writer of this film, Gerwig delivers an incredibly entertaining romp that (in my humble opinion) proves comedies are by no means dead if they can transcend the constraints of being “just a comedy” & having something to say…while also still making you laugh a ton. 😊 Without question, Barbie doesn’t work without the insanely talented cast bringing life, humor, and humanity to the screenplay (which Gerwig co-wrote with her partner & fellow filmmaker, Noah Baumbach). And our two leads couldn’t have been cast better. First, our titular Barbie played by Margot Robbie (who also produced the film). She is pitch-perfect in front of the camera, which isn’t at all surprising considering her stellar performances in films like I, Tonya and Babylon. She embraces the character’s stereotypical, surface-level plasticity in the first half of the narrative (both physically & emotionally). However, the amount of nuance she brings to many of her facial expressions, much of her body language, & most of her dialogue reflects a meticulously prepped & crafted performance that effectively feeds into the themes of Gerwig and Baumbach’s script. The way she plays Barbie’s journey to discovering her own humanity could’ve easily played as cheesy or overly sentimental, but in Robbie’s capable hands the arc for the character is compelling for the entire film. And while Robbie is great in the lead, I do think that Ryan Gosling kind of steals the film from her (my rewatch only reinforced this belief). As the primary Ken, he goes all-in on the “himbo” archetype from the get-go which ensures the dichotomous relationship between him and Robbie’s Barbie works the whole movie. Perhaps this was more surprising given my association with Gosling’s career being more driven by dramatic & serious roles in films like Drive and Blade Runner 2049. However, by playing into some more of his well-timed comedic tendencies that he’s exhibited in past roles (from The Big Short to The Nice Guys) & dialing them up to eleven, Gosling delivers not only one of the best performances of cinema this year. He has secured his place in the Academy Award conversation (and may very well win his first Oscar after two nominations). We’ll just have to wait & see, but I think he will deserve it if he wins because of how deftly & delicately he balances his innate charm with his character’s off-putting personality while ensuring that Ken’s arc to starting his journey of becoming a better person feels earned & genuine. Fortunately, both Robbie and Gosling are propped up by an impeccably talented supporting cast who do very well maximizing their screen time without ever overshadowing the two lead characters. While many of them deserve the spotlight, I want to focus on a few of them that resonated with me above the rest. Of all the Kens, I think Simu Liu is easily the standout as the direct rival to Gosling’s Ken. Their interplay early in the film perfectly sets up the ultimate showdown on the beach in the third act (while amazingly intermixed with the “I’m Just Ken” musical number). Regarding the Barbies, I found Kate McKinnon’s take on Weird Barbie exceptionally fun (particularly her introduction in the first act). Luckily, this film is not filled only with Barbies and Kens to entertain. Michael Cera perfectly delivers as Allan (Ken’s friend) by doing what only he can do best: be a pale, awkward (both in sound & action) “normie” who unexpectedly (but hilariously) kicks ass when needed most. Without a doubt, the best human character is Gloria thanks to a relatable & empathetic performance from America Ferrera. Of course, everyone who’s seen Barbie knows the moment that she shines most is delivering her climactic monologue in which she lays out the mind-bending paradox at the heart of the female experience. Despite being a passable plot device to propel the film into its resolution where the Barbies take power back from the Kens, Ferrera’s incredibly believable performance keeps Gerwig and Baumbach’s on-the-nose lines from feeling unearned or overly distracting. And, while never once seen on screen, Helen Mirren deserves some praise for her fitting narration & laugh-inducing delivery of some of the movie’s best lines (specifically, calling out using Margot Robbie to comment on unrealistic beauty standards for women). While the whole cast is fantastic, the unsung hero of Barbie is the technical craft on display. In particular, the way that Oscar-nominated cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (who’s collaborated multiple times with filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu) shoots the breathtaking sets. The amount of detail in the production design, combined with Prieto’s camerawork, perfectly immerses the audience in Barbieland right away. In addition, Gerwig’s reliance on practical sets as well as old-school special & visual effects (rather than relying on CGI, which she easily could’ve done) demonstrates the amount of care & creativity that went into this production. Simply put, Barbie deserves to be the highest-grossing film of the year. It’s a very well-crafted piece of crowd-pleasing cinema with something on its mind that doesn’t let its message obstruct or deter from the entertainment value of its story. By allowing the actors to fully embrace the more eccentric absurdities of the screenplay while ensuring that they can carry the more dramatic & emotional scenes, Greta Gerwig has proven to me that she’s a filmmaker worth following for years to come. Besides, the film also taught me that…I AM KENOUGH!! 😊 Godzilla Minus One As this year came to a close, none of the Hollywood blockbusters releasing in December enticed me enough to head to the theater one last time. Meanwhile, I kept hearing such immense praise befall the newest Godzilla movie from Japanese studio Toho. Thus, I took a chance & went to go see Godzilla Minus One at my local movie theater. Fortunately, it was well worth my time & money by not only being one of the best monster movies I’ve ever seen but also surpassing so many big-budget American movies coming out these days. For many reasons, Minus One surpasses all of Legendary’s “MonsterVerse” movies for several reasons. One big reason for this is the fact that its writer-director Takashi Yamazaki prioritizes investing the audience in the human characters’ stories & relationships. As such, when its titular kaiju does appear in all his glory I felt appropriately terrified for the fate of the people. As much as I enjoy films like Godzilla vs. Kong, I rarely care about the people in those movies out of a desire to just see the monsters fight. In the case of Minus One, it was the opposite. I was very much invested in the interpersonal journey of our lead character—traumatized pilot & veteran Kōichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki)—and the inner circle of friends & family he assembles over the course of the immediate years following World War II. I simply cannot express the same sentiment for any of the human characters in any other kaiju (or kaiju-adjacent) flick that I’ve seen. Admittedly, I haven’t seen the overwhelming majority of Toho’s Godzilla movies. In fact, aside from Legendary’s version of the nuclear monster, I’ve only seen Ishirō Honda’s original Godzilla flick from 1954 and this year’s Minus One. With that in mind (and the fact that I don’t like Honda’s movie all that much), I found Yamazaki’s subtle nods to the movie that kicked off this 69-year franchise fitting & fun. Whether it was the design of the monster echoing back to the “man-in-the-suit” look of the older movies or the stinging musical cue that was utilized to punctuate the onset of Godzilla’s destructive antics, I liked those little nods to honor a well-regarded & culturally significant film franchise that’s been around for so long. Another cherry on top of the goodness that is Minus One is how it maximizes its budget to deliver some great visual & special effects. Not only does Godzilla himself look very convincing ninety-five percent of the time that he’s onscreen. The creative ways that Yamazaki & his creative team shoot the various set pieces (notably the sea battle & the attack on Ginza in the second act) are shining examples of how to capture entertaining action that should serve as a model for big-budget Hollywood action movies going forward. Ultimately, the heart of why this movie is good is its story & themes. Which utterly shocked me about it when I left the theater a few weeks back. BUT IT’S TRUE!! Minus One is an emotional rollercoaster ride that uses action & special effects to enhance its narrative instead of the other way around. Furthermore, its exploration of overcoming trauma & survivor’s guilt by finding purpose along with a strong support system is such universal groundwork for a great story despite being set at a very specific time in Japanese history. In other words, this story could be told in several different times, places, and cultures & be just as good because of how resonant & relevant it is to the human experience in general. Please trust me when I say that Godzilla Minus One is worth going to see in theaters. If you’re a big fan of Toho’s Godzilla movies, it offers a “back-to-basics” take on kaiju storytelling without forgetting what makes this kind of film great. And if you’re a general moviegoer without any history of watching monster movies, it tells a compelling & emotional story with some interesting, relatable characters and great action sequences. Somehow, it works for pretty much everyone which (in my humble opinion) to just how good of a movie it truly is. So, those are my thoughts on some of my favorite films of 2023. Of course, there are plenty of other movies that came out this year that are worth checking out: Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers, Gerard Johnstone’s M3GAN, Nick Bruno & Troy Quane’s Nimona, Raine Allen-Miller’s Rye Lane, George C. Wolfe’s Rustin, and Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Just to name a few. 😉 For my thoughts on some other 2023 films, click on any of the titles below:
What are some of your favorite films from this year? What movies are you most excited to come out next year? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
There are few living actors as universally lauded as Harrison Ford. With fairly humble beginnings in uncredited extra parts and minor roles in film and television for many years, Ford landed a small yet pivotal role in George Lucas’ 1973 coming-of-age comedy flick American Graffiti. While not his best-known performance by a long shot, Ford’s work with Lucas paved the way for his breakout, life-changing turn as the intergalactic smuggler Han Solo in the 1977 space opera film Star Wars. The rest, well, is history.
Now, as Ford approaches his 81st birthday, is returning to the silver screen by reprising the only other role of his that can compete with Han Solo as the most notable and iconic of his entire career: the treasure-hunting, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones. Having first played the role in Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ford has played Jones three times since in two different decades. This weekend, his collaboration with director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Logan, Ford v Ferrari) marks his fifth (and, supposedly, final) time in the role. Thus, to celebrate Ford’s career overall—but his portrayal of Indy specifically—I wanted to dedicate a blog to looking back at all four Indiana Jones films before seeing the newest entry in theaters. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) For a summary of the production and release of Raiders of the Lost Ark, click here. I think that the best way to tackle all of the Indiana Jones flicks is to start by dissecting their opening sequences. Not only are these a defining feature of the franchise as a whole, but they serve as important introductions to where the eponymous protagonist is at going into each story. With that, let’s discuss Indy’s iconic raid (😊) on the South American temple in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Being that it’s the first film of the series, this opening scene has a lot that it needs to accomplish. First and foremost, it must let the audience to know the kind of person that Indiana Jones is. Beyond that, it needs to establish the tone & vibe of the world in which he exists and the types of obstacles (human and boulder alike) that he faces on such globetrotting adventures. While this might be overwhelming for some directors, the incredibly talented Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln) handles such a task with grace and style that set the bar for what this franchise could be. In addition to the uniquely inspired design of the temple itself, the way that the story unfolds inside it with Indy and his jungle guide Satipo (Alfred Molina) tells us a lot about who this reluctant hero is. His cautious navigation of the temple to narrowly avoid the many booby traps that killed others who dared enter it before shows how experienced he is in traversing these kinds of environments and, possibly, his level of knowledge of such historical sites (thus foreshadowing his academic background that’s revealed a little later in the film). Furthermore, the chances he gives Satipo to be an honest actor exemplifies the humanity within him despite his lust for treasure and the glory that such discoveries bring. Fortunately for Indy, karma works in his favor by killing Satipo and letting him barely escape with his life…only to be cornered by rival archaeologist and the film’s villain, René Belloq (Paul Freeman). What I love about the way this scene climaxes is how it also brings karma back around to Indy: his cockiness that drove him to believe he could flee the temple with the Golden Idol unscathed only carries him so far. Thus, he must give up the treasure to save his own skin with the help of his trusty pilot Jock (Fred Sorenson) whose pet snake Reggie reveals to the audience Indy’s notorious fear of serpents in a sharp injection of comedic relief coming off the tense chase of Indy through the Peruvian jungle. While Raiders may not have the most grandiose or bombastic opening sequence, it certainly set the standard for the franchise while also excellently defining Indy’s main character traits for the remainder of the franchise. But can the movie get better? Without a doubt, Raiders is a great Spielberg movie. But, in my humble opinion, it’s not the best Indiana Jones flick due to a couple of glaring issues that hold it back from such a reputation in my eyes. Let’s dive into those as well as the good stuff, shall we? 😊 One of my personal favorite elements of the whole Indiana Jones franchise is the narrative decision by George Lucas (with the help of screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) to have their protagonist live a double life. By day, Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones the archaeology professor with a pretty boring life. By night, however, he transforms into the swashbuckling adventurer who whips his way through Nazis in Nepal and Egypt. Without wasting time on exposition, this choice helps the viewer fill in so much about why Indy is and what he wants. Furthermore, it helps inform his relationships with character from either part of his dual existence—his loyal friend and museum curator Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and his Egyptian acquaintance/excavator Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) included. Aside from just Indy himself, though, Raiders is packed with a solid supporting cast. In addition to Molina, Elliott and Rhys-Davies, the young and tough heroine Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is very reminiscent of George Lucas’ aim with the writing of the character Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) in the original Star Wars. A fierce woman who presents a tough exterior to the world and rarely (if ever) lets herself be dominated by the men in her life (including Indy himself). While I’m not the biggest fan of the more overtly romantic elements of her relationship with Indy, I find Allen’s chemistry with Ford to work very well as arguably the best pairing of the entire Indiana Jones franchise. But arguably the best chemistry shared between two actors in Raiders is that of Ford and Freeman. In many ways, Belloq serves as the dark foil to Indy. Both of them claim to long for the discovery of knowledge via their hunting down of artifacts. However, the former’s transparency about his desire for glory and fame serves to highlight the latter’s internal conflict with his own reasons for hunting treasure. Simply put, this makes for some of the only genuine character development for our eponymous hero in any of the films. For now, at least, I’ll take it. Of course, I can’t celebrate the best of what Indiana Jones offers without devoting at least some of this blog to the action sequences. While some of the writing doesn’t hold up, virtually all of the action does which is quite impressive. Especially considering two vital facts: the movies being made three decades ago, and their lack of reliance on computer-generated visuals in deference to practical filmmaking. Even if you don’t think you’ll be a fan of these movies, give them a shot. If nothing else, you’ll be thoroughly entertained thanks to Spielberg’s tact with directing compelling, clever, and fun action sequences. All that being said, I don’t count myself amongst the crowd of cinephiles who feel in their heart of hearts that Raiders is a perfect movie. There are a couple of notable flaws. First and foremost, the absolutely unoriginal idea that Indy has no major impact on the plot of the movie itself. Simply put, Belloq and the Nazis would have eventually found the Ark of the Covenant at their dig site, opened it, and the outcome would’ve been the same. To be honest, though, I don’t care as much about this as some people. I find the ride enjoyable enough to excuse this anticlimax. What I cannot excuse, however, is how overrated Indy’s romance with Marion is. While I understand the stylistic reasoning behind having them hook up and get together in the third act, I personally find it sappy and unnecessary. Both actors have great chemistry together via teasing the sexual tension between them before they ever consecrate their feelings for each other. Furthermore, both characters are better than pigeonholing them into a corny love story that just is not needed for Raiders to be memorable. But the character that is arguably the most underutilized is Sallah. Now, was it appropriate even in the 1980s (let alone nowadays) for a white man from Wales to don “brownface” by playing an ethnically Middle Eastern man? Certainly not. That being said, Rhys-Davies is one of my favorite supporting characters in the entire Indiana Jones franchise but always felt secondary to Harrison Ford’s roguish presence and Karen Allen’s charm. I wish I could say that this was corrected in the third film, but if you ask me Rhys-Davies’ portrayal of this character should get much more screen time than he’s ever actually been given (fingers crossed James Mangold does Sallah justice in Dial of Destiny). When it comes to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I mostly feel affection for it. It’s not my favorite Spielberg movie but it’s a damn good one. It’s not my favorite Indiana Jones movie but it’s certainly one of the best. And, despite its flaws, it has earned its place in cinematic history as one of the greatest action-adventure flicks of the 1980s (if not of all time). So, where did the franchise go from here? