Change Your Image
bagainsboro16-982-565177
Reviews
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Harmless Christmas Fun Bolstered by a Great Cast and Underrated Script
As someone who is quite "scroogish" when it comes to Christmas movies - bah, mediocrity! - I recently took the chance to enjoy "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" for the second time. Surprisingly, it held up pretty well.
Now, this needs to be immediately stated: your enjoyment of this movie will, quite simply, boil down to how much you can stomach Chevy Chase. Because, make no mistake about it, he is the main attraction here. From his patented physical comedy to his dry wit to his outlandish facial expressions (I'm particularly fond of the last one, in this movie), Chase has his paw marks all over this Jeremiah Chechik-directed romp.
If you are a Chase fan, like I am (controversies aside), chances are you will be laughing from the opening scene to the final credits. Chase's delivery is on-point, and Clark Griswold, while very much a typical Chase character, is fun to laugh with (or at) for 90-ish minutes.
The best laughs in this movie, though, come from the fantastic supporting cast. Whether you latch on to a young Juliette Lewis as Clark's moody teen daughter, Johnny Galecki as the mature (but young) Rusty Griswold, or the great E. G. Marshall as the elderly Art Smith, there are plenty of fun stocking stuffers to help elevate this film into "classic" territory.
For me, however, it was the inclusion of Mae Questel (as Bethany) late in the film that had me belly-laughing on the couch. From her perfect delivery to fantastic lines (thanks, John Hughes), Bethany - despite having less than five minutes of screen time - is infectious. To make matters even better, her dynamic with her husband (William Hickey) is something that we can all relate to.
Is this a deep movie that will have you sobbing due to introspection when the final credits roll? Nope.
Are there some sub-par acting performances that take you out of it? Yep (looking at you, Brian Doyle-Murray).
Is it the best Christmas movie ever made? Of course not.
That being said, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation does enough (whilst minimally offending) to be considered a very good yule-related expedition.
Baby Driver (2017)
A Fun But Slightly Shallow Romp
Having only seen the trailers for Edgar Wright's "Baby Driver" when it came to theaters in 2017, I had a rough but undefined idea of what the film was about. I knew Ansel Egort's "Baby" was a, well, driver, and I knew that Kevin Spacey (Doc) was his mentor. Perhaps unfairly, I assumed the film was a lot of action and not a lot of heart.
And, funnily enough, the opening scene did very little to change that base assumption. The scene was incredible, mind you - with Baby and a group of robbers (John Bernthal, Jon Hamm, Eliza Gonzalez) escaping the police in one of the most unique, thrilling, and pulse-pounding scenes I've seen in a LONG time - and I thought my previous prediction of how the rest of the film was going to play out was spot on.
Not the case.
Instead, "Baby Driver" flips the script on the viewer following the opening scene, diving much more into the protagonist, Baby, and his blossoming relationship with a lovely waitress (Lily James's Debora) then pedal to the metal action. The driving scenes are still there (and engaging, I might add), but this shockingly turns into an unexpected love story, especially during the second act.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as Egort and James have fine chemistry and are unique characters, but issues start to arise when Wright tries to seamlessly blend this world with Baby's more hardened, violent world of crime. It is understood by us, the viewer, that this juxtaposition of worlds is the crux of the drama in the film, and that's fine, but the characters simply aren't refined enough - and the dialogue not strong enough - to really make us care about our Bonnie and Clyde-esque heroes.
The final result, a heart-pounding first half followed by an emotionally dull latter half, is amplified by fantastic performances from the aforementioned Egort, Jamie Foxx as the sparkplug "Bats," and the terrific Jon Hamm as the engaging "Buddy". I would be remiss not to mention Eliza Gonzalez consistently stealing scenes as the sensual sharpshooter, "Darling," as well.
The film shines in its unique sound-mixing and stellar soundtrack, both lauded by critics upon the film's release. These two elements are great, there is no question, but not enough to make up for a few of the gaffes previously mentioned.
It boils down to this: "Baby Driver" is fun, engaging, and unique; all important elements in making a fantastic picture. Unfortunately, Edgar Wright seemingly says all he has to say in the first twenty-five minutes of the film. After that, it is less heart and more tired formula. A good film that had the potential to be great.
Jurassic Park (1993)
Still a Blast, 30 Years Later
Having recently re-watched 2015's solid (yet unremarkable) "Jurassic World," I figured it was time to dust off the old DVDs and fire up Spielberg's 1993 film that started it all.
Like the Raptor animatronics featured in the second half, the film holds up well. From the effects to the score (hoorah, John Williams), to the engaging story, "Jurassic Park" is one of the quickest two-hour pictures you will ever watch. Seriously, it goes by in seemingly 25 minutes.
My third time watching the fantastic picture, I am at a point where the surprises no longer shock, the story is familiar, and the wow factor has shrunk just a bit. Mind you, this isn't a bad thing, but rather an opportunity to enjoy other aspects of the film.
