Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Cameos, assemble! The eyeroll quotient is extremely high here, and a lot of the interest-generation in this outing comes from seeing who shows up where. For all the wizard flash in the title and feature scenes, this flick is at least as much Elizabeth Olsen's movie, which is a good thing, especially as her appearances in the Scarlet Witch outfit (both the official uniform and the Halloween costume) were the best parts of WandaVision. As for the overall story here? The whole thing ultimately plays out like a grandiose extra, final episode of the aforementioned TV series, and barely anything more than that. More and more, I see the superhero genre approaching its end-of-shelf-life--especially if all of the upcoming works are going to hit us again and again with the same characters, struggling for the same stakes, and leaving the viewer with the same sense that we’ve been here before. At least, if you’re a subscriber, you can say you didn’t directly pay for this one. Certainly, only a fool would buy a ticket for this franchise at this point. Let’s see the Mouse wizard its way out of that scenario.

Spider-man: No Way Home

I honestly don't know what to say about this movie. I've never been as hyped up about the Tom Holland iteration of the Spidey story, so I suppose I should have appreciation for this flick's special-guest-star gimmick--and it is good to see the previous actors showing their version of the character, particularly Maguire's version, which really laid much of the groundwork for today's hero-film landscape (and doesn't get nearly as much credit as is deserved these days). So it goes. As for this particular work, again, it's mostly a matter of fan service, though it does benefit from the presence of some really good actors reprising their previous roles. On the other hand, the relationship between Holland and Cumberbatch never quite hits the right note. Guess it's a good thing that the latter disappears for about half the running time. That's the sort of thing we have here--an odd melange of good and bad, weird and decent and exasperating all at the same time. Sure, you can have fun with this movie, but the original film, twenty-some years ago, proved this story can be fun and high-quality at the same time. Who knows if this goes any further--it's the third lead outing for Holland, so likely done for him now--though the best bet would be to just let this thing leave off here and come back with a new iteration in about 15 years or so. Will that happen? No--the MCU is a stickier web than anything this kid can shoot. I guess it's just a matter of shrug the shoulders and accept it as it is. Oh well...

Avengers: Infinity War

Well…that's one scenario. I'm not so sure it was the best scenario, because the whole thing came across as very uneven, sometimes funny and entertaining, sometimes just plain grim. You don't want flicks like this taking themselves too seriously. Unless they really mean the serious. This one doesn't feel quite so sincere. That said, I suppose it's not a bad way to spend a couple of hours; basically, you're hanging out with a bunch of old (by this time) friends, and though they sometimes annoy you, you appreciate their company, too. And it won't last forever, so you might as well enjoy them while they're still around. Just don't expect them to be great all the time.

Thor: Ragnarok

So this is what you get when the MCU drops acid. It's impossible to watch this movie without being very conscious of how weird it is, in many ways, despite the fact that it stays entertaining all the way through. The comedy stands out for sure; this movie is very consciously trying to be funny, which is a real change of pace from so many of the extremely self-serious comic book movies these days. And then you have the weird '80s vibe throughout, expessed through the music (Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo contributed to that) and a number of visual, stylistic choices. Had this movie been in less competent hands, it might have been a disaster. Instead, we got a fun ride that bears an obvious resemblance to the other Marvel flicks, but is also different enough that it makes the case that, yeah, this whole thing can go in different directions and remain vibrant and worth the audience's time. At this point, that's quite an accomplishment. We'll see if future films live up to that promise.

Doctor Strange

I heard someone's planning on doing a remake of The Matrix. Why bother? Someone already did. That's what you're getting here, if you're able to look close enough and see the similarities that are hidden under a few small particulars and many mountains of special effects. It's hard to discuss a superhero movie in terms of its believe-ability, but in this case that metric is strained to the breaking point. It isn't a total disaster by an stretch, but the motivations of the characters--especially some of the tertiary characters--seems to be a muddle, the battles with conjured "weapons" just look absurd at points, and the whole thing comes across as the "mutant and god" crowd trying to merge their thing with some old Harry Potter vibes (and trying to pull in some of that franchise money to boot). The best part comes from Benedict Cumberbatch's assured performance, and Rachael McAdams provides solid support in the second fiddle role. The Marvel run has been a lot of fun, but if it doesn't rise above this level from here on out, that run will probably end soon--much sooner than anyone expected.

