The Unofficial Ongoing Current Movies in Theaters thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghosthop

I had that thought more than once in the theater. Everything from the dual Volvos to the family Blundstones was total mountain town chic.

I left frustrated with the ending but have realized that the movie warrants a second viewing.

It's also worth noting that by my count there are only 3 on screen deaths and my date and I laughed at every single one. The soundtrack and surround sound were some of the most important elements of the film for me and make it worth seeing in the theater.

---

1. We aren't the only ones to see the Wes Anderson "touches", AO Scott in the NYT mentioned it in his review.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/m...-collette.html

2. I, too, was frustrated by the ending, but dug how it visually referenced the opening shot of the film.

Scott also wrote a piece about the divisive ending (SPOILERS, so don't read this piece if you have yet to see the film):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/m...ry-ending.html

3. I agree that it is worth a second viewing.

4. The music and the sound design were nuts (this seems to be a hallmark of "artsploitation" films: Beyond The Black Rainbow, You Were Never Really Here, Only God Forgives, Swiss Army Man, Killing Of A Sacred Deer, Thoroughbreds, and Revenge all have great scores and sound design)

haven't seen a movie in the theater in ages, but we may have a free evening without the kiddo tonight. What are the really good movies out right now?

Our local theater has Jurassic World, Incredibles 2, Ocean's 8, Won't You be my neighbor, Tag, Deadpool 2 (never saw 1), Solo, Hereditary, Avengers, Superfly, Hearts Beat Loud, RBG.

We could probably find another movie at a slightly further theater, too, if there's a better movie to see.

So you're asking for a blind movie reco with no preference background?!? If it were skis instead of movies you'd be jonged right out of here!!

You did however mention "we", presuming this references wife, so: Incredibles 2/Oceans 8/Hearts Beat Loud. Haven't seen any of 'em personally yet, but these fit into the "when Momma's happy, we're all Happy" category. Otherwise, the only one in your list I'm not interested in seeing eventually is Superfly.

AMERICAN ANIMALS
4.5 / 5

Who knew Lexington, Kentucky could be such a wellspring of intrigue and mayhem?
Call this the millenial version of Going In Style (the original 1979 film starring George Burns, Art Carney and Lee Strasberg, not the remake).
This is an existential heist film, actually a thrillumentary, if you will, that has some pointed social commentary bubbling in an undercurrent of largely objective subtextual nuance. Sure, the narrators may be a bit unreliable at times, but that’s half the attraction to this slickly made, well-paced, and solidly acted little gem.
Evan Peters (best known from American Horror Story and for being Quicksilver in the X-Men films) and Barry Keoghan (best known for his uber creepy turn in The Killing of a Sacred Deer) lead the cast with a brillant mixture of cocksure intensity and introspective stoner artiste personality that is infectious and introspective simultaneously. Their added partners-in-crime, Blake Jenner (best known for his portrayal of Jake in Everybody Wants Some) and Jared Abrahamson (he’s been acting for a number of years, but I am wholly unfamilar with any of his work) round out the core cast, bringing jockular muscle and smoky-voiced seriousness to the proceedings.
Whether or not the film ultimately has a message is entirely up to you and your interpretation (personally, I found it has a lot to offer in terms of post-viewing rumination). Regardless of your stance on that front, there is no denying that it’s an exciting, creative, and wholly entertaining exploit.

RIYL
I, Tonya; Bottle Rocket;

Sicario 2. Day of the Soldado.

Pretty fucking brutal.

Let's just say ..... appropriately ...... fucking brutal. Not entirely clear on the ending though - I'll refrain from being a spoiler, however.

Good or bad?
We enjoyed the first one, and are planning on going to see the second.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Worth seeing, definitely, but has a very different feel.

saw Tag the other night. Fluff, but pretty funny.

The Endless: moves smartly through mystifying questions, with will and focus - Westworld writers take heed.

Note: apparently no longer showing on the big screen, but is available on Amazon Prime for $.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

The Endless: moves smartly through mystifying questions, with will and focus - Westworld writers take heed.