What makes the movie so special, I think, is the brilliant casting by Spielberg and the rest of his team. Every character, from our protagonist, Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) to the slimy Dodgson (Cameron Thor) - who is on screen for less than three minutes - was seemingly hand-picked to perfection. This is the mark of a (then) young filmmaker who already had an incredible knack for pure storytelling. He clearly saw the perfect version of the movie in his head, matched the characters with real-life, brilliant actors, and used that to elevate what could've been a pure visual spectacle into an engaging story that has us rooting for our heroes from the minute they step onto the screen.
A few highlights:
-The eclectic Jeff Goldblum as the flirtatious and odd Dr. Ian Malcolm. Goldblum's charm is magnetic - whether that magnetism is drawing in us or Laura Dern's Ellie Saddler is the larger question. Speaking of...
-The fantastic Laura Dern as the tenacious Dr. Ellie Saddler. Some characters have to work to ooze charisma and swagger...Dern lets her phenomenal facial expressions and progressive viewpoints (for the time) do the heavy lifting.
-The perennially underrated Wayne Knight as the sleazy Dennis Nedry. Wayne Knight is one of those actors who will never get the credit he deserves. Whether he is making us despise him, love him, or laugh at him, the man has a way of never being invisible on-screen. His screen time is limited here, but he somehow makes us deplore him and (weirdly) sympathize with him simultaneously. Not easy to do.
-And finally, Sir Richard Attenborough as the eclectic Mr. Hammond. We hear the term "eclectic billionaire" seemingly tossed around like a softball nowadays...back in 1993, it was still a young phenomenon on screens. Attenborough's fun, sporadic delivery is brilliantly coated in a raw humanity that we see play out as the film progresses. A truly unique character.
The film isn't perfect - nor is it ever trying to be - but it is rare, especially in today's world - that we get a story that keeps us engaged from start to finish while never - not even once - easing up on the gas.
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)
A Simply Superb Spider-Slinging Spectacle
The biggest thing working against this movie, through no fault of its own, was how much I adored 2018's "Into the Spider-Verse." Fresh characters, stunning imagery, and a heart-pounding story made that film one of my highlights of that year and the entire 2010s.
So, how do you follow that?
Within the first five minutes of "Across the Spider-Verse," my fears of a letdown were swiftly quelled.
A few pieces have to go into a sequel to keep it from flopping:
#1) You must respect the original while simultaneously building off it by introducing fresh ideas, characters, and aspects of the story.
Across the Spider-Verse does well here, adding enough plot intricacies to keep us engaged but not overwhelmed. Moreover, we get the fantastic character introductions of Miguel O'Hara (Oscar Isaac), Hobie Brown (Daniel Kaluuya), and Pavitr Prabhakar (Karan Soni), among others.
#2) You have to keep the scale manageable. In other words, don't pull a "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."
Across the Spider-Verse once again knocks this aspect out of the proverbial park. The concept of a multiverse, any multiverse, is exciting but daunting. Some films have seamlessly transitioned their audience into this world: See "Everything, Everywhere, all at Once" and "Loki." In contrast, others have failed spectacularly: See "Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness" or "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania." Across the Spider-Verse effectively introduces us to a deeper layer of its namesake - the Spider-Verse - while never feeling like it adds information solely for "fluff" or "exposition." The result is a phenomenon that keeps us intrigued yet not fully satisfied (what else can you ask for out of a sequel?).
Finally, #3) The stakes still have to feel high...but not artificially high.
This is the area, I believe, that keeps Across the Spider-Verse from a perfect "ten" or even a firm "nine" in my book. While the stakes are unquestionably high - you'll see this in the film's closing moments - the primary villain is the most significant issue that stems from the movie. Now, Jason Schwartzman does a beautiful job at portraying the nefarious "Spot," and the designers of the character truly made a visually appealing and unique villain. The issue, and again through no fault of its own, is that you can't help but compare this villain to the near-perfect villainous combination of Kingpin and the Prowler from the original film. The Spot is engaging, funny, intimidating, and fascinating, but the whole concept of the character feels rushed/unresolved. (A quick side note... the filmmakers revealed that the original intention was NOT to have the Spot serve as the film's main antagonist, which could explain my feelings about the character to some extent).
Overall, this is a MUST-SEE theater movie that is truly enjoyable for the whole family. Whether you are a fan of Spider-Man or not, this film will grip you from the opening credits (seriously) and never let go.
One final note: It will help to see the first film, "Into the Spider-Verse," before enjoying it. The film does a decent job of explaining the essential aspects of the first movie, but you will undoubtedly be a touch lost if you go into this one "blind."
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)
Imperfect, but Still Highly Effective in Execution
First off, I feel it necessary to give Ryan Coogler and the entire production team working on Black Panther: Wakanda Forever a nod of credit. I believe - and you can tell quite early on in the film - that five years ago, this is not the movie Coogler and his team thought they would be crafting.
Improvising on the fly to overcome a real-life tragedy (RIP the immortal Mr. Boseman), I thought the entire film was quite well done. Acting-wise, we saw Letitia Wright (as Shuri) go from sidekick standout to full-blown star. She handled the emotional scenes well, clearly understood her character's conflicting emotions, and proved, at least to me, that she is fully capable of carrying the massive weight of a blockbuster film like this one.
