Category Archives: Reviews

Movie Reviews

‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’ Review

Remember in 2015 when we were all excited about where a new Star Wars film by Disney could go? Oh, that was fun…

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” is the third film of the sequel trilogy and the ninth and final installment of the main Star Wars saga. J.J. Abrams, who directed and co-wrote “The Force Awakens,” returns to both jobs here, while Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac reprise their roles from the first two installments of the trilogy. Among other returning players are Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Domhnall Gleeson, Lupita Nyong’o, Kelly Marie Tran, Ian McDiarmid and Billy Dee Williams, while Richard E. Grant and Keri Russell join the cast. In the film, the remainder of the Resistance as they prepare for the final face-off against the First Order and the return of Emperor Palpatine.

Overall I have enjoyed Disney’s Star Wars films, with “Rogue One” being one of the best films in the franchise to-date and “The Force Awakens” and “Solo” both being fun, if not familiar romps. I was mixed on “The Last Jedi” and have watched it at least three times in an attempt to see the universal praise that it received from people, but can’t fully get past all its plot holes and cringe moments (however it is hard to fault its ambition and better scenes). “The Rise of Skywalker” is more of the same from “The Last Jedi” in that it has a few good moments but also trips over itself too often for its own good.

One of the reliable things throughout this entire series (and there hasn’t been much consistency) has been the acting and again the cast does a solid job. Adam Driver (likely on his way to his second career Oscar nomination for his great work in “Marriage Story”) is a solid, emotionally conflicted villain as Kylo Ren, even if at this point it is hard to take him seriously as a super powerful bad guy after he lost to Daisy Ridley’s Rey on multiple occasions. Speaking of Ridley, she again conveys a lost girl desperate for answers, although she remains so overpowered that her arc isn’t so much of an arc as a continuously increasing line. John Boyega and Oscar Isaac share some amusing bromance moments and it’s also nice to see Billy Dee Williams return to his iconic Lando Calrissian.

Much like this year’s “Avengers: Endgame,” this film is the culmination of years of story-telling and world-building. However while that film worked its fan service into the plot (pretty much) seamlessly, “Skywalker” is a little more on-the-nose. Some of the appearances and Easter egg references are fun, others range from eye-rolling to cringe.

One of the complaints people had about “The Last Jedi” was that Kathleen Kennedy (the president of Lucasfilm and producer on the trilogy) gave Rian Johnson complete creative control of the sequel and he chose to throw out or ignore so much of what J.J. Abrams set up with “The Force Awakens.” With Abrams returning, he not only had to close out a trilogy and 42 years of a saga, but had to win back fans who felt betrayed by “The Last Jedi.” Abrams attempts to retcon much of the previous film but it only ends up making the whole thing feel disjointed. Palpatine is back despite appearing to die in “Return of the Jedi” and the way they introduce him into this trilogy is so forced it’s hilarious, just because they killed off Snoke unceremoniously. The introduction of Richard E. Grant’s bad guy general is because Domhnall Gleason’s character was made into a whiny cartoon and could no longer be taken seriously. And this isn’t bringing up the numerous bits of dialogue where the characters all but turn and wink to the camera about how they didn’t like the last film.

The first act of the film is full of a bit of exposition and forced catch-up (including that Palpatine intro) but the second act actually moves along at a quick pace and is quite enjoyable. The script by Chris Terrio and Abrams has some entertaining bits of dialogue (especially from the droid characters) and even though the plot is just hopping from place to place, it is fun. But the third act then hits a wall, mainly because it turns into a nonsensical CGI destruction festival that would have made George Lucas’ prequel films blush. It just keeps going and gets stupider and stupider before ending on a line that actually made the woman next to me laugh and shake her head.