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Three years after Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lucas and Spielberg put out a sequel that went darker and scarier than its predecessor. Is it The Empire Strikes Back of the Indiana Jones franchise? ☹ Not exactly. But it’s still a pretty decent movie. In some ways, Temple of Doom has a more fun opening than Raiders. For one thing, I greatly appreciate the decision to make the second film a prequel; it works to put Indy in a very different environment than the Peruvian jungle or the Egyptian desert. Instead, we see Ford’s whip-wielding hero immersed in the criminal underworld of mid-1930s Shanghai. Amidst the glitz and glamor of “Club Obi Wan,” (a fun Easter Egg that I never noticed until the umpteenth time I watched this movie) Indy is put into a tense & death-defying situation when his client, Lao Che (Roy Chiao), has Indy poisoned during their transaction. Despite Indy’s efforts to persuade Lao Che to save his life, he instead must embrace the chaos that quickly takes over the club in order to snag the antidote and flee Shanghai with his life. During this opening scene, Spielberg effectively utilizes Indy trying to grab the antidote as an editing device to ramp up the tension. Since it serves as a ticking time bomb for Indy’s longevity, it helps to justify the insane antics he resorts to—such as kidnapping American nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw)—in order to escape Lao Che’s clutches. Furthermore, Spielberg introduces the two principal supporting characters of the film: the aforementioned Willie Scott (who I’ll talk more about later), and the utterly lovable Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), a young orphan who Indy takes under his wing. While one of these characters is easily one of the best in the entire franchise, the other is undeniably one of the worst (I’ll let you deduce who I’m referring to as which one 😊). But the escape from Shanghai comes with consequences for Indy and company as their getaway pilots work for Lao Che and end up abandoning them in the Himalayas. After a ridiculous but fun skydiving sequence involving the most indestructible raft ever made, the trio winds up in the company of rural villagers led by a shaman (D.R. Nanayakkara). In the village is where Indy is given the quest of the film: he reluctantly agrees to infiltrate Pankot Palace to retrieve sacred stones & rescue dozens of the village’s children from Thuggee cultists and slavers. All of this is to say that the first act of Temple of Doom, from the time they flee Shanghai to Indy’s discovery of the Thuggee’s underground lair, can be rather boring at their best and not-so-subtly racist at their worst. There are some shining moments like Indy and Short Round’s chemistry which remains the heart of the film right up to the end. But there are some glaring pacing problems that are made obvious by the conception & portrayal of the Willie Scott character. Not unlike Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels, I chalk it up not to Capshaw’s performance but the writing & direction of the character. Lucas and Spielberg wanted the female lead of Temple of Doom to be the polar opposite to Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Well, for better and worse, they succeeded at that. Because Willie Scott’s incessant screaming and personality fully embraces the stereotypes of the “damsel in distress” that remained all-too common in Western cinema for decades (and, unfortunately, still appears too much even today). That being said, what is arguably the least forgivable part of Temple of Doom aside from Capshaw’s character is the overtly insensitive depiction of Indian culture. This is most apparent in the banquet scene at Pankot Palace where Spielberg’s attempt at subtle humor backfires in how the native Indians are portrayed as cartoonish eaters with hyper-exotic diets that feel straight out of something of a neo-Asian minstrel show. Ultimately, the first half of the movie lacks the goodhearted fun of Raiders and replaces it with ignorant buffoonery & obnoxious characters. If not for the third act, Temple of Doom may have turned out as bad as a later entry in the franchise. Or worse…The Lost World. 😊 While the second act of the film is somewhat bogged down by needlessly dark scenes of human sacrifice, Indy and Short Round saving Willie & the village kids before escaping from Pankot remains some of the best action sequences in all of Spielberg’s filmography. Of course, you have the iconic minecart chase scene involving some great interplay between Indy and Short Round. But then that leads to an absolutely insane (but fittingly so) climax where Indy bests the Thuggee leader Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) by cutting a bridge in half. Admittedly, the plot contrivances make both Indy and the British military captain Philip Blumburtt (Philip Stone) out to be “white saviors” of the Indian villagers. This was more excusable in the 1980s, but lacks much justification nowadays. Still, the incredibly fun action of the third act keeps Temple of Doom from being a total miss. In my estimation, it’s not as good of a film as Raiders of the Lost Ark but it does not completely tarnish the reputation of the Indiana Jones franchise (unlike a future sequel 😊). But, with the exception of Short Round’s charm & lovable relationship with Indy, this film lacks any significant character development. Two films in, this franchise certainly needs it. So, will we get it with the next movie? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) For a summary of the production and release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, click here. Somewhat disappointed with how dark Temple of Doom turned out, Steven Spielberg wanted to recapture some of the fun-loving magic of Raiders if he returned to direct a third entry in the Indiana Jones franchise. In doing so, he and George Lucas decided to keep many of the best elements of the second film while reverting back to much of the heart of the first film. And, in my humble opinion, they deliver the best movie of the series to date. What do I mean about keeping the best parts of Temple of Doom? Well, instead of making the entire movie a prequel, Spielberg and Lucas smartly put the opening action sequence back in time to flesh out the origin story of our titular hero. This works wonders for me because it fully embraces the pulpy fun that the Indiana Jones franchise revived in its creation. As such, we get to see a teenage Indy (River Phoenix) break off from a Boy Scout trip in the Utah desert to sabotage a robbery. This initiates a really enjoyable action sequence that works for several reasons. First of all, the set piece of the traveling circus train makes for some great interactions between young Indy and a variety of exotic animals (which also helps justify his deep-seated fear of snakes). On top of this, we get another really fun moment fending off a lion that organically explains Indy’s fascination with & attachment to the whip as his signature weapon. But, overall, this introduction works really well in my mind because it finds a very creative means of giving the hero a meaningful obstacle to success: his youth. Sure, he’s physically up to the chase with the robbers. However, his inexperience and naïveté help him losing by the end of the sequence feel justified as character development that demonstrates how much Indy has (or, maybe, has not) come into his own in the last twenty-plus years. Without question, this opening scene doesn’t work as well as it does without Phoenix’s understated but incredibly performance. H seamlessly nails Harrison Ford’s mannerisms as Indy but, more importantly, his excessive cockiness and passion for archaeology. Combined with the solid writing of a young Indy, this is easily my favorite opening of any of the Indiana Jones movies up to this point (if only George Lucas could nail prequel stories as much as Spielberg can ☹). And Last Crusade only gets (mostly) better after the opening scene. Remember that need for character development that I mentioned? Well, in my humble opinion, we get it in this film thanks to the inclusion of Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery). No disrespect to Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, but I absolutely love Ford’s chemistry with Connery and think that Indy’s dynamic with his bookish and emotionally distant father makes for the best chemistry between two actors in the entire franchise. Beyond that, though, Indy being forced to bring Henry along with him on this adventure from Central Europe to Turkey allows for their strained relationship to be put front and center. And this makes the film, and the series as a whole, better. Last Crusade demythologizes Indy and makes him feel like an actual character by giving him unresolved issues with his dad in the midst of fending off Nazis and their allies like femme fatale Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and conniving businessman Walter Donovan (Julian Glover). Whereas the previous films contained a primary conflict involving Indy fending off an antagonist like Belloq or Mola Ram, I appreciate that Spielberg and Lucas decided to inject character-driven conflict to help humanize Indy via him confronting his childhood & his mixed feelings about how Henry raised him. If it was just that alone, I still think Last Crusade would be my favorite film of the franchise. Luckily, there’s a lot more to enjoy as well. Regarding another new character, I think that the approach in this movie to differentiate the female lead from Marion Ravenwood in Raiders works better here than it did in Temple of Doom. Unlike Willie Scott who remains a largely empty-headed damsel for much of that movie, I appreciated that Elsa has complex & interesting motivations as well as agency in the narrative as someone who screws Indy over but also feels remorse for her actions yet deems them necessary to achieve her goal of finding the Holy Grail. Ultimately, she comes off as a more subdued “femme fatale” character (somewhat reminding me of Zoë Kravitz’s portrayal of Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Matt Reeves’ The Batman). And I think that just makes for more entertaining interplay with Indy compared to what Capshaw was given for Willie Scott in Temple of Doom. Of course, any good Indiana Jones movie needs to brings its A-game when it comes to the action. And Last Crusade doesn’t disappoint one iota. While some of the set pieces feel reminiscent of Raiders (mostly due to the involvement of Nazis and military vehicles), I think Spielberg excels at making each action sequence exhilarating and feel fresh in the moment (if not retrospectively). From the boat chase through the canals of Venice and the dogfight over Berlin to Indy rescuing Marcus Brody and his father from the desert tank while getting away within an inch of his life, the action in this film is at least on par with its two predecessors but, quite possibly, is the best in the entire franchise. All that being said, however, Last Crusade still has some glaring issues that hold it back from near-perfection. I think that, of the original Indiana Jones trilogy, this movie struggles the most with how it handles humor. Whereas Raiders deftly relies on situational jokes (famously the scene of Indy shooting the swordsman in Egypt) and Temple of Doom largely does away with humor for the sake of a darker story, Last Crusade has a hit-or-miss track record when it comes to referencing its own plot and tone for the sake of comedy. Much of this humor comes from Connery’s “fish-out-of-water” presence amidst the deadly adventures that his son is used to. While this works a fair amount of the time, like when Indy throws SS Colonel Ernst Vogel (Michael Byrne) off the zeppelin, it feels rather forced in moments where Henry incompetently blows off the tail of the biplane that he and Indy are escaping in or when he coincidentally activates a secret staircase in the Austrian castle which Indy subsequently tumbles down. No disrespect to Connery’s acting chops; in fact, his charisma is the main reason that such jokes don’t completely fall flat at the end of the day. While many of the new & returning characters are great, a couple of them leave something to be desired. I appreciated Denholm Elliott’s return as Marcus Brody after not appearing in Temple of Doom. However, I wish he wasn’t used as much in the main adventure because his hyper-bookishness in lieu of virtually any “street smarts” often comes off as way too unrealistic…even for this franchise. But I could excuse Brody’s cartoonish presence due to his supporting nature. The bigger problematic character of Last Crusade is Donovan as the main villain opposing Indy and company. Again, I don’t blame the actor in this specific instance. The fault of Donovan’s lack of sufficient development beyond wanting eternal life lies very much with the writing. Needless to say, all of these flaws are relatively minor in my estimation. Last Crusade is not only my favorite Indiana Jones flick of the four ones directed by Spielberg thanks to its action and character work, but it cements that reputation in my mind for its pitch-perfect ending. I mean, the final moments of Indy, Henry, Sallah and Brody riding off into the sunset to the tune of John Williams’ iconic titular theme is easily ONE OF THE BEST ENDINGS TO ANY MOVIE EVER!! 😊 I mean…how can you possibly top that?!? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) It turns out you can’t, and George Lucas (who significantly pressured Steven Spielberg to make another Indiana Jones movie) shouldn’t have tried. Nearly twenty tears after Last Crusade, Indy returned to the big screen with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A movie that doesn’t deserve one-fifth of this blog because it commits a sin worse than many bad movies: it’s boring. From the outset, Crystal Skull lets the audience know that it’s not going to be good. The opening scene, traditionally a thrilling action sequence that helps reintroduce the viewer to the titular hero, is dull and uninspired by comparison to the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which is saying something considering that the scene involves Indy at Area 51 escaping from the clutches of Soviet troops under the command of Russian agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) with a nod of nostalgia to Raiders when the camera pans over the enclosed Ark of the Covenant. That set up should be an effective approach of reintroducing Indy to a new generation of filmgoers. Alas, the idea goes sour from the start and doesn’t ever really get better. This is true for the entirety of Crystal Skull. No disrespect to Harrison Ford, but the conception of an Indiana Jones following the protagonist in his mid-60s while still doing crazy stunts is maybe just a bad idea to begin with. As such, I mostly blame George Lucas for this movie. Nevertheless, it doesn’t make watching an aged Harrison Ford well past his prime running around and killing people any less sad. That being said, I did appreciate that Indy largely retained the charisma from the previous films (much to Ford’s credit as an actor). Despite some piss-poor writing, he shines through for the most part as the same roguish adventurer from before. But that doesn’t mean the characters around him do much to elevate his performance. There are two glaring weak spots in this cast, which I hate to say because they’re both great actors in other movies. First, we have the greaser that is revealed to be Indy’s son Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). Despite being evidently talented in films like Honey Boy and The Peanut Butter Falcon, LaBeouf does little to endear the audience to Mutt in this movie. I wish I could blame his performance on the writing, but I think it’s mostly just due to the fact that LaBeouf was not in a good place in his career at this point in his life and failed to live up to the spirit & legacy of this franchise in his melodramatic & buffoonish take on a child of Indiana Jones. The other, even more unfortunate element of the cast of Crystal Skull is Cate Blanchett’s performance as the villain. Simply put, it’s one of her worst roles that I’ve ever seen. By putting on a fake-sounding Russian accent and playing this over-the-top spy obsessed with mind control, Blanchett just feels like she doesn’t fit in the broader gallery of the villains in this franchise. Clearly, (like LaBeouf) her acting chops undermine the fact that such a performance is possible. But, unlike other talented actors hamming up their villainous performances (lookin’ at you, Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator!), Blanchett simply doesn’t work in this movie. There are some characters other than Indy that work here. Namely, the return of Marion Ravenwood from Raiders. While the speed at which her romance with Indy rekindles in the second and third acts is a bit much to be believed, Karen Allen’s chemistry with Harrison Ford holds up in Crystal Skull. I specifically enjoyed their dynamic once Marion reveals to Indy that Mutt is their child because it helps bring out a different side of our hero & changes his relationship with Mutt going forward. In a third act bogged down by awful CG-infused action set pieces & meandering plot contrivances, the small moments of family drama between these three characters acted as brief sighs of relief. Which brings me to my other big criticisms of this movie: the action & the plot. Regarding the former, Spielberg seemingly gave in to Lucas’ filmmaking tendencies by turning away from practical stunts and location shooting in favor of sound stages & green screens. And this greatly detracts from the overall quality of the film, not only by dating it to a time when filmmakers were struggling to balance practical effects with CGI effects. However, it also utterly rejects the lineage of the Indiana Jones franchise that prided itself on making the action sequences as believable as possible thanks to practical filmmaking. The only CG-heavy set piece that, in my humble opinion, works is seeing Spalko’s right-hand man Antonin Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine) get eaten alive by carnivorous ants. Is it as frightening or nervewracking as the “creeper crawler” scenes in the prior three movies? No, but I personally enjoyed the concept played out to a point. Otherwise, the action in this film is bad (I don’t even want to talk about the “swinging monkeys” scene). Perhaps if the story were better I could forgive Spielberg dropping the ball with the action, but the screenplay of Crystal Skull is beyond mediocre. It’s BORING. The manhunt for Indy’s friend and Mutt’s surrogate father Harold “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt) before a jungle chase leading to “Akator,” the ancient city in the Amazon, differentiates itself by taking the franchise away from Judeo-Christian history. In doing so, however, the film loses any genuine spirit of fun & adventure by making the treasure…knowledge?!? Or aliens, but from another dimension rather than from outer space?!? … This movie’s just bad. It’s a cash-grab attempt to exploit the nostalgia that moviegoers have for Indy which, to their “credit,” worked (as of today, it remains the highest-grossing movie of the entire franchise). But Crystal Skull is undeniably the worst Indiana Jones flick. So, when James Mangold was announced as the director of a fifth and (supposedly) final entry in the series I became cautiously optimistic: “At least it can’t be worse than Crystal Skull? Right?” RIGHT?!? Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” You have been warned.] In 2016, three years after acquiring Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Studios announced a fifth and final Indiana Jones movie to be released in July of 2019. Initially, Steven Spielberg was attached to direct this swan song for Harrison Ford’s titular hero. However, after four years of various writers’ takes on the material & disagreements between Spielberg, Ford, and the studio about the screenplay, Spielberg stepped down as the director in February of 2020 (but stayed on as a producer). Three months later, Lucasfilm announced that James Mangold would direct Ford’s final outing as the character. And more than three years later, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is now in theaters. So, was it worth the wait? In my humble opinion…no. But, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a decent movie. With that, let’s dive into comparing its opening with that of the rest of the franchise. Whereas all the other Indiana Jones films’ openings start in the concurrent timeline that the rest of the narrative takes place, Mangold decides to kick off Dial of Destiny with a flashback to the end of World War II. By showing Indy in his prime as an adventurer, the film gives the audience a snippet of classic action that this series has become synonymous with. At least in spirit. Aside from just the obvious reminder by having Indy punch & kill Nazis, this opening flashback on a plunder train does what it can visually, auditorily, & aesthetically to pay homage to Spielberg’s original trilogy from the 1980s. And I think that it mostly works. To state the obvious, seeing a de-aged Harrison Ford can be a little off-putting at moments in isolation. That being said, what Mangold has Indy doing in this sequence was to enough to help suspend my disbelief regarding the character’s age in relation to the actor playing him (besides, I think more should’ve been done to de-age Ford’s voice like what was done to Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker on various Star Wars series on Disney+). But the other glaring issue with this action set piece is how heavy it relies on computer-generated filmmaking to pull off the various stunts being performed on screen. Unlike Spielberg’s deference to more practical stunt work in the original films, I think Mangold should’ve taken more of a firm stance (at least in this scene) to do the same. Especially considering the thematic & meta purpose that the train heist serves for the film, I think it would’ve benefitted from a cleverer approach to the action. All that being said, this opening scene is solid. It’s certainly better than the Area 51 stuff in Crystal Skull, but I do think that it pales in comparison to the intro action sequences in the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which, in many ways, sums up both the good and bad about Dial of Destiny. Without a question, it supersedes its immediate predecessor in virtually every way. However, it gives off the impression that it only exists because Harrison Ford was displeased with how his journey as Indy ended in Crystal Skull and wanted to correct that (and, of course, Disney wanted to milk the franchise further). So, what works about Dial of Destiny in spite of this self-evident fact? The most obvious strength of the film is Ford’s performance. But unlike previous movies in the franchise (including the “good ones”), the portrayal of Indy as a character feels the most grounded & believable here. While I understand that some people will have a problem with how Mangold and the screenwriters tackle Indy’s age (given their nostalgic attachment to the mythic hero portrayed in the first three Spielberg flicks), I greatly appreciated that Ford was given the chance to play out a meaningful & substantive character arc. Sure, Indy learned not to be all about “fortune and glory” in Temple of Doom. And he came to terms with his upbringing & his relationship with his father in Last Crusade. But here, Ford fully seizes upon the opportunity to humanize Indy & treat him like a person rather than a folk legend. He starts the movie as a lonely, alcoholic curmudgeon that lacks purpose in life as he confronts his mortality and then resurges as the idealistic hero that people know Indy to be. In my humble opinion, this added an emotional heft to the entire franchise that, by the final scene that sends Indy off to reconcile his relationship with Marion, really felt earned & important for such an iconic character that’s been so deftly played by such a one-of-a-kind actor. That being said, do the supporting characters in Dial of Destiny elevate Ford’s swan song as Indy? I’d say the one that matter works. And that is the co-lead of the film, Indy’s goddaughter Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). The daughter of Indy’s old British friend and Oxford professor Basil Shaw (Toby Jones), she grows up to be a selfish, fortune-seeking treasure hunter and auctioneer of stolen artifacts. Much like Indy was in Temple of Doom, Helena makes it clear early in the film that she only cares about getting these historical trinkets to pay off debts and have some cash left over. To do so, she’s initially frustrating in how she lies to & uses Indy for her own personal gain. While I understand that the character didn’t work for some viewers, I think that the writing of Waller-Bridge’s character is certainly better than Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott. Largely because her chemistry with Ford is enough to make the character interesting in the first act, but then she cements her status as more memorable than Alison Doody’s Elsa Schneider by coming to empathize with Indy’s personal tragedies enough to care for his well-being by the third act (and save him from choosing a terrible fate for himself). The writing alone would make Helena a better female lead for this franchise than at least two of them, but Waller-Bridge’s screen presence & dynamic with Ford easily places her right alongside Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Despite the differences in romantic versus familial/plutonic chemistry, I appreciated Mangold and the writers’ highlighting a different kind of dynamic for Indy in this movie (not unlike the father-son relationship in Last Crusade). That being said, not all of the new characters work here. While I think that the two lead villains, former Nazi scientist Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelsen) and his lackey Klaber (Boyd Holbrook), have two very capable actors behind them I don’t think the writing did them any favors. Not only are neither one of them given much of an interesting personality or compelling dynamic with Indy beyond him being the obstacle in their way, but Voller’s motivation to use Archimedes’ Dial is rather underdeveloped. Specifically, I don’t exactly know what his plan is after he goes back in time to kill Hitler. How is he going to avoid being imprisoned by the Nazi leadership for assassinating the Führer (let alone take over Germany)? Furthermore, what will he do to compensate for his country’s inherent disadvantages against the Allied Powers in order to change history & claim victory in World War II? Questions that the film has no interest in answering which, in my humble opinion, does nothing to make me invested in Indy’s fight to stop their evil plot because I don’t really understand what it is beyond the first step. On the heroes’ side, I have nothing against the actor who played Helena’s kid sidekick Teddy Kumar (Ethann Isidore). But the character comes off as just a vain attempt by the writers to do their own version of Short Round. The problem with that route, though, is that you’re not only shooting yourself in the foot by attempting to one-up a fan-favorite character. But, you’re also giving Isidore no real chance to succeed by not devoting enough screentime in Dial of Destiny to properly developing his relationship with Helena or Indy to make the audience emotionally invested enough in it. Simply put, Spielberg struck lightning in a bottle with Ke Huy Quan in Temple of Doom & I personally would’ve advised this team against adding a third wheel to Indy and Helena in this movie because it just could never live up to that. Two other characters whose presence is small, yet impactful, in the film are Sallah and Marion. While their actual screentime is limited, I thought that Mangold and the writers handled both of them very well. While part of me deep down would’ve loved Sallah to play a more active role in Indy’s globetrotting adventure this time around, I appreciated when he showed up in the film & the purpose he served. It perfectly teed up Marion’s return in the very last scene of the movie to bring the main theme about family full circle. Much in the same way that Sallah has his grandchildren to ground him & remind him what’s important about getting older, Marion coming back to tend to Indy brings his arc to its logical & satisfying conclusion. In other words, both of these “legacy characters” of this franchise were given the respect they deserve by a new filmmaker & writers stepping in to take over from Spielberg and company. They were used sparingly but effectively, and I commend that restraint. Of course, the unsung hero of this entire franchise is composer John Williams. Not only is his theme for the titular hero one of the most iconic pieces of film music in cinematic history, but Williams always knows the assignment for how to use his particular talents to recapture the magic of Indiana Jones. And that trend continues in Dial of Destiny, as the classic theme is used when it’s needed to and no more. Beyond that, Williams elevates the action of this film with his score which very much plays into Mangold’s creative vision to capitalize on the audience’s nostalgic love for the character and the vibe of Spielberg’s original trilogy. In that sense, Williams unsurprisingly remains the secret ingredient that makes the Indiana Jones franchise what it is (much in the same way he does for Star Wars). Then again, there are some important flaws of Dial of Destiny that hold it back from being on par with the original Indiana Jones trilogy. I briefly addressed one of them earlier, but the action in this film lacks the same overall impact & kinetic energy. Part of this can be chalked up to how shooting action set pieces has changed due to the advent of big-budget franchise filmmaking & CG technology. However, there are clearly series & filmmakers out there that buck this trend to effectively in order to differentiate themselves (lookin’ at you, Chad Stahelski and John Wick!). While there were some creative choices made in crafting the set pieces, like the chase through the New York City streets/subway & the diving expedition with Renaldo (Antonio Banderas), I do wish that Mangold had done everything he possibly could to utilize practical effects & stunt workers to uphold the legacy of Spielberg’s magic touch inherent to Indy and his world. But the biggest problem with Dial of Destiny, in my humble opinion, is its runtime. While the opening train sequence is fun & the last twenty minutes are crazy yet emotional, there’s a fair amount of scenes in the middle of this film that could’ve been trimmed down so that the final length of the overall movie went down by 20 minutes. This would’ve greatly helped the pacing by adding some more urgency & suspense to some of the more critical sequences in the second and third act. Personally, I don’t know what it is about the last five years but I don’t understand so many filmmakers’ seeming obsession with making movies longer than they need to be. Granted, at under two-and-a-half hours, it could’ve been worse. Still, it also could’ve been much better. Overall, I think that Dial of Destiny has enough competent filmmaking on display to be considered a fitting sendoff for Indy that makes up for the mediocrity of Crystal Skull. That being said, it ranks on the lower end of Mangold’s filmography (which just speaks to how great of a director that he is) & will almost certainly not have the lasting cultural/artistic impact that the original Indiana Jones trilogy have had. Nor will this movie be as fondly remembered among diehard fans of the franchise. That, combined with its lukewarm opening weekend box-office numbers, should send one very important message to Disney and Lucasfilm: let this franchise DIE. 😊 At the end of the day, how will I remember Indiana Jones? While I grew up watching the first three films of the series, I lack any strongly nostalgia for them like I have for Star Wars. Because of that, I’ll revisit them every 5-10 years when I’m in the mood for a fun time. In that time, I might rewatch Dial of Destiny to see if it holds up or will check it out again in the wake of the inevitable day that Harrison Ford is no longer with us. And I’ll probably never watch Crystal Skull again; sorry George Lucas (not sorry! 😊). In many ways, I think that the character of Indiana Jones will stand the test of time longer than any of the individual films in this franchise. By the same token, I feel that other action heroes of cinema (like John Wick) have supplanted the pulpy tone of those movies due to filmgoers’ changing sensibilities when it comes to action flicks. Ultimately, though, Indy (and Ford’s portrayal of him) deserves his status as one of the most iconic characters in all of cinema. With all that said, here is my official ranking of all five films in the Indiana Jones series: 1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2. Raiders of the Lost Ark 3. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 4. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny 5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull What is your favorite Indiana Jones movie? How do you think the franchise will be remembered after its most recent addition? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst In a relatively short amount of time on the Hollywood scene, writer-director James Gunn has left quite the mark on comic book cinema. With humble origins as a screenwriter for films like Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake and Raja Gosnell’s two live-action Scooby-Doo flicks, Gunn directed his first movie less than twenty years ago—the sci-fi horror cult classic Slither—which he followed up with the superhero black comedy Super (both of which bombed at the box office). Somehow, this moderately successful writing career (but honestly less-than-ideal start as a director) ultimately secured Gunn what became his big break as the writer-director of a Marvel Studios movie set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