Note: apparently no longer showing on the big screen, but is available on Amazon Prime for $.

---

I missed it on its limited theatrical run. Just got it on Netflix DVD. I have high hopes as I really enjoyed the wrtiter/directors' previous outong, SPRING.

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM
2/5

You can skip this tepid and vapid cliche ridden "summer blockbuster" which essentially cobbles together just about every action scene, plot scenario, and moment of note from each of the previous films in the franchise.

To paraphrase Roger Ebert (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/repo-man-1984) , it is basically "cynically constructed out of formula ideas and "commercial" ingredients", plus it lacks any character development, and originality.

I actually feel lesser for having given up my $$ and am disheartened that the same (lame) creative team will be making another sequel.

I'd give it at least a 3/5 just for the shrieks and jumps it got out of my tween. formulaic or not it delivered those in spades and she liked it better than the first Pratt fest.

She's still a bit young for repo man, and you can find "food" in all the millennial markets these days

Antman & wasp was fun, enjoyable escape. Probably best comedy this year. Links directly to Avengers at the end


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?
4/5

I laughed.
I cried.
I came out of the theater feeling like I am not that great of a person; that I can be a better human being. But I also came out feeling happy and that life ain't all that bad if you roll with it and keep a positive outlook.

If you grew up in the 1970s and were weened on PBS like I was, then I highly recommend this documentary. Now I've always looked at documentaries as films that "should" be objective, but let's face it, most documentaries these days are pretty subjective. So, be warned: this film is very pro-Fred Rogers, it’s essentially a love story about the show and the man. In many ways it portrays him as being damn-near saintly. Nary a bad thing is spoken about him. It does show him as having been insecure and perhaps not terribly comfortable in his skin, which is cool, but overall it paints him in a very positive light. So the film may feel a bit one-sided to some folks. Honestly, I was so emotionally wrapped up in what was unfolding onscreen that I didn’t really think about this aspect of the film until later.

What really resonated with me was how topical, socially conscious, and downright political Mister Roger’s Neighborhood really was back in its heyday (and even later in the oughts). This was something that was totally lost on elementary school aged Me, that’s for sure. Rogers and company addressed some heavy spiritual, philosophical, and political issues, but in a mellow, unassuming way.

Now while I was emotionally charged throughout the film, there were a few elements that puzzled/bothered me. Let's call them "minor quibbles about the film". They would be the following:
1. Lady Aberlin (aka Betty Aberlin), although represented in quite a bit of archival footage, is conspicuously absent from the film.

2. It is mentioned that Mr. Rogers came from money and that he was a chubby (fat) kid who was bullied as a youth. Yet there is no commentary on this from Fred Rogers himself. It’s basically mentioned and then forgotten. On a similar note(s), it's not really delved into that much in regards to what led him to pursue the Seminary, nor is anything really said about his family (parents, brothers/sisters, etc).

3. There’s a segment where Rogers meets with a young kid who had a tumor that left him wheelchair bound. They interview the kid’s parents (today), but there is no mention of whether the kid is still alive. There is a quick clip during the credits that shows the kid (now grown up) meeting Rogers at an awards show, but that clip is at least a decade old.

4. One of my favorite characters on the show was Chef Brockett, and while he passed away in 1995, there is no mention of him in the film. :(

5. They stopped the names of the various people who were interviewed for the film, so I ultimately forgot who many of them were.and what their relationship to Roger's was. They were a mix of actors, producers, journalists, historians, and family. I wish they had kept putting their names up on the screen throughout the film.

Again, these are just minor quibbles that popped into my head after I'd seen the film. I get that it’s hard to make a documentary and hit all the points, but those were the ones that stuck out with me.

What the film does do well is provide a pretty solid cross-section of interviewees ranging from cast members to guests, crew, and journalists. It also features quite a bit of behind-the-scenes archival footage, which is super cool.

In the end, the film resonated with me on a pretty deep emotional level and showcased how much Fred Rogers was a man either ahead of his time or completely out of time (though there is a segment where he testifies before Congress that shows he was right on time!). If anything, it made me realize that it is totally hip to be square.