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” may give enough fan service for diehards, but it will upset people who loved “The Last Jedi” because it doesn’t take many risks and turn off casual Star Wars fans because it’s an objectively sloppy film that doesn’t answer half the questions set up in 2015. I remember walking out of “The Force Awakens” thinking that it had flaws but it had laid the groundwork for the best Star Wars trilogy to-date; little did I know that we had already peaked. Overall, I would lean more negatively than positive here because the final 40 minutes are a mess, but there are enough entertaining character interactions and “that was cool” visuals to make your obligatory viewing of this anticlimactic final chapter worth at least some of your dollars.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Marriage Story’ Review

Who knew that arguably both the best war film and the best comedy of 2019 would be a divorce drama?

“Marriage Story” follows a divorcing couple (Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson), and the struggles they face while going through the process from different sides of the country. Laura Dern, Alan Alda, Ray Liotta, Azhy Robertson, Julie Hagerty and Merritt Wever also star as Noah Baumbach writes and directs.

I’ve been big fan of Adam Driver’s for a while and it was really nice to see him earn an Academy Award nomination last year for his work in “BlacKkKlansman.” Most people know him for his work as Kylo Ren in the new Star Wars trilogy, but this is his fourth collaboration with Baumbach and he gives a career-best performance. Like the film itself, Driver jumps from happy to confused to angry at the drop of a hat, and perfectly conveys all the emotions that one goes through when getting a divorce. He has one scene where he finally explodes and it is one of those sequences that you simply feel drained watching unfold, because of how raw it comes across as.

Scarlett Johansson also gives arguably a career-best turn, and gets to show some actual humor and emotion that the likes of the Avengers films may not allow her. She has one monologue in particular that will likely be used as her Oscar reel where she recounts her marriage to Driver and where things fell apart. We haven’t known these characters for all of 20 minutes and already we feel let down alongside her. I think that at the end of the day this is Driver’s movie, but Johansson gets plenty of scenes that she commands.

The supporting cast is all great, too. The scene-stealing, scenery-chewing duo of Laura Dern and Ray Liotta are great fun and they have some wonderful lawyer banter, and are two people you love to hate. Alan Alda also turns in a fantastic performance as one of Driver’s lawyers, who like Driver wants the divorce process to be as amicable as possible but Dern is out for blood; Alda’s mild-mannered old man is just so great because the character feels so *real*.

I really enjoyed Baumbach’s 2017 film “The Meyerowitz Stories” and thought the script there was great; this one is even better. Baumbach is an old-fashion director who likes to have actors follow his written word and action to the tee, and the end result is a film that both breaks your heart and makes your stomach hurt from laughing. Like “Annie Hall” there is a “Los Angeles vs New York City” storyline and how the cities compare and contrast (“you’d love it in LA, there’s just so much more space than New York!”). There are plenty of dramatic moments that may hit more at home for those who have been married, gotten divorced and/or are a child of divorce (I check none of the three boxes), but even for the casual young person the ideas of love, struggle and betrayal will resonate.

There really isn’t much wrong with this film. It is 136 minutes but it flies by; honestly the editing by Jennifer Lame (who also cut together this year’s brilliant “Midsommar”) is quick but also specific when it has to be. Mixing violins and flutes, the score by Randy Newman is whimsical and melancholic at some parts and thrilling at others, depending on which of the couple the film is focused on, and I kept thinking how the music reminded me of “Toy Story.”

“Marriage Story” is hands-down among 2019’s best films and it has everything a film should have: uncontrived drama, organic characters and genuine laughs. I can’t wait to be able to watch it whenever I want once it starts streaming on Netflix and for it to reach the biggest audience possible. Baumbach has made something truly special here, a film that is built to last and only grow more personal as time goes on.

Critic’s Rating: 9/10

‘The Irishman’ Review

“The Irishman” is the latest film from Martin Scorsese and has been anticipated as much for its cast and director as it was for its infamous budget issues, extensive use of de-aging technology and being Netflix’s biggest and most ambitious release to-date. The film follows Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), as he gets tied up in the Pennsylvania crime world (led by Joe Pesci) and the union war of Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino).

