Me have had piece in back of head for while now about this nascent genre of recycled IP that, for better or worse (worse!), Hollywood probably going to stick with for while now. Because me think there important distinction to make between absolute bottom-of-barrel that feel like "here is thing you recognize!" (Ready Player One, Space Jam), movies that seem to make genuine effort to do something new and then backslide into rehashing old stuff (Ghostbusters, Star Wars, JJ Abrams' two Star Trek movies), and movies that are aware of long history and affection we have with these characters and try to use that to tell interesting stories (Bond, MCU, current Trek TV shows).
That last group all have success and failure at various times, but Daniel Craig Bond films invested in playing with Bond mythos and iconography while telling new stories, as opposed to "somehow, Goldfinger has returned." And Star Trek: Discovery certainly uneven, but me respect that when show brought Spock in, it attempt to show us different side of character, rather than Abrams' Chris-Farley-like "remember in Wrath of Khan? When he shouted 'Khan'? That was awesome."
Me also curious to see how Matrix fall on this scale of nothing-to-offer-but-nostalgia to merely-mostly-nostalgia. But it worth remembering that most of these beloved IPs came about because someone had new idea, or new take on idea. George Lucas made Star Wars because he not could get rights to Flash Gordon, and Spielberg made Indiana Jones because they not would let him direct Bond movie. Me wish more people said no to modern directors and they gave us iconic new movies out of spite.
And me left out part that actually relevant to this review, which is that thing me like about MCU is that it feels weight of these characters' history (and audience's pre-movie history with them), but generally uses that to move story forward, so me have faith new Spidey will be satisfying in that regard.
And me hate that me have so much more to say about IP-driven films than those other two movies, which both look excellent. But there less to say about two directors whose work me admire doing movies with great actors that look excellent, beyond that me want to see them both! Even if del Toro not have enough to say with this movie, he never turn in movie that not engaging and gorgeous to look at. And it very encouraging to hear Gyllenhaal does so well first time in director's chair.
Yeah, that was spectacularly dumb. But it one giant misstep alongside lot of effective moments — Casino Royale playing with structure of opening, and holding "Bond, James Bond" until final line of film were both terrific. And using soft reboot to examine character of Bond and toll job take on him psychologically really elevated those films. Apart from Spectre, which, again, was just dumb.
I like this stratification a lot, and now kind of regret my review wasn't nuanced enough to make these distinctions. The MCU exists to pay off in movies like No Way Home, which can harness the power of previous entries (and...er... other franchises) to big emotional effect, on top of all the references. W/r/t the references here, they're mostly fine, I suppose, but you can't help but compare it to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse and finding it wanting a bit.
In fairness, nearly every movie is wanting compared to Spider-Verse. But me agree that multiverse shenanigans would no doubt hit harder of that movie not had already done it all so well.
Me looking forward to seeing this one for self, but me want to show kids Spider Man 2 first so they have appreciation for (and understand significance of) Molina's Doc Ock. So maybe that on Saturday, new one on Sunday.
And back around to harnessing power of previous entries — me think it consistently get lost in "Marvel movies not 'real' cinema" discussion that this hyper-connected long-running series something no one has ever done before, and they do it all pretty well. Appropriately, only analogue me can think of even in any other medium is early Marvel Comics, and airtight continuity and crossovers Lee and Kirby maintained across titles.
I really like Tom Holland and Zendaya in these roles, but I also really don't like the direction they've taken in these movies. making SM essentially a version of iron man? having the world know his identity? bleh. it's not the SM stories I want to see.
you know what I think I *would* like? 90 min SM animated films that can continue as a series without relying on the actors being available or looking the same.
That pretty common feeling (making Spidey too Iron Man-like), but me actually like that choice. Because we already have had five movies of broke Peter Parker and it interesting to see something new. And within larger context of MCU, it make perfect sense that Avengers-industrial complex would give Spidey some support. (Heck, even Spider-Friends cartoon had Tony Stark give Peter "supercomputer" that hidden under Aunt May's couch!)
I really enjoyed the new Spider-man, but for a while I was having this weird cognitive dissonance in my head where I was fully aware that it was mostly fan service, which I usually don't like, but somehow it was working for me! Then I relaxed and remembered that like anything else, fan service is one of those things that is bad when it's done badly, and good when it's done well. In this case, having watched all the Spider-man movies just recently, I was the perfect audience and it hooked me in completely. A certain moment where a certain character saved another character brought actual tears--such an amazing moment of catharsis. I don't know what to say. It definitely relies on the past films for its pathos, but that's how the MCU has always worked and there's really nothing wrong with it. After all, it's how TV shows work, it's how comic books work, it's how any serialized storytelling works.
I picked a terrible time, as a nerd, to get breakthrough COVID (I'm recovering, I'll be fine). I hope I'll be able to get to Nightmare Alley before it quickly disappears from theaters, I think I'm going to be too late for WSS at this rate. At least Spider-Man will hang in!
I have to believe that WSS will get a raft of Oscar nominations that might extend (or revive) its theatrical life. As you might imagine, it's really quite a beautiful piece of work, with Spielberg deploying ringers (Kaminski, Stockhausen, Peck, et al.) in all the key technical posts. Glad to hear you're on the mend. Thank goodness for the vaccine.
Thank you both, and thank you to the Next Picture Show, a deep dive into Deliverance, the DVD commentary, and the extra features ate up a good bit of time when I needed it to.