Oh yeah, and you get to see Mister Rogers moonwalking!!!

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood was on Netflix when Netflix streaming first became available in Canada.

I decided to watch an episode to see if it still held the magic I perceived when I watched it as a child. In the very first episode, Mr. Rogers goes to visit a guy making electric powered cars and trucks on his garage. He talks about the environment and how this could be the future. That was in 1968.

The adult me, and my partner, were hooked. We watched 2 seasons before it disappeared from Netflix Canada.

Heartbreaking stories explaining the tragedy of children confined to wheelchairs because of disease. Children with mental disabilities. When I was a kid, Mr. Rogers explained their struggle, their desires, their pain, and their happiness to me, a relatively normal kid, in a way that made me want to get to know them, and he taught me not to judge a book by it's cover. They were people, with desires, laughter and heartbreak, just like all of us.

The adult me watching these episodes these years later was so impressed with both Fred and the kids. I bawled. His kindness and understanding were so gentle and empathetic. We need more of this today.

When I was a kid I watched Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dressup, Sesame Street, Star Trek - the Next Generation, and the og Star Trek, and Carl Sagan's explaination of science and the universe.

Those drove my interests, and shaped my desires, taught me empathy and kindness, and curiosity. They shaped my life and my career and they continue to be reference points that are still universal and valid today, if you want to be a good person.

They inspired me to be a good person, and that influence continues, and I hope will continue for the rest of my life, and beyond me and through me when my partner and I have kids.

Much of the Americas don't act with that neighborly interest, kindness, and empathy anymore, which makes watching these even more rare, beautiful, and bitter sweet.

Let's take the world's people back to that...back to caring about each other regardless of disability, skin color, religion, economic status, sex or sexuality, and all the rest I'm missing right now, these shows present a valid and viable alternative to the way things are being done now.

People are being divided by those currently in power, at every turn, and with every decision or choice, into some tribe or group, which is completely polarized from everyone else. This makes us easy to control, by us fighting amongst ourselves, through our falsely imposed bi-modal factions.

What if we all said no. And stopped. And looked at the person across from us as a person, instead of some easy derisive moniker that actually blinds us to the person sitting across from us in a given situation.


tl;dr

Go watch Mr. Fred Rogers episodes, documentaries, and the biographic movie coming out with Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers.

The world needs good right now, we need so much good right now, and this shit is as good as it gets.

Watch it, Learn it, Live it, Love it, Become it, and bring others along so they can do the same.

We'd be in a much better place than we are currently.

Be a listener.
Be kind.
Be understanding.
Be empathetic.
Be a good person.

Help instead of hate.

What Would Mr. Rogers Do?

^^^ Well said. He had a sense of humor too...

https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-conte..._mr_rogers.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyoverland Captive

^^^ Well said. He had a sense of humor too...

https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-conte..._mr_rogers.gif

---

In the film they talk about some of the behind-the-scenes hijinks the crew did and Rogers' reactions. He also, apparently, was cool with Eddie Murphy's SNL riff...