I feel that all three of the leading men in this film, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci, will have their own supporters as to who steals the show and who the film truly belongs to. For the most part, De Niro is “solid” in the film, not given too much to do or revealed about his inner thoughts for the first two acts. It is the film’s climax where he is finally given material he can work with, and he nails it. Despite being the titular character and the vehicle for the audience to experience the world (I think he’s in mostly every scene of the film), we don’t peel back the curtain until that third act.

Al Pacino will likely be most people’s favorite performance of the trio as the loud, angry and ego-driven Jimmy Hoffa. He gets the classic Pacino rants and raves to do, and at times (especially when first introduced) he may come off like a cartoon, but it is never not entertaining, and like De Niro, it all comes to a head in the film’s third act.

But for my money, it was the unofficially retired Joe Pesci that stole the show and broke my heart. Playing Russell Bufalino, head of the Pennsylvania crime family, Pesci has a presence about him in every scene he’s in that just says “I’m in control, I hold the strings” and there is one scene where he conveys this by just sitting and staring as a conversation between two other people plays out, it’s phenomenal. There is an underlying message about Bufalino and his desires to be a father, and the way it grows and is conveyed was devastating; Scorsese actually got me to feel sympathy for a criminal who sectioned the deaths of dozens of people, and that is his gift.

As far as the de-aging goes, it is a lukewarm but overall positive bag. When you first see De Niro (who is supposed to be about 35 in the scene but still comes across as 50, guess you can only de-age someone so far), the image is a little creepy and animated, but your brain quickly adjusts. If anything, the blue contacts they have him wear throughout the film are more distracting than the de-aging. The work on Joe Pesci is a little more subtle, his problem is he’s a 76-year-old asked to move around like a 50-year-old, and like Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel” you can’t hide slow movements of old joints. Al Pacino’s de-aging is actually brilliant, I never once questioned it.

Now, the elephant in the room and the reason this film took so long to get made. It is 209 minutes long (three and a half hours for those who don’t want to do the math). Does the film justify its runtime? I mean, no, there are some repetitive story beats and plenty of scenes where characters are simply sitting around talking. It is a lot to ask for from a theater audience (I didn’t consume liquids after noon to prepare), which again maybe that is why Netflix was so willing to finance, they know folks at home can pause it. There are a few slow parts, especially leading up to that third act, and then the film takes its time wrapping up. To give you context of the scale and duration: there are 320 scenes in this movie; the average film has around 60.

“The Irishman” is the quintessential Martin Scorsese movie, for better or worse. It has the pacing of “Silence,” the dark humor of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and the mafia intrigue of “Goodfellas.” Will it go down in history for more than its behind-the-scenes drama? Time will tell. But it’s one of those films that leaves you with so much to think about and has just so much to digest (guys, it’s 3.5 hours!) that it almost feels unfair to properly discuss it after one viewing.

‘Terminator: Dark Fate’ Review

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me four times, you’re the Terminator franchise.

“Terminator: Dark Fate” is the sixth installment to the long-running franchise, and features Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger returning to their original roles from the first two films. Mackenzie Davis, Natalia Reyes, Gabriel Luna and Diego Boneta also star, Tim Miller directs and James Cameron returns to the franchise as a producer and co-writer.

The first two Terminator films are renowned among the best action films of all-time but ever since 1991’s “Judgment Day” the series has been on the decline, with each sequel getting progressively worse and sloppy. What used to be “grounded” shoot-em-ups and chase scenes mutated into CGI throwdowns and explosions, and if “Dark Fate” isn’t as bad as 2015’s “Genisys” then it’s damn close.

The bar for a Terminator sequel is pretty low nowadays, especially after the cluttered mess that was “Genisys.” But “Dark Fate” has been touted as the return of founder James Cameron to the franchise, and in the day and age of the reboot/remake/sequels like “The Force Awakens” and “Halloween,” maybe this is just what Terminator needed, to get back to its roots. Maybe that is what it needed, I couldn’t tell you; this film is as messy and ugly as any other of these films.