And his career only got more interesting from there. After major critical and commercial success with both Guardians of the Galaxy and its sequel subtitled Vol. 2 (released in 2014 and 2017, respectively), the Walt Disney Company hastily parted ways with Gunn in July of 2018 over controversial jokes he made years prior that resurfaced on social media. While Gunn’s handling of the situation was admirably humble, several entertainment figures in film, television and music (including the main cast of the two Guardians movies) publicly & vocally supported Gunn and criticized Disney’s decision. Seven months later, after a meeting with Disney’s then-chairman and chief creative officer (CCO) Alan Horn, Gunn was brought back into the fold as the writer and director of a third Guardians movie. But, Gunn was already attached to direct a DC film for Warner Brothers—which ultimately became 2021’s The Suicide Squad—set in their superhero cinematic universe. Thus, the planned threequel in the Guardians series was delayed from its original May 1, 2020 release date to…TODAY!! After nearly a decade of introducing mass audiences to this lovable cast of misfit cosmic outlaws with complicated pasts & a desperate need for family, James Gunn’s final MCU movie (appropriately subtitled Vol. 3) premieres this weekend. As such, I figured what better time to take a look back at the story of the Guardians of the Galaxy in the MCU—and Gunn’s bittersweet departure from Marvel Studios as he shifts to co-chairing the future of DC Films—than right now. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! [NOTE #1: For my broader thoughts on Marvel Studios’ “Infinity Saga,” click here.] [NOTE #2: For my thoughts on every film, show, and special of Phase Four of the “Multiverse Saga,” click here and here.] Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) While I was not yet personally invested in the MCU as a cultural entity when the first Guardians film premiered in 2014, anyone who was can tell you that their reactions to Marvel Studios announcing a space opera flick starring a talking raccoon and a man-tree were a mixture of confounded puzzlement and intense dejection. Not only had many comic book movie fans (let alone general audiences) barely heard of these characters, but Gunn’s reputation as a writer-director of horror movies & indie comedies surprisingly did little to give the skeptical faith in his ability to make people emotionally invested in this story. And that lack of faith undeniably worked in Gunn’s favor. The cast and crew assembled under his creative control produced not just one of the best films in the MCU films or comic book movies to date, but (in my humble opinion) one of the best sci-fi comedies of the century. Why? If you ask me, that question can be answered with a lot of things. But let’s start with perhaps the most obvious strength of the movie: the characters. Our protagonist is Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), who proudly goes by the spacefaring nickname “Star-Lord” despite lacking much of an impressive criminal reputation of his own that gives the moniker any credence among law enforcement or fellow criminals alike. But, as the story reveals over the course of two hours, Quill’s identity possesses the heart & emotional weight of a man traumatized as the result of the death of his mother Meredith (Laura Haddock) his kidnapping at the hands of galactic criminals the Ravagers led by the blue-skinned bandit Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker). Bear in mind that these two incredibly formative events occurred on the same day…minutes apart! 😊 In other words, Quill is our human entry point into Gunn’s zany take on Marvel Studios’ cosmic universe which works thanks to a relatable & fun performance from Pratt who gives Star-Lord enough “leading man energy” to keep the audience invested in his journey of finding a new family from start to finish. Without fail, every time I watch the first Guardians film, I get emotional (or straight-up cry) twice: the opening scene of Meredith’s death & Quill—in an Infinity Stone-powered hallucination—seeing his dying mother reach out her hand for him to grab in the third act. Obviously, both moments involve my caring about Quill’s struggle to forgive himself for being unable to save his mother’s life in order to accept new love into his life. While the entire cast is very good, I personally don’t think this movie (or the entire Guardians saga) would work as well as it does without Quill grounding us emotionally in his story (and Pratt’s portrayal of that inner turmoil & conflict). Needless to say, Guardians Vol. 1 is by no means a solo hero’s journey like many other superhero flicks. Quite the opposite; it relies on making you care about a team of reluctant heroes coming together to form an unlikely—but fitting—family unit. And that wouldn’t work at all if not for the other core members of the team doing just as good of a job as Pratt in the leading role. Perhaps the one that gets the least to do narratively (not in terms of dialogue) is the green-skinned fierce female lead Gamora (Zoë Saldaña). Despite being put into a role that could very easily turn into the “stoic, masculine action heroine” trope, Saldaña gives us just enough of a peak into Gamora’s softer side (particularly during her more intimate interactions with Quill) to humanize her beyond what’s necessarily on the page. While both of her primary relationships—the romantic dynamic that she has with Quill and her complex sibling relationship with Nebula (Karen Gillan)—get better fleshed out in her future appearances in the MCU, this character is a solid counterpart to Quill as a co-leader of the team. Arguably, the hidden gem of Vol. 1 is the all-brawns, no-brains “not-funny funny man” Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista). Despite the actor’s relatively limited film experience up to this point, Bautista exhibits incredibly comedic timing in virtually every scene that he’s in (which, undoubtedly, only gets better each time he shows up in the role). As a character who lacks any comprehension of metaphor or sarcasm, Drax plays off Quill’s quippy personality quite well. But it's the tragic undertones of the character—having lost his wife and daughter to the film’s villain Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace)—that, while underdeveloped, help keep Drax from simply being a one-note character. And the best gift this movie gave us is launching Bautista’s acting career who went on to have memorable appearances & roles in films like Blade Runner 2049 and Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. The other two core members of the original Guardians team—the cybernetically enhanced, anthropomorphized Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and his humanoid, tree-like protector Groot (Vin Diesel)—serve as a lovable duo despite not having overly charming personalities on their own. While Rocket’s indiscriminately belligerent attitude contrasts sharply with Groot’s childlike spirit, their pairing as the brains and brawn, respectively, makes for some of the best action and comedic moments in the entire film (sometimes both!). And, of course, the chemistry of their relationship pays off well in the end with Groot’s sacrifice to save the team & Rocket’s wish for anything but. Thanks to Cooper and Diesel’s voice acting, these two computer-generated characters (one an animal & the other a tree) have won over the hearts of millions of moviegoers for nearly ten years now & become some peoples’ favorite MCU characters to date. All in all, this amazing cast of actors playing very well-written characters excel under James Gunn’s vibrant & unique directorial style. So much so that Kevin Feige’s incredibly risky bet on the movie actually delivering remains one of the biggest surprises of behind-the-scenes moviemaking of the last several years. But, I want to revisit my original question: what makes Guardians of the Galaxy a near-perfect cinematic blend of comedy, action, and emotion? To me, the answer is obvious yet crucial to understanding why these characters have resonated with us for so long… Heart. From the very first scene of Vol. 1, Gunn’s take on the Guardians is injected with so much compassion & humanity for five outcasted misfits (only one of them actually human) that it’s so hard not to love them. In spite of their often-clashing personalities & tragic backstories, this team of heroes with a less-than-admirable track record for doing the right thing on their own is lovable because they make each other better. A Star-Lord or Gamora or Rocket & Groot story just wouldn’t work as well. Simply put, the key ingredient for the success of Guardians of the Galaxy is in the name. And, in my humble opinion, this ensemble only gets better with age regardless of what film (or special) that they appear in. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) If the first Guardians movie excelled at establishing a lovable dynamic between its core cast of characters, the second one aims to get more personal & intimate with them by exploring what makes them tick as a dysfunctional family unit. While (in my humble opinion) it’s not done to the same effect as its predecessor, Vol. 2 is still a shining example of James Gunn’s strong writing and directing on display. Arguably, the weakest aspect of the film is its central plot involving Quill wrestling with his “daddy issues” upon having a chance encounter with Ego (Kurt Russell)—a god-like entity who lives on a planet of his own creation—and his personal aid Mantis (Pom Klementieff). With Gamora and Drax as company, Quill leaves with Ego and must confront both his (partially) divine ancestry/genetic makeup but also deal with his feelings towards Ego as they change from cynical skepticism to yearning admiration to primal rage for Ego’s role in Meredith Quill’s death. With such a personal story at the core of the film’s narrative, Vol. 2 should easily supersede the first Guardians movie. But, for some reason, the way this plot line comes together in the last forty or so minutes causes some uneven pacing to the point that when the Sovereign’s man-hunt for the Guardians is added on top of everything else going on the climactic action scene lacks some of the impact that it needed to really hit regarding the main story about fathers and sons. However, the characters themselves are by no means the problem thanks to Chris Pratt and Kurt Russell’s exceptional chemistry in the twisted father-son relationship that they share in the movie. Even on his own terms, though, Russell knows exactly the movie he’s in & rolls with it by teasing the more megalomaniacal tendencies of the character behind a thinly-veiled compassion for Quill that quickly evaporates once Quill turns on him. What I also appreciate about Quill’s journey is the way that it parallels Gamora’s heart-to-heart with her sister Nebula. Despite playing a stoic, glamorized henchman in Vol. 1, Karen Gillan gets more to chew on her & chooses subtlety for the most part. Combined with Zoë Saldaña building on what she started in the first movie regarding her sibling rivalry & the burgeoning affection that she has for Quill, the Gamora-Nebula storyline works almost better than the Quill-Ego one. Despite being given less screen time, these sisters facing their shared trauma together & laying the groundwork for reconciling their differences without violence feeds off of Quill’s “daddy issues.” More importantly, though, the two stories lift each other up. This is because the true emotional nugget of Quill’s story lies not with Ego but with Yondu. While a more zany and comedic character in Vol. 1, the blue-skinned space pirate gets a more tragic & weight presence in Vol. 2 (served all the better by Michael Rooker’s solid acting). In short, Yondu has to wrestle with his mistakes (specifically in how his flawed approach to parenting Quill)—which he does thanks to some quality time in jail with Rocket—and this properly & impactfully sets him up for a heroic sacrifice & redemption arc by saving Quill at the cost of his own life. By the time of Yondu’s funeral, the separate emotional journeys of Quill and Gamora pay off tremendously well. Whereas Quill honors Yondu’s memory by accepting him as a pretty good father figure, Gamora manages to set aside any ego & genuinely reach out to Nebula despite the latter’s struggle to accept such an embrace. If you ask me, it’s these four characters and the relationships they have with each that make Vol. 2 as good as it is. When it comes to our other team members, Dave Bautista is easily the “most improved” in how he brings Drax to life. Even doing as well as he did in Vol. 1 with his comedic timing, Bautista clearly took Gunn’s approach to writing the character for him & ran with it. The result? Some of the funniest line deliveries in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe which are only surpassed by Drax’s moments in other ensemble movies like Avengers: Infinity War…and Baby Groot. While Gunn clearly adjusted his writing of Drax to play to Bautista’s strengths, perhaps the best creative decision he made for Vol. 2 in terms of bringing the comedy was retaining the original Groot’s psychopathic bloodlust & preserving it in a toddler-like personality (both physically & emotionally). With a lack of care for consequences or stakes, Baby Groot’s use in the plot and his dynamics with all the Guardians really helps alleviate the tension when needed without feeling inconsistent with the Groot we met in the first movie. He's just SO CUTE! How can you ever punish him for the murders he commits?!? 😊 To be clear, I really like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. It just doesn’t hit the same emotional & thematic highs of its predecessor, but that doesn’t mean it fails in achieving the goals that it’s trying to accomplish. By fleshing out these characters & their relationships to one another while testing their resolve as a team and reluctant family, Vol. 2 sets up some great stuff to come with the Guardians (particularly Rocket with teases of his backstory readying him to be front and center in Vol. 3). But, by the end of this movie, the question now becomes: what would it be like to see the Guardians interact with other superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Avengers: Infinity War (2018) While there might’ve been worries among some fans about the Guardians being put in the creative hands of new storytellers—directors Joe and Anthony Russo & writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely—their first appearance in an Avengers flick somehow exceeded expectations (at least mine). With James Gunn’s presence still felt as an executive producer, this team of cosmic superheroes fit right in with Earth’s mightiest heroes in their biggest adventure yet while still having arcs of their own. One of my personal favorite aspects of how the Guardians are depicted in Infinity War is the intricacies of their relationships with one another. Both the awkwardly funny dynamic between Drax and Mantis & the more parental role that Rocket has with an irritable Teen Groot build upon what was set up in Vol. 2 (even though the former two lack a significant presence amongst the insanely massive cast that this movie has). More importantly, though, the “unspoken thing” between Quill and Gamora is finally paid off here with their romance out in the open for both their fellow Guardians and the audience to relish. All in all, since their adventure in this movie takes place four years after Vol. 2, the filmmakers of Infinity War deftly & expertly depict a realistic take on what this dysfunctional family would be like after so long traversing the galaxy together. Which makes their separation & ultimate disintegration by the end all the more tragic. But I’ll et to that later. 😊 It's not a controversial thing to say that the most important member of the Guardians to the emotional story of Infinity War is Gamora. With only teases of the trauma that she and Nebula experienced as adopted daughters/soldiers of Thanos (Josh Brolin), this movie puts that twisted father-son relationship front and center due to making the “Mad Titan” the secret protagonist of the narrative. As such, the Russo and their collaboration with Markus and McFeely ensures that the audience becomes invested in the complexities of Thanos’ warped sense of fatherly affection & protective instinct for Gamora despite her inability to reciprocate such feelings. This major subplot of the first two acts of the film about this relationship features a great performance from Saldaña who cannot accept that her genocidal megalomaniac of a father could ever truly love anyone…let alone her. This culminates in Thanos sacrificing Gamora’s life to come one step closer to his goal by acquiring the Soul Stone, which makes for the most emotionally affecting death in Infinity War (at least until the third act). Without touching on the future of the character in the MCU, I thought this end for this version of Gamora was fittingly tragic & a necessarily impactful loss at this point in the film. Combined with Quill failing to live up to his cryptic promise to take Gamora’s life if Thanos captures her, Infinity War plays on the irreverent rage that boils in Chris Pratt’s portrayal of Star-Lord so that…I’m gonna say it; maybe it’s a hot take, but I don’t care. Quill punching Thanos in the face on Titan upon learning that he killed Gamora WORKS. Not only does it work for the overall story of the movie, but it’s CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER. Remember when Ego revealed in Vol. 2 that he was responsible for Meredith Quill’s cancer? Did Star-Lord yell in his face for a minute before lashing out?!? NOPE! He reacted offensively by pulling out his guns & SHOOTING HIM!! If anything, Quill should’ve been even more aggressive from the jump once he knew of Gamora’s sacrifice at Thanos’ hand. 