MOUNTAIN
3.75/5

In the grand scheme of “action sports films”, Mountain is something of an anomaly. A good anomaly, though. Combining stunning photography of mountains from around the world augmented by a plethora of mountain-related activities --climbing, skiing, mountaineering, BASE jumping, hiking, ice-climbing, mountain biking, motorcycling, slack lining, and more--this film is like the antithesis to your basic action sports film. You might call it a bit “high-brow” in its execution, as it features symphonic music and narration by Willem Dafoe from words written by Robert MacFarlane (who waxes philosophical, political, and delivers social commentary), but that’s part of its appeal. And, yes, at times it’s poignant and other times it’s a bit syrupy.
Sidenote: I had no idea that Sherpas Cinema were involved until the opening credits, but their presence was immediately visable due to copious shots of Tibetan monks stoking incense, spinning prayer wheels, and praying; I swear they just recycled scenes from Into The Mind. As with that film, I found the inclusion of these images to be slightly incongruous; I get what they were going for, but it really felt as if they were hitting the audience over the head with the already obvious spiritual nature of the endeavor. Personally, I'd rather just see an entire film devoted to these monks and their relationship to the mountains rather than the quick images of them inserted into this film.
In his review above (post #557), Meadow Skipper remarked about Dafoe’s voice. While I have been a fan of the man’s acting ever since his auspicious turn in To Live And Die In L.A., I never really gave much thought to his voice since the angular nature and deep crags of his face tend to command attention when he’s onscreen. Here, however, his face is hidden and his rich baritone is front and center, becoming an aurally hypnotizing counterpoint to the images unfolding before us. Dafoe’s narration (which feels as though it may have been cobbled from MacFarlane’s 2003 book Mountains of the Mind a book which supposedly examines the allure and danger that mountains hold over humans) runs the gamut from hipster philosophical to blunt-force commentary on man’s ruination of the environment.
Speaking of man’s impact on nature, I found a segment featuring throngs of gapers at ski resorts to be quite sickening, as it showcased how we have warped the beauty of the mountains into tourist destinations (it made a great unspoken case for earning your turns in the BC). In that instance just the images of people standing in line and crammed on chair lifts made the point. However, at other times the socio-political commentary is incredibly in-your-face, such as the digs at sponsored athletes and action sports films saturated with corporate logos or when Dafoe exclaims that the scene at Mt. Everest today “is not climbing, it’s queuing”. A little subtelty in those instances could have made a stronger point.
Meadow Skipper addtionally commented about the symphonic music being a bit overbearing at times. I would agree. Certainly there are spots where the music was a bit much, trying a little too hard to push the whole “majestic visage” and “awe inspiring moments” onto the audience. It was also a tad string heavy for my taste (it is predominantly driven by violins). Yet at the same time it was a wonderful contrast to the usually nondescript music featured in your typical action sports film; you know, the seemingly random songs that rarely ever serve the story, create a cohesive flow, or add any sense of emotion to the action segments. Honestly, the symphonic vibe was refreshing and in many instances lent incredible tension and depth to the images unfolding onscreen.
In regards to the images, while the film showcases lots of ecclesiastical mountains, it also shows some harrowing action sequences of man’s interaction with them, ranging from dizzying rock climbing viewscapes, to crazy falls, crashes, and mishaps that had me cringing and averting my gaze from the screen on more than one occasion.
For the most part the film flows with logical direction, yet there are a few instances where the sequencing is a bit wonky. For example, the mid-section of Act III could very easily have worked to better effect as the opening of the film; it’s a segment featuring volcanic destruction that was a little out-of-step considering the bulk of the film proceeding it was more focused on snow-capped peaks, not to mention that volcanic activity was often behind the creation of mountains, so it would have made a logical origin story.
While the music may be a bit much at times and the narration borders on pretentious more often than not, in the end it is the cinematic overtures, the amazing cinematography, and the diverse and intense action elements that serve to elevate this film well above your typical action sports porn.
Perhaps the coolest thing about this film is that it took the focus away from the athletes and turned our attention back to nature, the landscape, and specifically the mountain(s). This shift in the protagonist(s) basically bitch-slapped me awake and recalibrated my mindset as I am sad to admit that since I live in the mountains, I often take them for granted. The film essentially reminds us that we couldn’t climb, ski, or jump off anything without mountains and that if our world was flat it would be pretty damn boring and probably a lot less awe inspiring.
Oh yea, it’s definitely worth seeing on the BIG screen.

I was thoroughly disappointed with Sicario. The first was one of my all time favorite movies. The sequel was ok in some parts but downright insulting to the viewers intelligence in others. At the end of the day, it was a cash grab to cash in on the first movie, as well as set up for a 3rd installment, which I will not pay money to watch.

Sounds like your expectations were set a little too high. While I agree it doesn't really compare to the first, I approached it with lower expectation (cuz sequels always disappoint and no Emily fercrisakes). I was pleasantly surprised.