The film just feels like a studio checklist, from safe and calculated nostalgia drops (most of which aren’t even good and are just lazy pandering) to over-the-top set pieces. On the most basic level of popcorn thrills, sure, maybe there is enough here to satisfy. On one occasion when Mackenzie Davis’ half-human, half-robot character was hitting Gabriel Luna’s Terminator with a sledge hammer I thought “oh that was a cool shot.” But for the most part this action just feels stale, like there are no true consequences or stakes because everything going on is just ludicrous. Each action scene starts and ends the same way, with our heroines having slowed down the Terminator, who then turns to the camera and slowly begins to stand as the score gives us a “buh buhh” before cutting to the next scene.

For being a $185 million blockbuster in the year 2019, the film doesn’t even look all too good. Whenever Gabriel Luna is having his skin re-form over his Terminator exoskeleton, it looks so incredibly fake to a distracting degree; like PlayStation 3 cutscene level bad.

The performances are, fine; about as much as you can hope to get from a film like this. I’m sure older generations will get a kick out of seeing Linda Hamilton onscreen once more in her iconic role, and as far as Arnie goes… like, he’s playing the same dry robot he was in “Genisys” so it isn’t the same rush to see him in the role. I personally wasn’t a fan of how they have the Connor character portrayed, she is just rude and grumpy to everyone all the time so it’s hard to root for her, but for the storyline they give her to play with in this film I suppose it worked fine.

“Terminator: Dark Fate” is just as incoherent, loud and boring as its predecessor which begs the question why they bothered to try this mini-reboot at all? I can’t see diehard fans being pleased with several decisions in it, and newcomers or lukewarm folk to the franchise catch get all the Easter eggs planted to distract them from the garbage plot. I would call it a disappointment but no rational-thinking adult had very high expectations for a franchise that hasn’t been good in nearly 30 years, so I’ll just call this what it is: a not very good movie.

Critic’s Rating: 4/10

‘Jojo Rabbit’ Review

“Jojo Rabbit” tells the tale of a 10-year-old Hitler Youth (played by Roman Griffith Davis) who discovers his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. Taika Waititi stars as an imaginary version of Adolf Hitler, while also writing and directing; Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen also star.

This film has been subject of anticipation, skepticism and criticism for quite some time, and its light portrayal of Nazi Germany has led some to make comparisons to 1997’s “Life Is Beautiful” (a great film in its own right). Folk need to get a grip, because as Waititi has spoken on, trying to complain about and shut down a film that uses a dark subject matter for comedy is playing into the very mindset that those people are upset about in the first place. “Jojo Rabbit” may not break new ground (Nazis are bad, 1940s were a dark time for certain people, no one needs that refresher course) but what it lacks in true danger it makes up for in heart.

Children actors can be hit or miss, and this is one of those times where it is a straight bullseye. As the titular Jojo, Roman Griffith Davis is a star in the making, with a cute face and tousled hair, and enough facial expressions he could fill an emoji board. Asked to carry most every single scene of the film, and sometimes act alongside his director, a grown man in a Hitler outfit, Davis does a near-masterful job, giving us fantastic deadpan delivery, emotional glances or heart-breaking reactions. There were times his delivery of Waititi’s script was so sharp the audience laughed over the succeeding lines of dialogue, including one phrase that had people in actual tears.

The supporting cast all turn in great work, too, including Archie Yates as Jojo’s fellow Hitler Youth friend, Sam Rockwell as his scene-stealing SS Captain and Scarlett Johansson as the sympathetic “stop-and-smell-the-roses” mother. They are all given great lines from Waititi and don’t step on each other’s toes, and you get excited whenever they show up on screen. As imaginary friend Hitler, Waititi is essentially playing the Führer if he was mixed with “Mean Girls’” Regina George, and if the idea of Adolf Hitler looking at a 10-year-old boy after an argument and saying “well… that was intense!” is not funny (or worse, offensive) to you then I don’t want to be friends with you anyways.