😊 On a serious note, though, I appreciate how tragic the route that Quill and Gamora’s love goes in this movie. It fits the more serious & dramatic tone of Infinity War by injecting believable stakes for these characters that we’ve come to love. Not only can they die, but Thanos’ control of the all-powerful Infinity Stones can be used in such a way as to exert complete control over their selfless acts for one another (namely, Quill reluctantly & heartbreakingly trying to kill Gamora before the Reality Stone intervenes). But what about the other Guardians? Well, Thor and Groot have a fun side adventure with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) traveling to Nidavellir where—with the help of its sole surviving dwarf king Eitri (Peter Dinklage)—they forge a “Thanos-killing” weapon for the muscular God of Thunder. While this sometimes feels like unnecessarily stretched-out scenes that pack the already long runtime of Infinity War, I appreciate that both of our computer-generated Guardians get decent character moments here. For one thing, Rocket seems to have softened a bit during his time with the rest of the crew which is reflected in how sensitive he is (relatively speaking) with Thor as he wrestles with the emotional trauma of everyone that he cares about being dead (two of them at Thanos’ hand). Groot, on the other hand, is mostly depicted as a teenager with an attitude who could care less about what’s going on around him most of the time. But, at the pivotal moment that Thor needs his new weapon to survive the blast of a dying star, he echoes the selfless streak of the original Groot in Vol. 1 by cutting off his own arm to form the handle of the magical axe that is Stormbreaker. Together, their roles in Thor’s hero’s journey help serve the INCREDIBLE pay-off of the three of them using the Bifrost to land in Wakanda with a bang & wreak havoc against Thanos’ troops on Earth. Overall, their chemistry with Thor is one of many examples of why Infinity War is special: it allowed the audience that was invested in the MCU for a decade feel rewarded by seeing characters that were never in the same movie before share the same frame & be badass together. What more can you ask for? Which brings me to Nebula. Admittedly, her presence is much more important to the plot of the next Avengers flick. That being said, Karen Gillan does not disappoint here with what she’s given. By building off the humanizing story that James Gunn teased in Vol. 1 and built upon in Vol. 2, Infinity War pays that off by showing that Nebula has come to genuinely care for Gamora due to her intense concern for her well-being once Thanos takes her off to Vormir alone. And her realizing that her sister was killed by their father as part of his quest for the Infinity Stones makes for some solid character work that, fortunately, only gets better the next time around. All in all, I think you could watch just the first two Guardians of the Galaxy movies and then watch Avengers: Infinity War and be invested in the journeys of these cosmic characters just enough for the film to work as a whole. My confidence in that statement points not only to the strong work that Gunn did as the writer-director of his MCU movies, but also the care that the Russo Brothers and Markus and McFeely took in their ensemble flick to ensure that the Guardians earned the screen time that they deserved before playing on the fans’ love for them by dusting most of them in its fatal final minutes… Even though I only tear up when Tom Holland’s Spider-Man dies in the arms of his mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.). 😊 Avengers: Endgame (2019) Admittedly, the Guardians don’t have too significant a presence in the most recent Avengers movie since the core of the narrative is focused on closing out the stories of the six original heroes who first united against an army of Thanos back in 2012. That being said, what we do get from our two surviving Guardians—Rocket and Nebula—offers a surprising amount of emotional weight to chew on. To begin with everybody’s favorite CG raccoon, Rocket’s small yet important arc in Endgame is a touching mirror on all of his experiences with the rest of the Guardians since they first teamed up. In other words, despite his quick-to-anger nature & biting sarcastic derision of characters like Peter Quill, Rocket seems to have been genuinely affected by losing almost all of his friends (like the “check with the antennae 😊”) and does not hesitate one bit committing to the “time heist” plan first conceptualized by Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) if it means a chance of bringing them back. From the first shot of Rocket only minutes into the movie, this heartbreak is not told but shown in how warm he is to seeing Nebula—the only other surviving Guardian—as he puts his hand in hers & they mourn the loss of their family and friends together. Admittedly, this is one of the few emotional moments we get out of Rocket in Endgame. Most of the time, he’s still his wisecracking, asshole self in how he interacts with both Stark and Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) who he comes to somewhat appreciate as fellow “smart guys.” However, one of the more rewarding new relationships of Rocket’s established in Infinity War that pays off well here is with Thor. Having seen hints of his desire to mentor the god of thunder during his time of grief in the previous Avengers flick, I really enjoyed the pep talk that he gives “Fat Thor” during their mission to Asgard in the past. Not only is it a reminder of how personal the stakes are for all of our heroes, but Rocket in particular: without Quill, Drax, Mantis, and (most importantly) Groot, he has no real family. All in all, I think these emotional moments are merely a tease of the heartbreaking story to come with our cybernetically-enhanced psychopath of a raccoon in Vol. 3. However, even the fact that Rocket is perhaps my favorite Guardian by no means diminishes the undeniable truth that Karen Gillan’s Nebula plays a much more important role in this story. As a heartbroken character grieving the loss of Gamora at the hands of their father, Nebula’s slow-burn of a hero’s journey finally pays off fully in Endgame. First, she almost singlehandedly (with Rocket’s help) brings the surviving Avengers to Thanos’ retirement planet so they can take the Infinity Stones back and, ultimately, kill him. But her story only begins there. Once the heroes figure out the technology necessary to pull off the “time heist,” Nebula offers critical information about where the Soul Stone is (despite not knowing of how Thanos secured it in the prior film). More importantly, though, she is the key to 2014’s Thanos learning of what the Avengers are doing. Despite trying to warn them, Nebula is captured by her alternate-timeline father’s two adopted daughters—including an angrier & more frightened version of herself. Admittedly, Nebula killing her other self to save Gamora is a bit on the nose thematically: pulling that trigger symbolizes her ridding herself of the “old Nebula” and committing fully to the path of a hero. But, I still appreciate what she has to do to get there. Whereas the original Gamora was the one who had to reach out to her in Vol. 2, Nebula must be the one to get that ball rolling in Endgame so that she can win the other Gamora’s trust & they can work together to stop the evil version of Nebula from helping 2014’s Thanos carry out his diabolical plan. Thus, her emotional arc that James Gunn started in his films finally comes to fruition in Endgame which helps her be a far more interesting & enjoyable character than what she started out as in the original Guardians of the Galaxy movie. That’s a majority of the character work for the Guardians in Endgame. By the third act, the main event happens—the dusted heroes come back, including the Guardians that “died” at the very end of Infinity War. The most significant pay-off of this series of events is watching a resurrected Peter Quill reunite with a different version of Gamora who lacks any personal connection to him (which makes Gamora kicking Quill in the genitals all the more hilarious). On a serious note, though, I’m very interested to see what James Gunn does with the Quill-Gamora relationship in Vol. 3 since I don’t believe that it would be realistic for them to fall in love again by the end of the movie…but a man can hope. 😊 Thus, the “Infinity Saga” and the Russo Brothers send off the Guardians in a fittingly comedic fashion. Preoccupied with finding the 2014 Gamora trapped in this new reality, Quill butts heads with Thor who eagerly takes up the offer of a ride after abdicating his rule over Asgard to Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson). While it’s a funny scene, I can’t help but think that such an opportunity of making the Guardians pivotal to the story of the next Thor movie (or vice-versa) ultimately went to waste with their glorified cameo appearances in Taika Waititi’s Thor: Love and Thunder. But, I still have faith that the Guardians will get a fitting conclusion to their story with James Gunn’s third and final Marvel Studios film. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special (2022) But before getting to Vol. 3, James Gunn decided to give us a small dose of the Guardians in Phase Four of the MCU with a Christmas special on Disney+. Coming in at a breezy forty-minute runtime, the Holiday Special works on its own terms as a sufficiently enjoyable opportunity for fans of this dysfunctional cosmic family to “check in” and how they’ve been holding up since the events of Avengers: Endgame. Unlike the first two Guardians movies or the two Avengers movies involving these characters, the Holiday Special isn’t trying to tell a sweeping, big-stakes space opera adventure. Rather, it’s a relatively intimate look at the emotional state of the Guardians since taking over Knowhere from its previous owner—the Collector (Benicio del Toro)—to allow the audience to ground ourselves in where their stories might be going in Vol. 3. Primarily, Peter Quill is clearly lonely with Gamora gone (whether it be his Gamora who was killed in Infinity War or the 2014 Gamora who reunited with him in Endgame). This sets up the central narrative of this special involving Mantis’ first big spotlight as a veteran member of the team wanting to console Quill out of a familial sense of duty. With the reveal that Mantis is Quill’s half-sister (being the biological product of Ego), James Gunn injects much of the heart of the Holiday Special. Having lost the love of his life, Quill is reminded by Mantis’ selfless kindness the amount of love he’s still surrounded by with the surviving members of the Guardians which (hopefully) will help bring him out of his funk heading into Vol. 3. Overall, I appreciated Pom Klementieff (with a very capable scene partner in Dave Bautista as Drax) being given center stage here since she has clearly found the comedic & emotional sweet spots of the character of Mantis. Needless to say, I’m excited to see more of her and Quill’s burgeoning sibling relationship in Vol. 3. Unsurprisingly, the Holiday Special has no shortage of funny lines & hilarious antics. Being a James Gunn-written MCU project, its central plot device of Mantis and Drax traveling to Earth so they can kidnap Quill’s childhood hero—Kevin Bacon (Kevin Bacon)—as a Christmas present makes for some really funny scenes & zany action set pieces. Clearly, the budget of the Holiday Special is not on par with a theatrical MCU movie but this does little to detract from the special’s sheer entertainment value. Fortunately, the strong clash of personalities between Drax and Mantis more than makes up for the low-budget filmmaking on display (especially when a brainwashed Kevin Bacon is added into the mix). Admittedly, the rest of the Guardians get few moments but certainly leave a lasting impression with the limited screen time they have. The scene involving Rocket bickering with the Guardians’ newest member—Cosmo the Spacedog (Maria Bakalova)—makes me very excited to see more of the telekinetic canine interacting with all of the Guardians in Vol. 3. Furthermore, Karen Gillan nails her comedic timing & cadence with her delivering the robotic arm of Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) to Rocket as a Christmas present as well as her absurdly ridiculous quip about actors. And, of course, I can’t mention the laugh-out-loud moments of the Holiday Special without giving a shout-out to…SWOLE GROOT! With a few lines, Vin Diesel does not fail in reminding us why Groot is great in all forms (especially when he’s dancing like a bumbling child without inhibition or shame). Again, I don’t think the Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is a must-watch piece of comic book entertainment. But, as part of my look back at the journey of the Guardians heading into Vol. 3, it serves as a super fun & easy-to-watch prologue to their final MCU outing as one of the best superhero ensembles ever made for the silver screen. Simply put, with six years separating Vol. 2 and Vol. 3, I think fans are more than ready to see how the Guardians’ story ends with James Gunn at the helm of the ship. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” You have been warned.] Walking out of the theater this weekend, I was pretty confident that I really enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 while also being quite certain that I didn’t love it. Did that leave me feeling disappointed by the film? No, but I also wouldn’t be honest if I said that I felt no slight annoyance at the fact that James Gunn’s conclusion to this franchise fell short of absolutely blowing my mind. Given the nature of the movie being the final appearance of this version of the Guardians in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I think it did a lot of things right in that respect while also being arguably the weakest movie that Gunn has made for Marvel Studios. It's difficult to dissect both the admirable strengths & noticeable flaws of Vol. 3 without addressing its central narrative focused on fleshing out Rocket Raccoon’s backstory. Without question, the most consistent criticism that people seem to have for the movie—especially compared to its two predecessors—is how dark it is (specifically with regards to the inclusion of animal cruelty in explaining Rocket’s origins). Honestly, I’m somewhat torn. On the one hand, this didn’t greatly diminish my viewing experience for a number of reasons. Gunn teased this horrific backstory prior (especially in Vol. 1) so I wasn’t shocked to see it come to fruition in Vol. 3. Also, the other Guardians movies feature some pretty heavy material (i.e. Quill’s mom dying in the first five minutes of Vol. 1, Ego murdering his hundreds of children in Vol. 2). Thus, this storytelling device felt rather on brand for Gunn’s take on these characters. That being said, I can understand how many people would be overwhelmed by the rather explicit imagery depicting the sheer devastating lives imposed upon Rocket and his friends by the High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji). Especially given our society’s incredibly powerful attachment to our furry friends (which, as a dog owner myself, I am by no means excluded from). Ultimately, though, this aspect of Rocket’s backstory felt tonally consistent with other aspects of the darker side of the Guardians’ storylines while also doing its job of being (for me) the source of most emotionally affecting moments in the whole movie. Namely, the tragic end of Rocket’s friends—Lylla the otter (Linda Cardellini), Teefs the walrus (Asim Chaudhry), and Floor the rabbit (Mikaela Hoover)—which forces him to escape Counter-Earth alone and, by doing so, carrying the weight of the guilt he feels for their deaths throughout his whole life up to and including the duration of Vol. 3. This is why, in my humble opinion, Gunn’s inclusion of these flashbacks to Rocket’s past work in the end. He pays them off by having them service Rocket’s arc that began all the way back in Vol. 1 when he relied on his hyper-intelligence and intensely crude sarcasm to push people away & bury his past to keep him from truly accepting & loving himself for who he is. A leader, and a good raccoon. I see why it didn’t work for some viewers. And, honestly, I think there’s more room to criticize the extent of the role of these flashbacks in the film’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime. For me, the worst part of this creative choice by Gunn is the fact that we got so little of Bradley Cooper’s incredibly talented voice work for much of this movie (let alone compared to Vol. 1 and Vol. 2) which I selfishly wanted so much more of. Not only could Vol. 3 have showcased Cooper’s best work yet, but I think it sours my viewing of the movie a little if this indeed is Rocket’s final appearance in the MCU (fingers crossed it isn’t!!). Setting Rocket aside for a moment, I think Gunn ensures that he maximizes the runtime of Vol. 3 to give every single member of the Guardians at least a couple of moments to shine. That being said, some of them get more significant arcs than others (mostly deservedly so). In some ways, Peter Quill/Star-Lord—arguably the original protagonist of this franchise (or, at the very