2001: A Space Odyssey 70mm Roadshow

4/5

Drove down from the mountains to see this in 70mm at The Tower Theater in Sacramento this morning. It had played there for a week in June, but I missed it. They added 3 shows this weekend.
I loved this film when I first saw it in the '80s at an art-house cinema in the SF Bay Area.
I still think it is a visual and sonic masterpiece, but now having seen more than half of Stanley Kubrick's films (and being a bit older and slightly better versed in film appreciation), I have realized that he is a rather sterile director. As I stated above, the film is visually stunning, but all of the actors feel really detached. I have noticed this in his other films, too. They are all marvels of detailed shots and elaborate production, but just feel like they are lacking in emotion (did a turn around the Web and found quotes from Ebert pointing out the emotional detachment in Kubrick's films, fwiw).
It still was super cool to see it on the big screen and all these years later I still don't know what the fuck it is all about.
Definitely one of the all time great stoner flicks, that's for sure.

It is still making the rounds at a few theaters through July:

http://www.neonmarquee.com/new-blog/2001

Austin, TX show end of July:
https://do512.com/events/2018/7/22/2...mm-restoration

PS
Thinking that the above list is incomplete as it didn't list the showings in Sacramento...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

Antman & wasp was fun, enjoyable escape. Probably best comedy this year. Links directly to Avengers at the end


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Yeah, fun movie. Enjoyed it more than I expected. Be sure to watch it all the way to the very end. The credits get ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamond Joe

I was thoroughly disappointed with Sicario. The first was one of my all time favorite movies. The sequel was ok in some parts but downright insulting to the viewers intelligence in others. At the end of the day, it was a cash grab to cash in on the first movie, as well as set up for a 3rd installment, which I will not pay money to watch.

---

I was going to write one of my typically long reviews, but was having a hard time doing so without dropping a ton of spoilers. Diamond Joe more or less summed up my take on the film.
I had decent expectations based on the trailer and the presence of Brolin, Del Toro and original screenwriter Sheridan. It felt like Sheridan pumped out a hack screenplay while stuck in an airport on a layover. Not sure what drew Brolin and Del Toro to the project as it didn't expand on their characters at all. The plot was initially convoluted, but once you let it sink in, it was just stupid; not to mention that it presented a ton of missed opportunities, any one of which, had they been followed, would have offered up a much more interesting film. Several characters were annoying cliches and the music was overbearing, often promising tense action that never materialized.
The first theatrical trailer was better than the entire film, although the ambush-on-the-dirt-road sequnce was exciting and there was a sign language scene that I found poignant, but those were the only moments that stuck out in what ultimately was nothing more than a slick direct-to-video level offering.

2/5

Any body seen Leave No Trace yet? Trying to decide if I should further aggravate an already cranky lower back by seeing it in the (only option) local "artsy" theaters with god-awful seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Stainless

Sicario 2. Day of the Soldado. Pretty fucking brutal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamond Joe

I was thoroughly disappointed with Sicario...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

Sounds like your expectations were set a little too high... I was pleasantly surprised.

---

Holy shit this Icelandic critic went to town on Sicario 2!!!

https://grapevine.is/culture/2018/07...oet-sicario-2/

Wow; now I feel humiliated for praising it faintly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dookey67

Holy shit this Icelandic critic went to town on Sicario 2!!!

https://grapevine.is/culture/2018/07...oet-sicario-2/

---

That guy is go-o-od. I’m totally subscribing to his critiques, even though he seems to only care about things with an Icelandic connection. Being married to a Lithuanian has given me a deep appreciation for oddball northern cultures.

Hopefully Equalizer 2 will be more enjoyable than Sicario 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Stainless

Hopefully Equalizer 2 will be more enjoyable than Sicario 2.

---

Sadly, not by much.
I would say to save your money and wait for the rental/stream.
Would give it a 2/5.

I thought the first one was just okay (would give it a 3/5).
I initially had no interest in seeing Equalizer 2 after seeing the initial trailer earlier this year.
But then I saw Trailer #2 last week and my mind changed; the latest trailer is perhaps one of the best edited action trailers of recent memory.
Sadly, it's way more exciting than the entire film.