The production and costume designs of 1940s Germany are also commendable, full of color and detail. We’ve see war-torn Europe in film dozens of times before, and “Jojo Rabbit” gets its chance to flash everything from open fields to obligatory post-bombed city squares, but it is always impressive when a filmmaker can transport you to a time period.

Now the area that may lose some people, beyond the light-hearted take on something as evil as the Nazis, is that the film is pretty cut-and-dry. Very few, if any, of the characters are shades of grey; you’re either a good guy or a bad one, and even the evolution of Jojo out of his indoctrination at times does not feel earned. Sam Rockwell’s character is really the only one who gets any real arc or a sense of “there’s more to this character than we see in the 110 minutes we’re with them,” and it’s probably why (on top of being incredible in everything he touches, sans “Vice”) Rockwell was my favorite part of the film.

“Jojo Rabbit” was a festival darling and time will tell if it is an awards contender, too; but I don’t think it truly needs hardware to justify itself. It manages to deliver numerous laughs in spite of a potentially dark subject matter, and at the same time lets the audience laugh at the expense of some of the worst humans that ever walked the earth. Does it play things too safe and contrive some drama? Sure. But the film is feel-good and funny, and in 2019 that’s not something I for one am going to turn away.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Joker’ Review

“Joker” is an original origin story for Batman’s archenemy, and stars Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role. Todd Phillips directs and co-writes, while Zazie Beetz and Robert De Niro also star.

I am a big Batman fanboy so I grew up with the Joker, and have been treated to some great ones over the years, namely from Jack Nicholson in the 1989 live-action film and Mark Hamill voicing the character in the animated series and games. Heath Ledger gave a great performance in “The Dark Knight” but wasn’t a good portrayal of the actual character (more a fanboy comic fan problem than a criticism) while Jared Leto already seems forgotten about from his laughably bad turn in “Suicide Squad.” Joaquin Phoenix gets more meat to chew than any of these previous portrayals, and I would say he ranks in the middle of the pack as far as both loyalty to the comics and acting go.

We get to see a fair amount of growth (or rather, recession) from Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck and for the most part it is subtle and well-done. He becomes more confident and gutsier as the film progresses and he begins to fall more-and-more into madness, and up until the final act Phillips is able to keep it in control. I’m not sure I buy into the “career best” talk here for Phoenix but it is a very well-done performance that is knowingly uncomfortable, and balances sympathetic and pity.

As far as direction goes, it was the area surely most folk were hesitant about coming in. As a director, Todd Phillips is best known for, and has almost exclusively done, dumb comedies (“Old School” and “The Hangover”), however rarely are his films very good (I think I named the only two that are). Here he has some nice moments of refined direction and symbolism that are the acts of a mature talent, however there are also moments, especially in the third act, where he is basically looking at the camera and saying “hey guys, check *this* out!”.

There is a point where Phoenix says that he used to think his life was a tragedy, but now he realizes it’s a comedy. And there is a lot of truth to that, that two people can look at the same event and see it as two different things (“humor is tragedy plus time”). There are points in this film that are so uncomfortable or unnerving that several members of my audience had no choice but to laugh, and I think that is a compliment to Phillips and his team.

Speaking of the third act, it is an interesting conundrum. For most of the film, Phillips refuses to take sides with or against Phoenix and his crimes, essentially presenting us with the events and letting us decide for ourselves when enough is enough. However when the climax comes, Phillips decides it would be more fun to laugh with and root for the Joker, so the score, soundtrack and script get away from the uncomfortable and awkward nature of mental illness and lean into dark comedy.

“Joker” is one of those films that seems to think it is more revolutionary than it actually is, but it features a semi-layered performance from Joaquin Phoenix, in a type of role that normally wouldn’t be done by an actor with his resume. It somewhat loses its footing in the third act (more that it abandons what it was setting up, not that it gets bad) but “Joker” is worth seeing and talking about, and the fact a comic book movie has gotten people talking about more than capes and spandex after the credits roll is worth commending, for better or worse.