The Imitation Game

Much of what you see here is actually very standard, boilerplate "outsider" drama, set in the equally standard venue of a World War II movie. The loser who ultimately wins, the challenge to authority, the competition won--it's all there, as it is in a hundred other films. So why is this movie different? Different enough to be really, really good? Two things. One, the true story goes beyond the win to show the outsider ultimately losing (though with a winning legacy); and two (and this is the thing that really makes the movie worth watching), the expert execution of the presentation, particularly in the job the actors do in inhabiting their roles. Special performances by the leads (and, for that matter, the supporting cast) elevate this pic from the standard to a truly special viewing experience.

The Hobbit: The Battle of The Five Armies

Diseases sometimes run in families; that may be the best way to think of the things that are wrong with this movie. As with its brethren films, this installment in the "trilogy-that-should-have-been-one-movie" suffers from the same frailties; however, here those problems are magnified due to the fact that they have festered all the way through two films already. The liberties with the story--both wild extrapolations from the original text and outright fundamental revisions to the story--are welcome least of all here at the story's climax and denouement. These deviations are all the more glaring in their lack of respect for the original material. Certain Elves don't belong in this story; a minor character is given way too much screen time; and the attempt at epic scope in the final battle just makes things confused and unclear. Ironically, a lust for dragon's gold--in this case, box office wealth--is what did in this project from the start. Let it be a lesson to future filmmakers.

12 Years a Slave

An artfully crafted and masterfully executed film. This movie achieves exactly what you would hope and expect from a film on this subject: the viewer must watch this story and think to himself, “How would I react to being treated this way?”--precisely the kind of empathy required to prevent such madness. And ‘madness’ is the proper term; in some ways, this film serves as a meditation on how big a role insanity played in creating, justifying, and propping up slavery as an institution. (Not to mention religion, of course.) It’s worthy of its awards, and certainly worthy of your attention.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The map within the frontispiece of this film should read, “Here There Be Bloat.” Again, the tidy little story gets the stretched out treatment. The result might be more impressive for someone completely unaware of the original book. Perhaps. For the long-time fan, the result is much more problematic. The initiated viewer is constantly aware of how much story stretching is going on, of how much of what he’s seeing is not in the original tale. That’s distracting, if nothing else, and negatively impacts the viewer’s experience. Ironically, then, this is probably a movie that one would only recommend to die-hard fans--exactly the people who will be most annoyed by the story manipulations. What’s done is done, but the “three movie arc” decision really was a huge mistake.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Boy is this thing bloated. As if there were any doubt, this shows that this is a story that could easily have been told in one movie; perhaps a long movie, to get every rich detail, but one movie nevertheless. Instead, out of obvious and pure greed, the producers decided to stretch the thing out into three movies, mostly by stuffing into the proceedings every drop of backstory and subtext that could be mined from Tolkien’s original tale. The burdens of that approach are apparent: a great deal of expansion on the tangential concern about the Necromancer (Sauron, for those who only saw the previous movies), none of which matches the tone of the actual, by-the-book story at all. The resulting film is discordant and needlessly uneven. But, then again, there are moments of brilliance here: the Riddles in the Dark episode is flawlessly presented, and the (first) rescue by the eagles is an amazing sequence. There’s no point in denying yourself, if you’re a fan; go ahead and watch this flick (and the upcoming two). Just don’t reward the greed by spending a dime on it; get the disc from the damn library.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

See, here’s the thing about spies: if they’re doing their jobs right, you’re not supposed to know what they’re up to. Seems that the spies in this movie are on that ball--for a good stretch of the flick’s running time, I couldn’t tell what was going on. Despite that handicap, and almost in spite of itself, the film does eventually grow into an engrossing viewing experience. By the end, when Oldman’s George Smiley has worked through the problem, you care about how it all plays out. This is clearly not everyone’s kind of film, but if you’ve got a thing for the spy genre and a high tolerance for opacity, you might enjoy this one.

War Horse

The visuals dazzle, the music swells, the story touches the heart...so what's the problem here? I'm not sure there is one, but it's impossible to watch this film without knowing that you're staring at very conscious Oscar bait. That fact hints at a cynicism floating just below the surface, a vibe that will always make the alert viewer feel like he's being used. But most folks don't watch movies in that way; a picture should be judged on its merits for the general audience who will view it--and there's no denying that this is a well-crafted movie. To be sure, the story is obvious--nothing really comes as a surprise here--though it is unusually dark. In fact, this is very much a movie about grief and sorrow, which makes it tough to watch at times. But as an example of the craft, as an emotional journey, as a statement of disgust against war and all its miseries, this film accomplishes its goals. That earns it enough respect for a positive vote here.