If you have seen either of the main trailers then you have seen most of the key action sequences and heard most of Denzel's pithy one-liners (not sure why the filmmakers felt they needed to blow their wads in the trailers as it left very little left for moviegoers to be surprised about; I hate that trend).

SPOILER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL TRAILER
The film starts with what I found to be a pointless action sequence. It was obviously meant to showcase how the Robert McCall character (Denzel Washington) will go to great lengths to help people. Yet we already know this from the TV show upon which the films are based and from the previous film. Not only that, but it has McCall dressed like a Muslim, complete with fake beard. It felt insulting to the culture, imho.
SPOILER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE SECOND TRAILER
From there the film bounces back to Boston where we see McCall in his day-to-day (much of this is featured in the second trailer, so it lacks any punch if you've seen that prior to the film).
The story, sadly, is beyond cliche. And the characters are cookie cutter; for example, I picked out the villain the moment the individual appeared onscreen. And when said villain finally revealed their reasons for being villainistic, well, they were of the typical "the government screwed me, etc., etc., etc." variety.
To continue with the cliches, McCall befriends a troubled youth and convinces him to stay in school and not join a gang. How many times have we seen this before?
YAWN.
To cap it off, the grand finale set-piece, aka "The Big Showdown between Good and Evil" is beyond lackluster. Let's put it this the filmmakers felt the necessity to stage the climax during a severe hurricane; when an action scene has to resort to wrapping itself in a natural disaster in order to create more tension and excitement, then you know you're in trouble.
In regards to the action, as mentioned, most of the key fight sequences were featured in both of the main trailers floating around the net and that were shown at movie theaters, so if you'e seen those, then there's little surprise in store. That said, there is one fight scene involving a thug in a car that is pretty intense, but that's about it, honestly.
Denzel is a commanding screen presence and does what he can with the tired story material, but even he can't elevate this above being a glossy throwback to the direct-to-video action films of the '80s; and even many of those were (and still are) far superior. It really reminded me of the late-late period stuff Charles Bronson made (think all of those Death Wish sequels that went straight to VHS and you'll be in the ballpark).

I'm recuperating from a knee injury so I've been hitting the cinema hard this summer. I only paid $5 to see it yesterday afternoon (2 of the theaters in Reno charge $5 every day before 6pm), but as I mentioned at the beginning of my discourse, I'd wait for the rental/stream if you're really interested in seeing this. It's maybe worth $2.50, $3, tops.

Or you could just watch this insanely well-crafted trailer about 10 times and call it a day (I love the editing and the sound design in this trailer, which, sadly, is better constructed than 75% of the film). If the entire film had been half as intense as this trailer it would have been pretty damn good...:

I remember a well known producer giving a talk in one of the film classes being asked about his current hit movie and why they gave away everything in the trailer and he just laughed and said to do whatever it takes to get people in the theatre. Sad but true

Yeah; based on general reviews, if you're looking for a respectable sequel currently (or about to be) playing, you're reduced to M:I - Fallout.
It's a sad state of affairs, I say .....

Quote:

---

I have realized that he is a rather sterile director. As I stated above, the film is visually stunning, but all of the actors feel really detached. I have noticed this in his other films, too.

---

I've been thinking about this and I agree. Maybe he does so much set up for the scenes, and maybe tries to get the visuals perfect that the actors get bored, or he isn't able to get them to start up again on the 8th or whatever take. In similar vein, though, Wes Anderson has to get those perfect symmetry scenes, and still gets the actors to engage. Maybe it's all just part of what Kubrick really wanted, (that detachment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

Antman & wasp was fun, enjoyable escape. Probably best comedy this year. Links directly to Avengers at the end

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyk

Yeah, fun movie. Enjoyed it more than I expected. Be sure to watch it all the way to the very end. The credits get ridiculous.

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

...if you're looking for a respectable sequel currently (or about to be) playing, you're reduced to M:I - Fallout.
It's a sad state of affairs, I say .....

---

Gonna say that Ant-Man and The Wasp is super entertaining...