Critic’s Rating: 7/10

‘The Lion King’ (2019) Review

Earlier this year we had “Pet Semetary.” A remake about burying your family pet and having it come back to life ugly and without a soul. Now we have “The Lion King,” which is like what would happen if there was a Movie Semetary that played by the same rules.

“The Lion King” is a remake of the 1994 classic Disney animation, and follows a lion named Simba who must take his rightful place as king of his African plains home. Jon Favreau directs an ensemble cast, including Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter and James Earl Jones.

As far as the actual animal designs go here, it’s incredible. Being just 24 hours removed from seeing (the meh) “Crawl” and some wonky alligator creature animations, this felt like I was watching a nature documentary. Lions’ ears twitch, smaller animals scratch their nose or lick their paws, the attention to detail by Favreau and his team cannot be sold short.

The songs are all great, too, but that is not surprise seeing as they were great when they win Oscars back in 1994. Where the film’s faults start to creep in is the way they present the songs. The film’s version of “Hakuna Matata,” instead of being done swinging off vines and leaping through flowers, is literally the characters trouncing in a straight line on a beaten path. No flair, no color. Say what you will about “Aladdin” and its numbers, but at least that film either tried to pay homage or even out-do the original. Not even comparing this directly to the 1994 film, there are just filmmaking choices that ruin entire moments. Like the classic Academy Award-winning “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” being sung, in broad daylight.

Other direction choices that just seem odd are the interactions between characters. When Simba first reunites with Nala, he literally takes one second to recognize here. No pondering, no questioning. Again, I’m not even saying this seems off compared to the original; it just feels poorly executed at all.

And the vocal performances. Ok. How do I put this diplomatically? I think that Donald Glover and Beyoncé are both perfectly nice people who normally have talents in both singing and acting, and should not let one film disparage them! No, but seriously. Both of them often seem like they’re phoning in their lines and they share zero chemistry, romantic or otherwise. At times the voice coming out of their lion counterpart’s face just seems like it doesn’t synch up, or that there should be an echo or something; it is just too clear given their surrounding or circumstances.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, voicing our villain Scar (who either got stuck with a mean nickname after getting a mark or had a huge coincidence occur upon birth), is solid, but his grimmer take on the character cannot compare to the British wit of Jeremy Irons. Also worth noting: *that* scene involving Scar and Mufasa is almost laughable in its execution, again falling on Favreau.

“The Lion King” isn’t bad, but it just doesn’t seem like it has any reason to exist outside making Disney another cool billion. And sure, you could argue that is what this entire “let’s remake all our classic animations with real actors” trend is for, but at least with (most of) the other films I came out thinking at least kids nowadays will have their own take on the tale. “Aladdin” was a nice trip down memory lane for me and even “Dumbo” had some charm (and almost no restraints remaking a 75-year-old 64-minute cartoon). But not for one second watching this film did I feel a purpose, a heartbeat or a true sense of joy. Really the only two things really working here are the cool animal activities and the music, so you’re better off just playing the original film’s soundtrack over a NatGeo special.

Critic’s Rating: 5/10

‘Spider-Man: Far From Home’ Review

This is “Spider-Man 2” in more ways than one.

“Spider-Man: Far From Home” is the sequel to 2017’s “Homecoming” and is the 23^rd film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Tom Holland reprises his role as the titular wall-crawler, as the film follow Peter Parker trying to balance his school trip in Europe with a growing threat from unknown creatures. Samuel L. Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau and Jake Gyllenhaal also star and Jon Watts returns to direct.

I enjoyed the first MCU Spider-Man film a decent amount, mostly due to Tom Holland’s incredible charm and Michael Keaton enjoying himself as a very entertaining (and almost sympathetic) bad guy. And I have always doubted that any Spider-Man film will ever top the heights of 2004’s “Spider-Man 2,” but dammit does this thing at times come close.