least, Vol. 2)—is a little sidelined but still gets a surprisingly grounded & emotional arc here. Not only does he spent most of the movie trying to redeem himself for not being fit to defend Rocket from Adam Warlock (Will Poulter) attacking Knowhere early on, but he comes to terms with the fact that his love for “his Gamora” from the first two Guardians films and Infinity War simply will not be reciprocated by the “new Gamora.” Given the fact that the Gamora that Zoë Saldaña plays in Vol. 3 is (in MCU lingo) a variant from another timeline who has no memory of her time with the Guardians (let alone her romance with Quill), I appreciated the fact that James Gunn avoided the trap of forcing a romance with these characters just to service the fan base who were invested in their dynamic from earlier films. If anything, it’s one of the subtler narrative choices of Vol. 3 that I think services both of their characters. Whereas Gamora (despite remaining with her new family, the Ravagers) comes to respect Quill & appreciate the love that the Guardians share with one another, Quill comes to terms with how his obsession with Gamora in this movie debilitated his leadership of the family that he still has. Thus, it makes sense that he steps down from leading the Guardians at the end & returns to Earth to reconnect with his grandfather Jason (Gregg Henry). Again, I can understand some people’s criticism that Gamora’s antagonistic dynamic with the Guardians for two-thirds of the film due to her not being the same Gamora from before somewhat diminishes the finality of Saldaña being done with the role after Vol. 3. I want to remind these folks that James Gunn agreed to the creative decision made in Infinity War and Endgame. Beyond that, though, Gamora has always had a less-than-friendly rapport with most of the Guardians (even Quill at times). Therefore, I think that if any of these characters were to end their journey as something of an outsider from the rest of the team it would be her. Regarding the other core team members, Nebula and Mantis have arguably more to do emotionally than Quill or Gamora. In the midst of the two characters constantly butting heads with each other, the former comes to terms with the angry part of her personality as a by-product of her tortured past as a daughter-servant of Thanos & must reconcile that aspect of herself to embrace what she was always meant to be: a hero and a Guardian of the Galaxy. Mantis, meanwhile, tries her damnedest to hold this dysfunctional family together despite their best efforts to rip it apart. In that respect, Mantis’ role in the narrative embodies a pretty risky choice by Gunn to emphasize the “dysfunction” of this group of oddballs and misfits. Granted, it ties well back to Vol. 1 & works to reinforce the notion that these characters each have their own shit-stained interpersonal baggage that they’ve been largely ignoring in order to make the Guardians work. If that sentiment is taken to its logical conclusion, I think Gunn always meant to break up the Guardians in this kind of bittersweet fashion. Reflecting how great rock bands throughout history have parted ways, only to experience successful solo careers or discover themselves without sharing an identity with fellow musicians, each member of the Guardians ends Vol. 3 on pretty unique paths of their own: Quill relinquishes leadership of the team to live something of a normal life on Earth, Nebula and Drax accept the responsibility of leading Knowhere & raising the children they saved from the High Evolutionary, Mantis sets out on her own to figure out who she is without Ego or the Guardians telling her what to do, and Rocket fulfills the leadership role that he was meant for as the head of a new iteration of the Guardians. Simply put, there’s a lot of poetic perfection tied up in these endings. In the vein of other reluctant heroes like Bilbo Baggins, Quill would rather live the rest of his days with his sole surviving blood relative than gallivanting around the cosmos without Gamora at his side. Conversely, Rocket and his muscular tree companion Groot live for the action so it makes sense that they stick around to carry on the Guardians’ legacy. Nebula, meanwhile, gets the chance to be the parental figure that Thanos never was by creating a safe & loving environment for the displaced child-experiments of the High Evolutionary (thus saving them from a similar fate that she suffered for years). At her side is Drax, the widowed loner who turned to violence & anger out of the grief of losing his wife and daughter. Now, he not only has a plutonic partner in Nebula to lead Knowhere but also gets a second chance to do what he always wanted to do with his life: be a father. Ultimately, Vol. 3 ends the saga of James Gunn’s Guardians in pretty satisfying fashion. While the ending he chose for this team was unexpected & not as emotional as it could’ve been for me, I do think it feels right for the story that Gunn set out to tell ten years ago. Will some of them return in future MCU projects? Well, if you’ve seen Vol. 3 in theaters you know that at least one of them will. And while I’d be fine with pretty much any of them showing up again, I do think that it’ll be difficult to recapture the magic of these characters all sharing the screen together under Gunn’s apt direction & creative vision. At the end of the day, how will I remember the journey of James Gunn’s rag-tag team of destructive misfits in the MCU? As a whole, very fondly. These characters have more than earned a special place in my heart as one of the best superhero teams ever assembled for the silver screen. Furthermore, the mix of action, humor, drama, emotion, and (OF COURSE!) banger soundtracks that James Gunn melded into this comic book movie franchise will forever live on in the hearts of movie fans even long after the MCU ends (which may not be for some time). In my humble opinion, I don’t think that we can ask much more from a creator than that. What movie has your favorite appearance of the Guardians of the Galaxy? After the events of Vol. 3, do you want to see any of the original Guardians appear in future MCU projects or would you prefer that their journeys end here? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Laci Molnár from Pixabay I’m not a sports fan. Plain and simple. Not since my pre-teen years did I care one iota about watching or learning about sports. That being said, I’m a sucker for a great sports movie which there are plenty of. From the oddball Adam Sandler golf comedy Happy Gilmore to the Denzel Washington-led social drama Remember the Titans, the sports flick is a subgenre of cinema that seems to lack any significant limitations in how filmmakers of all stripes can use athletic competition to tell a compelling story. As a result, there is perhaps no single film that can be credited with jumpstarting the modern sports movie.
But if there is one, it’s Rocky. The low-budget, gritty boxing drama written by and starring Sylvester Stallone in the title role that took home the Oscar for Best Picture that year. Not only was the film critically praised, but it was wildly commercially successful by grossing nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars worldwide despite being made for under one million dollars. Furthermore, it spawned a multi-film franchise with five sequels spanning thirty years to mixed results. And despite the last film starring the “Italian Stallion” in the lead came out over a decade ago, the Rocky series transformed with the critically and commercially successful release of Ryan Coogler’s Creed starring Michael B. Jordan. In a matter of days, Jordan is making his directorial debut with Creed III which will premiere nearly fifty years after the original Rocky flick. Therefore, I thought: “What better time to take a look back at the entire Rocky franchise?” Which ones still hold up? Which ones never held up to begin with? And which ones remain a blast despite not holding up at all? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Rocky (1976) Much in the same way that Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho kickstarted the “slasher” genre, the first Rocky movie laid the groundwork for the modern sports film. It took a rewatch of this movie for me to come to that conclusion. Yet, having seen it twice, I still don’t love this movie. But that doesn’t mean I don’t admire it as both a personal story and as an important part of cinema from the last half-century. Perhaps Rocky’s most enduring quality is that it’s not really a sports movie. Rather, boxing is the catalyst for the character arc of our titular underdog—Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). As a poor, lonely man without direction in life, Rocky’s simple-natured kindness makes him a very endearing character from the get-go (despite some of his more glaring flaws in personality). Thus, the movie only works as well as it does because of Stallone’s writing and performance of the protagonist. If the audience did not care about Rocky, then the whole film collapses in on itself. So, how does boxing serve Rocky’s story? More than anything, it is that which motivates Rocky to aspire to greatness. It is the path that he chooses to take in order to prove to himself that he’s worth a damn. Yet the movie transcends its fictitious story due to the semi-autobiographical screenplay that Stallone wrote to reflect this time in his life trying to prove himself in Hollywood as a serious actor and filmmaker. Knowing just how tried and true the parallels shared between Rocky and Stallone are makes the film’s climactic bout even more impactful. And it (mostly) makes up for all the lackluster parts of the movie. If Rocky was solely about telling its titular protagonist’s underdog story, I’d have a much higher opinion of it. However, the slower pace (indicative of the film’s old-school sensibilities) and outdated simplifying of Rocky’s complex relationships with his best friend Paulie Pennino (Burt Young) and Paulie’s sister Adrian (Talia Shire) hold it back from being one of my favorite sports dramas of all time. Admittedly, I was less off-put by Rocky’s burgeoning romance with Adrian the second time around. Maybe it was just because I knew what was coming, and made the conscious effort to contextualize it within the time that the movie was made while focusing on the positive aspects of their dynamic. That being said, I still think that the way Rocky “seduces” Adrian—by practically forcing her to kiss him and sleep with him in his apartment—doesn’t work now and shouldn’t’ve worked back then. But, setting that aside, I do think that Stallone and Shire’s chemistry in the latter half of the movie somewhat makes up for this and, ultimately, does its job of servicing Rocky’s triumphant conclusion. The character that I find pretty insufferable in Rocky is Paulie. While I can appreciate Young’s Oscar-nominated performance, the character himself remains unlikeable from start to finish. Whereas in the beginning he’s pressuring Rocky to ask Adrian out to help his sister get a social life, he then resents what Adrian and Rocky have in a way that just makes me question if Paulie has some kind of suppressed, quasi-Oedipal attraction for Adrian. Even if this wasn’t Stallone’s intention when he wrote the character, Paulie nevertheless sets the standard as perhaps my least-favorite character in the entire Rocky franchise. I even like the ensemble of quirky folks populating Rocky’s working-class Philadelphia neighborhood more than Paulie. Of course, the standout is his trainer and owner of the local gym Mickey (Burgess Meredith) although his dynamic with Rocky remains frustrating until the third act. Furthermore, Rocky’s scene with the teenage girl Marie (Jodi Letizia) is funny in an awkward kind of way. Not only does Letizia present Marie as a charming (if not misguided) kid, but Rocky’s effort to mentor someone else when his own life is so topsy-turvy serves for a darkly funny moment in an otherwise serious film. Overall, though, I commend the movie for celebrating the urban culture of working-class America (through the specific lens of inner-city Philadelphia). Despite some later installments in the franchise getting away from these humbler roots, I’ll always appreciate the first Rocky for portraying the experience of poverty without an ounce of glitz or glamour. There’s more I could say about the first Rocky movie, but I’ll save that for a potential future deep-dive blog. For now, I leave it at this: Rocky is an important flick with (mostly) good writing and acting that doesn’t fully hit for me due to some of its more outdated qualities. Still, it’s a movie worth watching for anyone who loves cinema. And maybe next time I watch it I’ll like it even better. Who knows? 😊 Rocky II (1979) While I understand the power of nostalgia, I simply do not get how so many people feel that the first Rocky movie is better than the second. Having seen them both twice, I’ve been more reassured in my firm belief that Rocky II is not only a pretty good sequel. But it is also an improvement upon its predecessor in almost every way. Let’s start with the character arcs of the film. For one thing, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers)—Rocky’s opponent from the first movie—feels like a more multi-dimensional and complex character the second time around. Whereas he was driven by the very simple motivation of hosting a publicity stunt in the first film, he has more to fight for in Rocky II. Having claimed a pyrrhic victory over Rocky, his deflated ego in the wake of nearly losing to an amateur local boxer pushes Apollo to his breaking point due to an influx of hate mail claiming that he rigged his fight with Rocky. I just always found Apollo to be a more sympathetic and interesting character in Rocky II because, unlike the first movie where his investment in the final fight was so shallow, he must redeem himself by proving his ability to not just beat Rocky in a rematch but demolish him. If anything, Rocky II fleshes out Apollo to help him emerge as the classic franchise foe-turned-friend that he becomes later on. But what about our protagonist? Surely, his arc in the sequel cannot top showing the world that he’s worth a damn at the end of the first movie. Maybe not…but that doesn’t mean his journey in Rocky II is worse. If anything, Stallone took the opportunity of a sequel to Rocky to avoid the inevitable trap of just doing the same story of the first film again by asking interesting questions. How does this simple-minded man deal with the sudden celebrity status he gains from going toe-to-toe with the world heavyweight boxing champ? How might this affect his relationships with his girlfriend (now wife) and best friend? What does boxing really mean to him, especially when his health and safety are directly threatened by the prospect of a rematch with Apollo? Somehow, Stallone managed to preserve Rocky’s underdog vibe without sacrificing a damn good character arc for him in the sequel. As soon as he feels on top of the world, the financial pressures from mismanaging his newfound small fortune and the emotional toll of his wife going comatose after going into early labor forces him to reconsider what means the most in life: family. Was the Rocky series the original Fast and Furious franchise? Maybe. And besides, who doesn’t love watching Stallone as Rocky act in commercials with his signature awkward charm? 😊 These respective character arcs effectively serve a pretty good showdown between Rocky and Apollo in the third act. The editing and choreography work together very well to deliver a far more engaging fight than the one from the first movie. The raised stakes for both characters helps end this movie with a bang. Not only can the audience empathize with both Apollo and Rocky’s striving to win, but Rocky’s decisive victory solidifies Rocky II as one of the best films in the series and (with the exception of some later entries) my personal favorite. FIGHT ME! Rocky II IS BETTER THAN Rocky. 😊 Rocky III (1982) In my humble opinion, Rocky III is when this series experiences its first significant decline in quality. Whereas the first Rocky is a more dramatic flick with strong filmmaking on display and Rocky II is a more fun and compelling narrative with a better climactic fight, the third entry in the franchise fumbles the ball quite a bit. In many ways, Rocky III is more Apollo’s movie than Rocky’s which works to an extent. Coming off of being the antagonist in the first two films, Weathers takes on more of a supporting role here as the former champ-turned-commentator whose dented ego allowed him to gain some wisdom and foresight. Of course, this comes in handy with Rocky’s fall from grace as Apollo steps in to mentor the “Italian Stallion” in the wake of Mickey’s death (I’ll get to that later). In other words, much of this movie doesn’t work for me but Apollo’s evolution into Rocky’s boxing mentor and friend certainly does. While many fans of the franchise correctly point out that both the Creed films wouldn’t exist without Rocky IV, it’s equally important to highlight the undeniable fact that without Rocky III the end of Apollo’s story in Rocky IV wouldn’t nearly feel as impactful. So, kudos to Rocky III, I guess. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else about this movie falls flat for me. First and foremost, Rocky’s journey here feels much hammier and unoriginal than Rocky II. As the new heavyweight champion, his inflated sense of himself makes him into a pretty unlikeable character to the point that Mickey’s death in the first act fails on multiple levels. Not only does the choice to kill off Burgess Meredith in and of itself comes off as vapid and forced, but it does little to invoke much sympathy for Rocky out of me since he lacks his signature charm at this point in the story that he retained in the first two movies. Furthermore, the supporting cast going back to the first Rocky flick lack much of a notable presence. Even his most ardent supporter, Adrian—who, admittedly, was more of a plot device in Rocky II—basically has no heartfelt or compelling scenes with Rocky here. While I understand Stallone’s desire to focus on Rocky’s burgeoning bromance with Apollo, the decision to mostly sideline Rocky and Adrian’s relationship (which was the heart of the first two movies) feels unnecessary, flippant, and all-around wasteful of Talia Shire’s talents. But perhaps the most egregiously impactful decision of Rocky III was the villain: Clubber Lang (Mr. T). Nothing against the man himself, but Lang is a cartoonishly amateur villain (I use the word “villain” very specifically) that really cheapens the presence of an antagonist for Rocky to fight as just that: someone to throw fisticuffs with. And while some of the villains later on in the franchise revert back to being serious and compelling (like in Creed II), Lang established this destructive precedent for future Rocky movies to make Rocky’s opponents as excessively silly as possible which doesn’t always work. Simply put, I don’t like Rocky III as a whole. Not even Carl Weathers can save the movie from itself. That being said, I’ll be forever grateful to it for giving us Survivor’s banger hit “Eye of the Tiger” (did you know that song was nominated for an Oscar AND a Grammy?!? Surprised the shit out of me!). 😊 Rocky IV (1985) Anyone who has seen the Rocky franchise knows that it’s not until Rocky IV that these movies stopped trying to be taken seriously whatsoever. Some might say this was for the better, which I understand if one views Rocky IV as a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. On that note, I think I enjoy Rocky IV more when I embrace it for all its flaws. Without question, Rocky IV exemplifies the most distinctive qualities of 80s action cinema. A clearly drawn moral divide between its titular hero and the villainous Russian boxer Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). An excessive amount of training montages and misplaced punching sounds during the climactic fight in Moscow. And, of course, the hyper-melodramatic death of fan-favorite Apollo Creed as the driving factor behind Rocky getting back in the ring on his quest to avenge his friend and former opponent’s death. What more could you ask from a cheesy 80s boxing movie?!? 😊 To be clear, I don’t think these qualities make Rocky IV a good film. But they do work together to offer up a damn entertaining movie. Does Apollo’s death have much emotional impact? Not in this movie, and certainly not without the Creed films. Is Drago—warts and all—arguably the pinnacle of villains in the Rocky series (if not 80s movie villains in general)? Probably, but especially with one-liners such as “I must break you” and “If he dies, he dies.” How on earth can Stallone expect the audience to genuinely buy into Rocky’s effective emotional appeal to the Soviet regime for world peace? Even if he doesn’t, who cares?!? Simply put, Rocky IV is more fun than Rocky III. Maybe it isn’t a better movie, but it’s more enjoyable and thus a better watch. Just go in expecting a fun time with a bad movie and you’ll likely have the optimal viewing experience for this entry in a series that has started to outlast its welcome. Rocky V (1990) I have little to say about Rocky V because little deserves to be said about it. Not only is it a bad movie, but it’s a bad Rocky movie. You would think that John Avildsen, the director of the first film in the franchise, returning to helm this one would’ve acted as a good luck charm. Alas, it did not and anyone who’s seen these movies won’t at all be surprised by my opinion that Rocky V is the worst of them. First and foremost, Stallone’s decision to use Paulie as a plot device in this movie is laughably stupid. He wants us to buy into this pathetic excuse for a Rocky flick that only happens because Paulie was tricked into letting Rocky’s accountant waste his entire fortune on bad real-estate deals without paying Rocky’s taxes for years. Paulie’s never been my favorite character in this series, but the way he’s used in Rocky V is a new low for wasting Burt Young’s acting chops (most on display in the original Rocky movie and the sixth entry, Rocky Balboa). The core of this film’s narrative—Rocky being unable to fight anymore because of a brain injury—had potential, but ultimately falls flat. Stallone and Avildsen don’t do much with it, preferring to waste precious screen time highlighting the growing divide between Rocky and his family. Specifically, his son Robert, Jr. (Sage Stallone) feels abandoned while Rocky devotes much of his time living vicariously through his new boxing protégé Tommy Gunn (Tommy Morrison). No offense to young Sage, but the central focus on a character played by Stallone’s son comes off as a classic case of nepotism in poor taste. The scenes between Rocky and Robert feel shallow and forced, both due to poor writing and Sage’s youth and inexperience making him incapable of carrying one of the major emotional components of the film. Simply put, Rocky V fails to live up to the legacy of this franchise in virtually every way. The characters are incompetently written and uninteresting (if not both). The fights that are shown lack a single shred of hype and come off as the filmmakers clinging to the series’ formula despite having forgotten what made the series good in the first place. Most importantly, though, I had to read the Wikipedia summary of the movie’s plot to remember what happened because it’s so boring and forgettable that I refused to rewatch it. If that doesn’t convince you to skip over Rocky V entirely, all I can say is good luck staying awake for this sad attempt at entertainment. Rocky Balboa (2006) Sixteen years after the critical and commercial failure of was Rocky V, Stallone delivered the swan song of the “Italian Stallion” as the writer-director of Rocky Balboa. And thank God he did, because diehard fans of this franchise (of which I am not) deserved a better ending than the pitiful attempt delivered with Rocky V (sorry, I’ll stop shitting on Rocky V now 😊). Honestly, I don’t have to deride any other movies to highlight how undeservedly good Rocky Balboa is. In my humble opinion, it actually fulfills the original creative vision of the first Rocky movie thirty years later by being a poignant sports drama that’s less about boxing and more about real human emotions and experiences. For one thing, Rocky Balboa takes seriously the relatable issue of how aging and physical debilitation impacts an athlete’s mental and emotional health. One of the crucial aspects of Rocky’s arc in this movie is him confronting the reality that he’s no longer in his prime as a boxer while also embracing the need to retain his fighting spirit. To do that, he must properly mourn Adrian’s death, reconnect with his son, and prove to himself that he’s still worth a damn. In trying to do all this, however, the past continues to hang over Rocky both in terms of his grief about Adrian and his vanity expressed in regaling patrons of his Italian restaurant with boxing stories from “the good old days.” In other words, Rocky’s arc in Rocky Balboa is more layered, complex, and nuanced than any of the other movies in the series up to this point (yes, including the first movie). All of which is thanks to Stallone pouring his heart and soul into this screenplay like he did for the original. Fortunately, Rocky is not the only character to be uplifted by Stallone’s writing. The strained relationship between Rocky and Robert (Milo Ventimiglia), who’s now a corporate lawyer, is sufficiently explored as a man wanting to distance himself from his local celebrity father’s shadow. Furthermore, the inclusion of a now-adult Marie (Geraldine Hughes) who Rocky finds companionship with makes for a strong new relationship that helps ground the titular character in his working-class Philadelphia roots. But, without question, the most improved character from previous films that returns in Rocky Balboa is none other than Paulie. Whereas as previous movies he ranged from an idiotic fool to a thick-headed and abusive asshole, Burt Young FINALLY is allowed to give us a sympathetic angle for Paulie. Like Rocky lost his wife, Paulie lost his sister. However, unlike Rocky who had an overall positive relationship with Adrian, Paulie treated her quite terrible most of her life and is now rocked heavy with guilt and shame for the person he’s been most of his life. In essence, Paulie ends up a tragic figure who (deservedly so) never gets an opportunity to redeem himself and, as a result, feels a little more grounded than Rocky’s arc in this movie. Even if nothing else about this movie worked, I appreciate that Paulie was given a great sendoff (and Young an opportunity to humanize the character that he played dutifully for three decades). All that being said, Rocky Balboa is not a perfect film. Besides the strained believability of Rocky fighting the current heavyweight world champion Mason “The Line” Dixon (Antonio Tarver), Stallone’s decision to unceremoniously kill Adrian off-screen does feel a little cheap and unnecessary. Both times I’ve watched this movie, I wonder to myself if he could have figured out another way to put Rocky in the place he’s in without Adrian being out of the picture (maybe focus more on the father-son dynamics or the friendship with Marie?). However, this doesn’t ruin the movie for me (especially considering the fact that Talia Shire herself commended the move by Stallone as serving the film’s central theme of mourning). While I don’t love Rocky Balboa, I greatly appreciate it for ending the mainline Rocky series with some grace and emotional heft. If nothing else, it supplants Rocky V as a strong finish to Rocky’s journey as the underdog boxing champion (sorry, last time…maybe 😊). In that sense, it’s a necessary film in the series that deserved more money from the box office and awards accolades than it received back in 2006. At the end of the day, how will I remember the Rocky films? On the one hand, I don’t have the same negative feelings about these movies that I do about the Fantastic Beasts or Jurassic Park/World trilogies. At the same time, however, I didn’t grow up watching them and thus lack the nostalgic affinity for them like I do for the original Star Wars trilogy. Nor do I think they have the same staying power as modern movie franchises like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, I look back fondly on only Rocky Balboa. While I appreciate the first two Rocky movies for what they were in their time, I don’t love either of them. While I have fun watching Rocky IV, it’s obvious flaws hold it back from being a true classic in my mind. And don’t even get me started on Rocky III or Rocky V. Despite this series being a mixed bag for me, I’m glad it exists for one reason and one reason only… Thanks to the Rocky movies, we have the Creed movies. 😊 What is your favorite (and least favorite) Rocky film? Does the original film hold up as a classic in your mind? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Natalia Koroshchenko from Pixabay In some ways, 2021 felt like a return to form for cinema. With megahits like Spider-Man: No Way Home and No Time to Die raking in money at the global box office, there was a sense of hope as the year came to a close for what 2022 would bring us. And, in my humble opinion, this year in movies was much more defined by sleeper hits and indie cinema than it was by big-budget, franchise filmmaking (Daniels’ Everything Everywhere All at Once arguably being the prime example of this). This sentiment is certainly reflected in my favorites of the year; only 2 superhero movies made it into my top ten this year (compared to four last year).
Admittedly, I have yet to see many of what are considered to be the year’s best films, including (but not limited to): Todd Field’s TÁR, Chinonye Chukwu’s Till, and Steven Spielberg’s The Fabelmans. Still, I want to use this opportunity to shine a light on some of my favorite movies that I haven’t blogged about before. While some are familiar among most moviegoers (casual or otherwise), there may just be one or two on this list you’ve never heard of that are worth checking out. That being said, here are my thoughts on some of my favorite films from 2022. KIMI If you had told me in January of 2022 that one of my top-ten movies of the year would be a Steven Soderbergh feature on HBO Max, I would’ve been the first to recommend you be admitted to a mental institution. Simply put, I’m not a huge fan of Soderbergh’s previous work (the Julia Roberts-led legal drama Erin Brockovich being a notable exception). In particular, I’ve found his two most recent films, Let Them All Talk and No Sudden Move (both HBO Max originals) to be so damn boring and trite. All that said, my expectations for KIMI were in the toilet. Thus, I was more than pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed KIMI. Unlike much of other Soderbergh’s work in the thriller genre, I greatly appreciated the lean and effective narrative that allowed the major characters of the story to shine while never boring me with tons of needless expositions about their lives. Specifically, if you appreciated Zoë Kravitz’s work as Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Matt Reeves’ The Batman then I highly recommend you check her out in this movie. Kravitz plays Angela, an agoraphobic tech support worker who unravels the mystery behind a recording of the murder of a woman named Samantha (Erika Christensen). In capturing the anxiety-ridden, lonely existence of Angela, Soderbergh’s direction and Kravitz’s performance combine to offer up an interesting protagonist that’s not wholly likeable but sympathetic nonetheless due to her desire to uncover the truth and oust those who have committed wrong (even at the potential cost of her own life). Beyond just the characters, however, I greatly appreciated how KIMI felt like a movie produced in the midst of (and incorporating) the COVID-19 pandemic without feeling gimmicky. On the one hand, the claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere fostered by social distancing and working from home that many of us experienced as the “new normal” for months back in 2020 is Angela’s “normal” normal. Due to her agoraphobia and past experiences with trauma, her daily life effectively emulates what many of us went through mentally and emotionally in the midst of the pandemic. In addition, the overall tense sociopolitical climate of the last couple of the years (notably the mass protests around issues such as police brutality and corruption) is part of both the film’s backdrop and subplot without feeling forced or needless. Rather, it enhances the inherent tension of the film’s back half as Angela evades agents of her boss Bradley Hasling (Derek DelGaudio) in an effort to get the truth about Samantha’s death to the public. All that being said, as just a straight-up thriller film, KIMI does not disappoint. Its first act is direct in setting up the stakes of Angela’s mission while its second act evenly stretches out the tension. Together, it all builds up to a small-scale but engrossing climax in Angela’s apartment involving some smart writing and visceral action sequences. When the twist of modern, post-COVID life is injected, the film consistently immerses the audience in its simple yet engaging story. If, like me, you’re a Soderbergh skeptic or generally not a fan of movies like this, I encourage you to give it a chance (especially given the fact that it received virtually no online discourse this year). With a slim runtime under 90 minutes, KIMI will almost certainly not feel like a time-waster. You may even end up enjoying it as much as I did. 