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP
3.5 / 5

I was a tad skeptical going into this one and emerged pleasantly surprised and with a smile on my face.
I thought Ant-Man was decent (I still would have liked to have seen what Edgar Wright was going to do with the film, but oh well), so I expected at least the same for the second go-around. I think it surpassed the first film by a few notches.
The one thing that worried me the most going in was that I thought I would tire quickly of Paul Rudd's somewhat mopey, absent-minded, scatter-brained hero schtick. Don't get me wrong, I find him really affable, the sort of chap I'd be down to share a beer or 3 with, but he always seems to play the same guy; like he's severely typecast (let's face it, Rudd's Ant-Man is basically Josh from Clueless (and just about every other character he's played on film), but with an affinity for ants). Now maybe he's a total dick in real llfe (though I kind of doubt this as I've never read anything to that effect) and the likeable dufus he portrays onscreen is really great acting on his part. Or this is just what he's good at and what Hollywood expects of him; I guess one could say that he's found his niche and he's milking it for all it's worth, eh? At any rate, I was immediately won over and enthralled by and got wrapped up in his inescapable personality from the moment we see him interacting with his onscreen daughter (who, by the way, is one of the coolest kid actors I've seen in a long time; she is not annoying, cloying or unrealistically precocious).
On the subject of typecasting, Walton Goggins has become the go-to guy insofar as portraying the slick, snake-like Southern baddie; it's like Hollywood says "Hey, let's get a charming, but slightly sadistic leaning Southern guy to play the villain" and Goggins is at the top of the Google search. Yet despite this, his over-the-top performance fits this material pretty well and wasn't too terrible; it actually felt as if he were channelling Keenan Wynn or Cesar Romero from one of those Disney films of yesteryear.
The real star of the film, though, is Michael Pena. I never knew dude was so funny. He literally steals every scene he's in with a manic verve that is not only fun to watch, but is pretty damn hysterical to boot.
As for the rest of the movie? It's fun. It's fast-paced. It's goofy. It's exciting. It's what you would call a proverbial "popcorn movie" or "summer movie".
I'd liken it to Fantastic Voyage-crossed with-Dr. Shrinker-crossed with-Honey I Shrunk The Kids, but coated liberally in steroids and Vitamin L, tossed in the oven and baked until super gooey and aromatic.
The action sequences are insane. The nods to pop culture (Hot Wheels, carry-on-luggage, Bullitt, just to name a few) are great. The pacing is whip-quick.
My only quibbles are in regards to a couple of flashback sequences that imploy copious CGI to render younger versions of Michael Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Lawrence Fishburne. I absolutely loathe this new technology. I am guessing that it's cheaper than hiring an actor to portray the younger versions but no matter how much they have perfected this effect, I still find it distracting.
As I alluded to earlier, the characters, goofy dialogue, fun spirit, and zany action elements ultimately reminded me of vintage live-action Disney films of the '60s and early '70s that I grew up on (think The Love Bug, Strongest Man In The World, Absent Minded Professor, etc). As goofy as it may sound, that kind of zany, yet wholesome comedic element is generally missing from cinema these days. It's actually kind of cool in my book.
In short, this is an exhilerating romp. Sure, it won't terribly tax your brain, but more importantly it won't leave you feeling like you've been duped.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT
3.25 / 5