Much that worked about the first film again works well here. The John Hughes-ish high school dramedy take on Peter Parker’s story is often very relatable, from dealing with fitting in to trying to work up the courage to talk to your crush. We feel like we can empathize with what Holland is going through (until it gets to the whole “saving the world” part) and thanks to his and Zendaya’s wonderfully awkward chemistry those scenes work so well.

The action is much bigger this time (despite a smaller budget), and for the most part it is nothing short of incredible. There are some mind-bending sequences throughout this film, thanks in large part to Jake Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio, but more on him in a second. The fights have much more color this time around than last (most of those battles took place at night) and because of the threat at hand it gives Watts more toys to play with and things to throw at the screen. There are a few wonky moments, especially with green screen during one web swinging sequence, but overall this thing pops.

So, Mysterio. One of my favorite cartoon villains growing up, I had accepted a long time ago that I would never get to see him portrayed on the big screen. So when it was announced that not only would he appear in the “Homecoming” sequel but he would be portrayed by Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal, I got excited. From his brief appearance in the first trailer I knew the filmmakers has nailed him and after seeing the actual film I loved it. So many times watching this I got excited because they got this character perfect with his nature and powers, but I won’t go into further detail because the marketing hasn’t.

I really have no major complaints about “Spider-Man: Far From Home.” It sets up the next phase of the MCU in mind-bending fashion and even the first act—which some may find “slow”—is full of cute awkward young affection and some actually pretty funny lines of dialogue. I’ll say it: “Spider-Man: Far From Home” is not only the best Marvel movie to come out in 2019 (I didn’t stutter), it is the best “Spider-Man” film since “Spider-Man 2.”

Critic’s Rating: 9/10

‘Yesterday’ Review

Well this is as close as we’ve gotten to a Beatles biopic to-date, but with Freddie Mercury and Elton John out of the way I feel we are inching closer and closer each day.

“Yesterday” tells the story of a down-on-his-luck musician (Himesh Patel) who, following an accident, is suddenly the only person in the world who knows about the band The Beatles, and starts to pass their songs off as his own. Danny Boyle directs as Lily James, Joel Fry, Ed Sheeran and Kate McKinnon also star.

I would say the Beatles are my favorite band of all-time (but then again, shouldn’t the best band of all-time be everyone’s favorite?) and one day I hope we get a biopic film on their legacy (unless its a PG-13 by-the-numbers endeavor like “Bohemian Rhapsody” in which case, keep it). Whether or not you think the Beatles are the greatest band ever, it is undeniable that they have some the most popular songs of all-time and their effect on pop culture is still being felt today. “Yesterday” tries its best to honor that legacy and while it is probably just another rom-com dressed up in Beatles wrapping paper, I really enjoyed myself watching this film.

British humor is always hit-or-miss with me, with some of their products being hilarious (anything by Edgar Wright and Ricky Gervais, for example) but other times not so much (“Death at a Funeral”). This is a product that falls into the former category, with many of the mean quips and quick retorts landing. There are several laugh out loud moments in here, and partnered with Danny Boyle’s signature editing style things move along at a brisk pace.

All the performances are solid, with leading man Himesh Patel and the always adorable Lily Collins sharing some cute, if not painfully real, scenes together. Ed Sheeran has a few scenes playing a fictionalized version of himself and I always love when celebrities do that in movies and shows, and Kate McKinnon is amusing, if not slightly overbearing, as a money-greedy manager.

The selling point of this film is its plot and its music, and they’re both entertaining. The idea that no one has ever heard of the Beatles is instantly interesting and the film also has one related running gag that is perfectly spaced out and appears just the right amount of times. Also, even if it isn’t them singing them, any time you hear any Beatles song, especially in succession like this, you can’t help but smile.

Now for the most part, there is nothing inherently wrong with this film. It is kind of predictable and one-note once you shed the allure of the Beatles songs away from it, but I thought the script was sharp enough and the actors sufficiently cute and emotional that I didn’t mind very much. There is one (bold) move done by the filmmakers that I am interested to see the public respond to, however. While I personally do not have much problem with it, I can very easily see people hating the choice and there is something about the move that took even me a second to digest. This is just one scene in the film but it is one that will probably be discussed for a time to come.