Me have had piece in back of head for while now about this nascent genre of recycled IP that, for better or worse (worse!), Hollywood probably going to stick with for while now. Because me think there important distinction to make between absolute bottom-of-barrel that feel like "here is thing you recognize!" (Ready Player One, Space Jam), movies that seem to make genuine effort to do something new and then backslide into rehashing old stuff (Ghostbusters, Star Wars, JJ Abrams' two Star Trek movies), and movies that are aware of long history and affection we have with these characters and try to use that to tell interesting stories (Bond, MCU, current Trek TV shows).
That last group all have success and failure at various times, but Daniel Craig Bond films invested in playing with Bond mythos and iconography while telling new stories, as opposed to "somehow, Goldfinger has returned." And Star Trek: Discovery certainly uneven, but me respect that when show brought Spock in, it attempt to show us different side of character, rather than Abrams' Chris-Farley-like "remember in Wrath of Khan? When he shouted 'Khan'? That was awesome."
Me also curious to see how Matrix fall on this scale of nothing-to-offer-but-nostalgia to merely-mostly-nostalgia. But it worth remembering that most of these beloved IPs came about because someone had new idea, or new take on idea. George Lucas made Star Wars because he not could get rights to Flash Gordon, and Spielberg made Indiana Jones because they not would let him direct Bond movie. Me wish more people said no to modern directors and they gave us iconic new movies out of spite.
And me left out part that actually relevant to this review, which is that thing me like about MCU is that it feels weight of these characters' history (and audience's pre-movie history with them), but generally uses that to move story forward, so me have faith new Spidey will be satisfying in that regard.
And me hate that me have so much more to say about IP-driven films than those other two movies, which both look excellent. But there less to say about two directors whose work me admire doing movies with great actors that look excellent, beyond that me want to see them both! Even if del Toro not have enough to say with this movie, he never turn in movie that not engaging and gorgeous to look at. And it very encouraging to hear Gyllenhaal does so well first time in director's chair.
although, the Craig Bond's did throw in "oh, btw he changed his name to Ernst Stavro Blofeld". for abolutely no reason
Yeah, that was spectacularly dumb. But it one giant misstep alongside lot of effective moments — Casino Royale playing with structure of opening, and holding "Bond, James Bond" until final line of film were both terrific. And using soft reboot to examine character of Bond and toll job take on him psychologically really elevated those films. Apart from Spectre, which, again, was just dumb.
I like this stratification a lot, and now kind of regret my review wasn't nuanced enough to make these distinctions. The MCU exists to pay off in movies like No Way Home, which can harness the power of previous entries (and...er... other franchises) to big emotional effect, on top of all the references. W/r/t the references here, they're mostly fine, I suppose, but you can't help but compare it to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse and finding it wanting a bit.
In fairness, nearly every movie is wanting compared to Spider-Verse. But me agree that multiverse shenanigans would no doubt hit harder of that movie not had already done it all so well.
Me looking forward to seeing this one for self, but me want to show kids Spider Man 2 first so they have appreciation for (and understand significance of) Molina's Doc Ock. So maybe that on Saturday, new one on Sunday.
And back around to harnessing power of previous entries — me think it consistently get lost in "Marvel movies not 'real' cinema" discussion that this hyper-connected long-running series something no one has ever done before, and they do it all pretty well. Appropriately, only analogue me can think of even in any other medium is early Marvel Comics, and airtight continuity and crossovers Lee and Kirby maintained across titles.
I really like Tom Holland and Zendaya in these roles, but I also really don't like the direction they've taken in these movies. making SM essentially a version of iron man? having the world know his identity? bleh. it's not the SM stories I want to see.
you know what I think I *would* like? 90 min SM animated films that can continue as a series without relying on the actors being available or looking the same.
That pretty common feeling (making Spidey too Iron Man-like), but me actually like that choice. Because we already have had five movies of broke Peter Parker and it interesting to see something new. And within larger context of MCU, it make perfect sense that Avengers-industrial complex would give Spidey some support. (Heck, even Spider-Friends cartoon had Tony Stark give Peter "supercomputer" that hidden under Aunt May's couch!)
Keith, you wrote a 4 star review for Nightmare Alley, but didn't give it 4 stars!
You got a go with your gut sometimes! But it's good. Jesse Hassenger has a piece comparing it to Jackson's KING KONG, which is pretty apt: (https://theweek.com/culture/1007972/the-too-muchness-of-nightmare-alley) But I like that movie too.
I really enjoyed the new Spider-man, but for a while I was having this weird cognitive dissonance in my head where I was fully aware that it was mostly fan service, which I usually don't like, but somehow it was working for me! Then I relaxed and remembered that like anything else, fan service is one of those things that is bad when it's done badly, and good when it's done well. In this case, having watched all the Spider-man movies just recently, I was the perfect audience and it hooked me in completely. A certain moment where a certain character saved another character brought actual tears--such an amazing moment of catharsis. I don't know what to say. It definitely relies on the past films for its pathos, but that's how the MCU has always worked and there's really nothing wrong with it. After all, it's how TV shows work, it's how comic books work, it's how any serialized storytelling works.
I picked a terrible time, as a nerd, to get breakthrough COVID (I'm recovering, I'll be fine). I hope I'll be able to get to Nightmare Alley before it quickly disappears from theaters, I think I'm going to be too late for WSS at this rate. At least Spider-Man will hang in!
I have to believe that WSS will get a raft of Oscar nominations that might extend (or revive) its theatrical life. As you might imagine, it's really quite a beautiful piece of work, with Spielberg deploying ringers (Kaminski, Stockhausen, Peck, et al.) in all the key technical posts. Glad to hear you're on the mend. Thank goodness for the vaccine.
Oh no. Get well soon.
Thank you both, and thank you to the Next Picture Show, a deep dive into Deliverance, the DVD commentary, and the extra features ate up a good bit of time when I needed it to.