I know that the phrase “rollercoaster ride” is terribly cliche in film criticism, but in reference to this film it is more than apt. Except in this case, the rollercoaster in question has nothing but thrill elements. There are no necessary lulls, none of those much needed slow moments leading up to the big drop; here it’s all Immelmanns and sea serpent rolls from start to finish. Pacing in action films is incredibly important and with Fallout the filmmakers have thrown any concept of it into the wind and that wind is of Catergory 5 hurricane caliber. In other words, the film unfolds in a flurry of non-stop action, rarely, if ever, offering the viewer a moment to catch their breath. This may be one of the best examples to date of an action film tailor-made for the ADHD-addled, quick-fix-inclined millenial mindset. If you are looking for nuance and balanced pacing, well look elsewhere. Basically, this is a classic example of “turn off your brain, strap in and enjoy the ride” filmmaking.
I really felt that the previous installment, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, set the bench-mark for the series. It had great pacing (it ebbed and flowed nicely), a creepy and menacing villain, and solid action sequences that were balanced nicely with a compelling story and strong character interaction. With Fallout, however, everything is cranked well past 11, with each stunt and action sequence feeling as if the filmmakers were trying to outdo themselves without any regard to story or character development. Sure, after 6 films moviegoers more or less “know” the characters here, but that still doesn’t mean one can’t improve on them, continue to develop them, flesh them out even more. It honestly feels like everyone involved is on autopilot, just setting themselves up for the next action sequence. Three of the four new characters introduced in the film (portrayed by Angela Basset, Henry Cavill, and Wes Bentley) are hollow and one-dimensional. Cavill, especially, comes off like a cardboard cut-out, except when he’s pummeling someone or something. Hell, even the old returning villain feels less menacing than he did in Rogue Nation, a mere shadow of his former self. And the new villain? Kind of lame, not to mention the audience should have no trouble figuring out who the mysterious baddie is (that it takes the M:I team almost an hour of screen time to come to the same conclusion that the audience did in the first 15-minutes is just poor scripting). The fourth new character, though, played by Vanessa Kirby, is a classic femme fatale, perhaps a bit cliche around the edges, but Kirby makes her work. It would be nice to see her role expanded in the next film.
While the story feels like a weak rehash of Rogue Nation, the action is pretty damn bueno. The hand-to-hand fight scenes are brutal and well staged: they are shot in a manner that allows the viewer to see the entire fight, rather than the “normal” close-cropped, quick edited style usually favored by Western directors. The motorcycle and car chases set in the streets of Paris are invigorating; the one with the vintage BMW is particularly gritty and intense. And the grande finale helicopter duel is white-knuckle inducing. The only action sequence that fails is the much lauded sky-diving scene; it comes off like a Wile E. Coyote endeavor. I’m not sure if it was meant to be wacky and funny, but people laughed out loud during it and its (intentional? Unintentional?) tone feels rather out of place in the film.
So, should you go see Fallout? Absolutely, if only for the action sequences; this is not the type of film to be relegated to a 50” screen in the comfort of your own home. Just don’t expect the most compelling of stories or any nuanced performances or any further character development. The Parisian action elements and the literal final countdown are worth the price of admission. Just remember to check your brain at the door and don’t forget to buckle your seat belt.

RIYL
The 5 previous M:I films; all of the James Bond films

went to see Princess Mononoke on the big screen for Ghibli Fest. Wonderful experience to see how the big screen truly expresses the depth in the images and in the audio. Can't wait for Spirited Away in October.

Mission Impossible was decent, keep you on your toes, constant action
Don’t think too hard about it; just enjoy the ride

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...9jrlqudgnq.Png

So yer sayin' Tom's got his own personal cocoon ??? I've got two no longer needed testicles that I'd gladly trade for one of those puppies.

SORRY TO BOTHER YOU
4.5/5

It's like a Terry Gilliam film as filtered through the lens of Spike Lee circa 1987. Or vice versa.
Absurd.
Brazen.
Hilarious.
In-your-face.
Plus it contains a wallopping W.T.F.?!?!?!? moment to end all WTF moments (it was like being knocked on your ass sideways after getting smacked in the face with an engorged donkey dick. Literally.)
It reminded me of Idiocracy, Brazil, Do The Right Thing, and a totally fucked-up Outer Limits episode. Additionally there is a noticeably heavy influence from Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufmann, and Spike Jonze.
The film contains blatant nods to Get Out, Gondry, Nickelodeon game shows gone awry, and probably a ton more references that I missed (there is a lot going on in this film in the background, so much so that I plan to see it a second time if I can).

RIYL:
the early films of Spike Lee (Do The Right Thing, She’s Gotta Have It, etc); the early films of Terry Gilliam (specifically Brazil); the early films of Michel Gondry; pretty much anything that Charlie Kaufman has written; the films fo Mike Judge (specifically Office Space and Idiocracy); the films of Spike Jonez; The Lobster