“Yesterday” very well may be blinding me from more of its flaws with my love for the Beatles and their music, but even from a romantic comedy perspective I think there is plenty here that works. It is an easy breezy watch with an obviously great soundtrack and charming cast, and with things like that, you know it can’t be bad.

Critic’s Rating: 8/10

‘Avengers: Endgame’ Review

“Avengers: Endgame” is the follow-up to 2018’s “Infinity War” and is the 22^nd film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which began 11 years ago with “Iron Man.” The film returns its ensemble cast as the titular team, with Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner, alongside about a dozen other actors. Anthony and Joe Russo return to direct.

To say this film is one of, if not the, most anticipated cinematic events of all-time is an understatement. It literally broke the internet when tickets went on sale and Disney is giving it a $200 million marketing campaign, which is more than most movies even cost to make. I personally was enthralled with the film seeing as I am a semi-Avengers fanboy (half of the MCU is fantastic, half is “meh, fun, fine”) and “Infinity War,” a movie I have seen ten times and only gets better with each viewing, was my top film of 2018. So it actually crushes me that “Avengers: Endgame” is just… meh, fun, fine.

We will start with the positives of the film, because there are plenty. The fan service in here is incredible, and for the most part it does not come at the expense of drama or pacing. I really can’t get into much of the *why* (in fact most of this review will be vague redactions) but how they address certain past films of the MCU or give characters little moments is either touching or entertaining, and feels earned not forced.

The plot itself is kind of clever, albeit predicted by any fan who has read a comic or can piece two-and-two of how the MCU has played out over the last 10+ years. They really don’t give much of it away in the trailers, save for one shot that if you know what you’re looking for will confirm your theory, so casual filmgoers (if there are any of those left still going to Marvel movies) will enjoy the route they take.

It is well-documented that Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr.’s contracts expire after this film and it could be their final go-around, at least as leading roles. Captain America didn’t make Evans a star but it is hard to picture anyone else throwing the red, white and blue shield after all these years, while Downey literally had his career saved by “Iron Man” after plenty of arrests, and it is impossible to imagine where this universe would be without him. Both men turn in great performances and the film honors the journeys their characters have taken.

I can’t really say what I didn’t like about the film because of “spoilers” (as far as wanting to go in blind), but I will just say there are two people that I really do not like what they did with the characters. One is altered simply to become a joke and I hoped it would just be a one-scene ordeal but it drags on, and the other becomes a distracting cartoon character. Neither really fit the doom-and-gloom tone the film seems to (at least is pretending to want to) be going for.

A complaint a lot of people have about the Marvel movies is they insert jokes at the expense of drama, and I think that is only sometimes true. “Thor: Ragnarok” is a literal comedy but it certainly tosses out improve humor in moments that should be life-and-death, but in films like “Infinity War” no one is cracking one-liners as Thanos approaches them with the Infinity Stones. Here, the writers are more than willing to try quips at the expense of a should-be dramatic moment, and just like “Us” a few weeks back or “Captain America: Civil War” I think the stakes are too high and it just seems unorganic. Quips worked in the first two “Avengers” movie because Joss Whedon is clever; this script isn’t always.

The climax is emotional and fun, albeit in a “dump out your toy box and throw them at each other” kind of way, but it made the 12-year-old kid in me giddy with joy and it certainly came close to putting a lump in my throat having seen so many of these stories over the past 11 years. The final 30 minutes of this film certainly rank among the MCU’s best.

“Avengers: Endgame” actually has some guts and conviction, something a few Marvel movies lack, but it is also overstuffed and sometimes doesn’t know when to get out of its own way. It treats half of its characters with respect but then will turn around and alter others, and it just rubbed me the wrong way. I got my fan service, even if I was able to predict 95% of what was going to happen, and to some that may be enough. Following up “Infinity War,” one of the best superhero films of all-time, I expected more, but I can’t say I was fully let down.