Moreover, Angela Bassett flexes her acting chops with a far more nuanced yet charged performance as Queen Ramonda. It was great to see her character get additional time to shine in the sequel. As always, Lupita Nyong'o (as Nakia), Winston Duke (as M'Baku), and Danai Gurira (as Okoye) all thrive in their respective roles.
One lowlight? While Martin Freeman was endearing and engaging in the original Black Panther, I found his presence in this film wholly unnecessary and often played for cheap (and ineffective) laughs.
Lastly, while Tenoch Huerta's turn as Namor comes with sometimes questionable motives, I found his screen presence and visuals to be captivating. The film set up more Namor in the future, and that is a character I cannot wait to see make his return in some capacity.
Visually, the film is stunning. From the vibrant underwater world of Talokan to the ever-vivacious streets of Wakanda, I thought the film thrived when focusing on these specific set-pieces. Elsewhere, I thought, at times, the film was (quite simply), a little too dark. While dark spots in MCU films have worked in the past, I felt that some of these low-light scenes took away from the engagement. Wright, Bassett, and Huerta are all gifted actors when it comes to facial expressions, and the lighting choices sometimes made it difficult to be fully immersed.
Story-wise, I've seen a few reviews so far that have questioned the character's motives. I agree, to an extent, and the pacing of the film is highly flawed. There were a couple of scenes in which I thought the character's deserved more time to converse, and then Coogler decided to rapidly jump to another less engaging plot point. Moreover, the climax of the movie is greatly flawed (as often happens with MCU films). The narrative is there, and the arc works, but the timing/pacing was not always aligned.
Overall, I greatly enjoyed this MCU romp. In my opinion, it was greatly more engaging than Doctor Strange 2 and Thor: Love and Thunder. While I'm not quite ready to put it on the same pedestal as the extraordinarily thrilling Spider-Man: No Way Home, I thought it compared nicely to Shang Chi.
If you are an MCU fan, this is a must-watch.
Halo: The Master Chief Collection (2014)
A simple, yet highly effective jolt of nostalgia...
While Halo, the Master Chief Collection TECHNICALLY lies to its audience by including Halo: Reach and Halo 3: ODST under its umbrella, I don't think a single person will complain about this verbal "stretch."
The Master Chief Collection can be broken down into three simple parts: Campaign, Firefight(s), and Multiplayer. For those who are glued to the underappreciated storytelling aspect of Halo, make sure to check out the gorgeous campaigns or Halo 4: Spartan Ops. For those who love local co-op and taking on hordes and hordes of difficult enemies, Halo: Reach Firefight is likely for you. Finally, for those that love the classic, P v. P element of Halo, it is brought to you across six (!) lightning-quick and smooth Halo experiences. Moreover, you can customize which games you want to play in multiplayer mode. If you love Reach but hate Halo 2, you can uncheck the Halo 2 box before matchmaking. It is easy to navigate, fun to play, and nostalgic for all the right reasons (whiny 40-somethings screaming at you to let them take the sniper is concerning from a societal level, sure, but unabashedly delightful in practice).
Having gone away from Halo - and the Xbox in general - for a few years, returning to the game via the Master Chief collection was like jumping directly back into a childhood memory: Delightful, engrossing, and incredibly time-consuming (in a good way).
I cannot wait to continue to peel back the layers of this massive grab bag for months to come.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Surprisingly Competent Film
Having grown up a skeptic of Star Wars, I recently decided to go back, to the beginning (no, not the Episode IV beginning, the Liam Neeson beginning) and give these films another try. While I was pleasantly surprised by the pure solidity of the first film - I had little to complain about outside of Jar Jar - the second one was frustratingly decent. I use the word "frustratingly" because I felt, with a few tweaks, this could've been a genuinely phenomenal film.
A sort of oddball detective thriller hidden under George Lucas's "Star Wars" behemoth, I thought this was where the film thrived. Anakin and Obi-Wan chase a mysterious "changeling" through the skies on an air bike while McGregor's wise character sends quick-witted remarks back at his prickly Padawan? What's not to like!? This part of the plot is paid off effectively, as well, as we are eventually introduced to the straight-up badass in Jango Fett. Side note: As cool as Boba was in the original trilogy, Jango is still my pick for the coolest bounty hunter to ever exist (sorry, Mando).
However, once the mystery of the first half is "solved," this is where things start to teeter off in the wrong direction. While getting introduced to the great Christopher Lee's Count Dooku is fun and seeing the likes of Mace Windu and Yoda finally yield lightsabers is proficiently geek-worthy, the film decides, in its latter half, to dive into the romance genre. While Star Wars has proven adequate in performing these sorts of feats at times (I namely think of Han and Leia), Anakin and Padme - portrayed by a very green Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, respectively - have as much charisma as a bit of sandpaper rubbing against a recently-deceased chicken.
Now, I have nothing against either of these actors and have come to respect Christensen, in particular, a great deal; but deciding to use this questionable plotline as the device to guide the latter half of your film was bold at best and idiotic at worst.
I still think this is a worthwhile film to view for the strong effects, the solid acting, and the exciting plot, but I can't help but feel like this was, in another world, a flawless film.
Unfortunately for us, we will have to settle for okay.