😉 Turning Red When reflecting on Pixar’s recent era of “non-sequels” (coming off of both Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4), I’ve generally enjoyed their movies from the last few years. Ironically (given the state of cinema in 2020), I really enjoyed both Onward and Soul, and was thoroughly entertained by this year’s Lightyear. However, of the two Pixar movies that came out this year, my favorite undoubtedly was Domee Shi’s Turning Red. As the studio’s first solo female director, Shi builds on the success of her 2018 Oscar-winning short film Bao by making a deeply personal coming-of-age story that still manages to engage a diverse audience due to grounding the narrative in powerful and universal emotions connected to the adolescent experience. While Shi’s protagonist Meilin “Mei” Lee (Rosalie Chiang), a Chinese-Canadian girl, has a very specific life experience on the surface, Turning Red does an excellent job of fleshing out the universality of her becoming a teenager. Shi accomplishes this by paying close attention to Mei’s relationship with her parents, her friends, and her cultural heritage in a way that makes her so endearing and relatable. Honestly, when this film came out, I was stunned by the more mixed response from general moviegoers. While I can appreciate some parents’ concerns over the movie’s (brief) inclusion of menstruation as a plot point, I think lots of people read too literally into both the title and the film’s use of an anthropomorphic metaphor. In my humble opinion, Turning Red handled its exploration of what adolescence is like for young women very sensitively and delicately without glorifying or romanticizing the uglier aspects in such a way as to minimize the struggles and triumphs of teenage girls. Does it reach the philosophical or existential highs of other Pixar films like Inside Out or the aforementioned Soul? No, but that’s okay because what the movie is trying to do it succeeds at with flying colors. If you sat on Turning Red and haven’t seen it yet but like most Pixar movies, I strongly recommend you check it out. And if you did watch Turning Red this year but didn’t connect with it, I encourage you to give it another chance. I think it’s easily one of Pixar’s best movies of the decade, and is arguably a contender for one of the studio’s best films ever made. RRR I’ll be the first to admit that I am not very well versed in Indian cinema. With the exception of Satyajit Ray’s “Apu Trilogy” from the 1950s, I haven’t really seen any movies from the subcontinent. And, honestly, I was hesitant much of my adult life to explore Bollywood and Tollywood movies for no particular reason. But, I heard enough good things about the action epic RRR to convince me to check it out (given the availability of the Hindi dub on Netflix, this was thankfully easy to do). So, please consider my lack of knowledge about Indian filmmaking style and sensibilities in my review. All that being said, RRR is easily my most surprising viewing experience of a film this year (somehow, even more so than Top Gun: Maverick). The film’s writer-director, S.S. Rajamouli, is apparently known to India as a crowd-pleasing, box-office-busting storyteller (alongside his Baahubali duology, RRR is one of his three movies in the top five highest-grossing films in India to date). Despite the film’s daunting, three-hour runtime and language/cultural barrier, do not be fooled: RRR is a movie that anyone (and, in my humble opinion, everyone) can enjoy. The movie has so many strengths that it’s genuinely difficult for me to narrow them down. I guess to start, the story being told and the themes being explored are compelling and universal in a way that I wasn’t expecting. But, defying all my expectations, RRR embraces several structural and narrative tropes but utilizes them to full effect to give us a thoroughly entertaining and timeless tale of friendship, betrayal, war, and revenge. Don’t be fooled by the film’s long runtime; it never drags or bores and makes for a wildly enjoyable epic movie in every way that the best epics can be. Of course, the story only works on the backbone of its characters. In that sense, RRR works incredibly well thanks to its two lead actors. On the one hand, Komaram Bheem (N.T. Rama Rao, Jr.) is overly likeable without coming off as excessively or unrealistically charming. In a way, Komaram is the underdog with the very noble mission. He is tasked with rescuing Malli (Twinkle Sharma), a young girl from his village who was cruelly kidnapped by Governor Scott Buxton (Ray Stevenson) and his wife Catherine (Alison Doody) and, in the process, taken away from her mother (Ahmareen Anjum). This task, while daunting, takes Bheem on a grueling journey that puts the inhumanity of the British Raj on full display. The co-protagonist, Alluri Raju (Ram Charan), serves as the magnetically charming foil to Bheem as an aspiring Imperial police officer who goes undercover and befriends Bheem in an effort to learn the true identity of the person trying to free Malli from Governor Buxton and Catherine’s clutches. As a leading duo, Bheem and Raju have infectious chemistry. Their respective journeys intertwine beautifully with several twists and turns that uplift both their character arcs and the themes that the movie is exploring. Supported by a stellar cast, the brotherly bond forged between these two characters (in my humble opinion) competes with some of the greatest lead pairing in modern cinematic history. But perhaps the greatest strength of RRR is how effortlessly it mish-mashes a bunch of genres. While it remains a dramatic action epic from start to finish, its injection of political intrigue, romance, and even musical moments manages to elevate the movie to the point of exceeding even the most optimistic expectations that I could’ve had for it. By keeping me on my toes as to what was going to happen next, the film embraces the potential of what a truly fantastic epic can be. Even the best epic films can feel redundant or drawn out at times when they feel trapped within the conventions of a particular genre. Not in this case because RRR constantly entertains and surprises through its embodiment of defying such creative trappings. As a result, I would not be amazed if it ends up being one of the best epics for a lot of Western viewers who (like myself) are unfamiliar with the style of these kinds of Indian flicks. Simply put, RRR is one of the best films of the year. If it does not win the Oscar for Best International Picture (or, at least, get a Best Picture nomination), I’ll be very disappointed. I will be eternally grateful that I took a chance on it because it paid off handsomely. And, given a little time, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if RRR cements its status as one of the best action epic films of the century. 😊 Apollo 10½: A Space Age Childhood When it comes to animated movies this year, some will certainly argue that Guillermo del Toro’s stop-motion Pinocchio for Netflix represents the most astonishing technical achievement of the genre in 2022. And while I won’t outright disagree, I do think that another animated movie of this year competes at least in terms of its narrative triumph if not its innovative filmmaking. And that film is none other than Richard Linklater’s Apollo 10½ (also a Netflix movie). I’m generally a fan of Linklater’s work. School of Rock was a formative comedy of my childhood. Boyhood is (in my humble opinion) one of the most interesting mixes of fantasy and reality in live-action filmmaking of the last decade. And several of his movies, like the heist flick The Newton Boys and the black comedy Bernie, are underrated gems if you ask me. That being said, I rank Linklater’s rotoscoped movies among my least favorite of his filmography (Waking Life was utterly unwatchable and A Scanner Darkly, while interesting, never fully gripped me given the talent on screen). So, going into Apollo 10½ I was cautiously optimistic but ultimately hopeful that Linklater’s storytelling sensibilities would outweigh his lackluster use of rotoscoping. Not only did Apollo 10½ exceed my expectations, but I found its use of rotoscoping to enhance the film’s narrative rather than distract or take away from it. If you ask me, Linklater finally found the right story for which this innovative style of animation is meant for. By crafting a reality-bending tale of growing up in suburban Texas during the height of the “Space Race” through the fantasy-filtered eyes of Stanley (Milo Coy and Jack Black), Linklater pulls off a charming story dripping with nostalgia for a time and place I lack any sentimentality for. And yet, the movie is surprisingly relatable and endearing despite its specificity due, in large part, to the universal themes of growing up, family dynamics, and the power of a young imagination that form the backbone of Linklater’s storytelling. There really isn’t much more to say about Apollo 10½, except that you should give it a watch. At just over an hour and a half, it’s a good use of a short amount of time. And even though it probably won’t beat other contenders in the Best Animated Feature category at the Oscars this year (like Turning Red), I do think that the film more than earned a nomination. Top Gun: Maverick I’ll get straight to the point: I’m not the biggest fan of Tony Scott’s original Top Gun film from the 1980s. However, the overwhelmingly positive critical reception for its sequel that came out this year intrigued me. Therefore, I was cautiously optimistic when I sat down in the theater this summer to watch Top Gun: Maverick on the big screen. I really wanted to enjoy it, but I knew there was a decent chance that I would walk away disappointed (especially given other Hollywood franchises, such as Indiana Jones and Bill & Ted, struggling with the “legacy sequel”). Fortunately, I’m happy to say that the film did not disappoint. Simply put, Top Gun: Maverick joins the pantheon of other great “legacy sequels” such as J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek, Ryan Coogler’s Creed, and Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (just to name a few). Despite director Joseph Kosinski’s obvious love for the original film (notably the nearly-shot-for-shot homage of the opening credits), he never let his personal nostalgia (or the fans’, for that matter) cloud his and Tom Cruise’s creative vision for a sequel that embraces modern cinematic style and storytelling sensibilities. The result? A movie that far surpassed its predecessor, and one of the best films of the year. 😊 Unsurprisingly, Tom Cruise brings his all as both producer and lead actor in Top Gun: Maverick. From the jump, his decades-long experience with the Mission: Impossible franchise shines through in how he and the creative team pushing themselves to wholeheartedly embrace practical stunts and effects. By doing so, they crafted a wholly immersive experience that requires virtually no suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. With such dedication to the artistry of old-school filmmaking, the movie is simply magical. Its action scenes are intense, suspenseful, and breathtaking. The cinematography from Oscar winner Claudio Miranda, combined with the impeccable sound design, have set a new bar for capturing aerial combat in movies (as much as it hurts me to say, I don’t think I can ever watch modern Star Wars movies the same). Not since Avengers: Endgame have I had such an all-around euphoric experience in a movie theater (yup, an even better watch in many ways than Spider-Man: No Way Home). While Top Gun: Maverick is an exceptional action movie, it’s by no means a perfect action movie. If there’s one area of filmmaking on display here that doesn’t reach the heights of the others, it’s in the writing. Particularly, the romance subplot between Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise) and old flame Penelope “Penny” Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly) fills the slower moments of the screenplay with a narrative thread that just isn’t as captivating as the main story. Primarily, the audience is invested in Maverick’s strenuous relationship with Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), son of his deceased best friend “Goose (Anthony Edwards) which makes any other storyline comparatively less interesting. However, what missteps the script takes in handling some of the characters it more than makes up for with the incredibly fulfilling payoff of a third act. With the heart between Maverick and Rooster at its core, the climax of the team’s dangerous and deadly flight mission is one of the most thrilling third acts in an action movie from the last decade (at least). And it heavily borrows (or, more aptly, rips off) the Death Star trench run from George Lucas’s original Star Wars movie from 1977, so I can’t help but love it! 😊 Beyond just the opening credits (smartly set to the absolute banger that is Kenny Loggins’s best-selling hit “Danger Zone”), Top Gun: Maverick includes several homages to Tony Scott’s original flick that avoid feeling cheap or needless. Instead, Maverick and Rooster speaking to Goose at different critical points in their stories, the football game on the beach between Maverick’s team of pilots, and Goose uproariously playing “Great Balls of Fire” in the bar are just some of the superb tributes paid to the first Top Gun by simultaneously serving the narrative of this movie. Without question, Top Gun: Maverick is a sequel that far and away surpassed the original. More than that, though, it more than earns its increasingly growing reputation as one of the best action films of all time. If you haven’t seen this movie yet, find a way to watch it in a theater if you can (or the best home entertainment system that you can find). Trust me when I say that the sheer entertainment value is more than worth your time! 😉 Thirteen Lives One day, early in August, I had a day off work and thus committed myself to watching two—yes, TWO—films that debuted to streaming the day. In the morning, I pulled up Hulu and watched Dan Trachtenberg’s Prey (which, while I didn’t write about today, I do recommend people watching; fans of horror and the Predator franchise, in particular 😊). After finishing this breezy, intense, and overall enjoyable flick, I figured that the other one I planned on watching that same day would easily be overshadowed: Ron Howard’s survival drama Thirteen Lives. There were several reasons for my trepidation, but primarily I was concerned due to Howard’s general lack of quality filmmaking in the last ten years or so. Not since Rush, the sports biopic about Formula One racers James Hunt (Christ Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl), has Howard receive strong critical praise for his film work (although I remain a defender of 2018’s Solo: A Star Wars Story). Furthermore, I did not think that he could craft a suspenseful and compelling film about the story of Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand back in 2018 due to the highly-publicized nature of the events in question ensuring that most viewers would know the outcome before starting to watch the movie. But all of my trepidations rapidly flew out the window very early on because I remembered that Ron Howard, when he really cares about the material, can put out a great film (remember that he directed such modern classics as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, and Frost/Nixon). But what about Thirteen Lives makes it not only one of the (in my humble opinion) best films of the year, but my favorite film of 2022? Let’s dive in, shall we? 😊 First and foremost, Ron Howard is a great director whose best movies in my book are the ones based on true stories (like the four that I mentioned in the above paragraph). And that’s no exception in the case of Thirteen Lives. In making this movie, Howard leads a fine cast of performers (both lead and supporting) and crew working behind the camera to capture the gritty realism of such a dire situation as a dozen regular people starving in a cave system deep underground in the middle of life-threatening flooding and, in turn, the worldwide rescue effort to bring them out safely. Only the best talent in the business could pull this off, and I think this story was in very fine hands with both Howard and the team that he assembled to do it justice. I think “realistic” is perhaps the best way to describe Thirteen Lives. When it comes to the story itself, there seems to be no desire on Howard or his team’s part whatsoever to dress up, glamorize, or romanticize the incredible true story being filmed for the big screen. Despite knowing the outcome of the real events, the movie keeps you emotionally invested in every aspect of the rescue mission and the various individuals, communities, and nations coming together to pull it off. Which is another important strength of the movie: its celebration of hope and humanity. While I’ll be the first to admit that I’m generally a cynic pessimist, I do love when a film can inspire in me a belief for the inherently selfless nature of people. Is that the truth of the world we live in? While I don’t feel intellectually equipped to sufficiently answer such a profound question in a blog about movies, I will say that Thirteen Lives managed to strip away any doubt I might have had in our species’ capability to unite in the midst of a tragedy and give everything of themselves for the sole benefit of others (in this case, complete strangers to the people specifically involved with the rescue). If that’s not powerful filmmaking, I don’t know what is. But what about the technical craft of the movie? Does it make you completely suspend your disbelief that these actors playing rescue divers (like Colin Farrell and Viggo Mortensen) are actually in danger trying to save this soccer team from a cave? YES. IT DOES. Simply put, Thirteen Lives offers up some of the most immersive filmmaking of the year in that it fully embraces the urgency of the situation that both the soccer team and the divers are in. Furthermore, Howard’s control of the camera (thanks to the cinematography of Sayombhu Mukdeeprom) fosters a shockingly claustrophobic and suffocating atmosphere in capturing the Thai cave network that the movie simply wouldn’t work without. Ultimately, however, I think the greatness of this movie is best explained by the fact that it exemplifies the best elements of my other favorites of 2022. Simply put, Howard combines the meticulous attention to detail of Apollo 10½, the grittiness of KIMI, the emotional nuance of Turning Red, the immersion of Top Gun: Maverick, and the raw humanity of RRR. By doing so, Ron Howard and his cast and crew delivered a raw, emotional, and powerful two-and-a-half hours that celebrates humanity’s perseverance in the face of heart-stopping adversity. And the fact that these events happened in real life only enhances Howard’s artistic interpretation that, in my humble opinion, does nothing but realistically capture what that experience must have been like for everyone involved. If there’s only one film that I’ve written about here that you’re going to watch, let it be Thirteen Lives. I am certain you won’t regret it. So, those are my thoughts on some of my favorite films of 2022. Of course, there are plenty of other good films from this year that are worth checking out: Megan Park’s The Fallout, Carey Williams’s Emergency, Gina Prince-Bythewood’s The Woman King, Edward Berger’s All Quiet on the Western Front, and Rian Johnson’s Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. Just to name a few. 😉 For my thoughts on some other 2022 films, click on any of the titles below:
What are some of your favorite films from this year? What movies coming out next year are you most excited for? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|