Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One review

Jeez, that's a long title. I liked the last few Mission: Impossible movies, but was a little concerned when I discovered this film was getting towards three hours long yet was only a "part one". I feel like a lot of shows and even some movies these days are just made to string you along, all promise and very little payoff. Would this film really justify its runtime?

To me the answer was "not really". While nothing in the film felt like "filler", it did feel a touch bloated to me. And, as I feared, the end didn't really leave me feeling satisfied. Of course a cliffhanger ending is always going to lack a sense of finality and closure, so perhaps that's not a fair criticism. But a good cliffhanger ending can leave you eager to see the next part, and I didn't really feel that either.

That might be because I just wasn't really enjoying the movie all that much, so I wasn't feeling invested enough to care about a sequel a year or more from now. Don't get me wrong, the movie was pretty good, but I felt it was weaker than the previous few M:I films. Or most of Tom Cruise's movies of the last few years for that matter.

I'll save most of the discussion of why not for the spoilers section. As far as general criticism goes, I felt the film lacked some signature Mission Impossible elements. I wasn't impressed with the writing; the plot felt lazy at times, some events just felt too contrived. And I didn't really think the story was complex enough to justify the long runtime and cliffhanger ending.

Of course the film had it's moments. The action was pretty good, though not as impactful as the action in several movies I've seen in the last year or so. I was engaged and entertained for most of the run-time, though I started to get frustrated towards the end. I did enjoy seeing the cast back and slipping into their old roles, though some of them didn't really get all that much time in the limelight as a lot of the focus was on newer cast members.


Overall I'm giving it a 6/10. It was fun, but flawed. Perhaps I was expecting too much, but at the end of the day I just felt a little disappointed.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
The movie was missing some of the expected MI touches. Overly-complicated infiltration plans are an iconic element of the series, but that didn't happen here. The closest we got was Ethan trying to get onto a train, which the movie seemed to think was something very difficult, yet never actually tried to explain WHY it was difficult - trains are not known for having extremely tight security. In the typical M:I infiltration scene they descibe the security sytem, explaining why breaking in is practically impossible, This time they... didn't.

For example, there's a scene in the previous entry, Fallout, where Ethan and August infiltrate a club by parachuting in from extremely high altitude. In this movie, Ethan and Ilsa just walk in through the front door. No disguises, no plan, no backup, no weapons or tools or gadgets, they just walk up and see what happens. Hell, one of the villians had several knives, another smuggled in a SWORD, yet our heroes don't bother to even try to bring anything at all. That's... that's NOT how Mission Impossible is supposed to work.


I didn't really like "The Entity" as a villain: apart from being arguably too "sci-fi", it was faceless, almost voiceless, and far too "hands-off". It was described as being very powerful and implied to be very dangerous, but it actually does very little and we never understood what it actually wanted. In practice it was pretty much a non-entity (I swear I didn't do that on purpose).

Gabriel then served as the actual main antagonist for the film and he was... not very impressive. He had no agency of his own, I never felt as if he was built up as a convincing threat: there was no suggestion of him being particularly intelligent or physically capable, all we know is that he likes to make people suffer. Which makes him detestable, but not inherently threatening. He was just... more annoying than scary.


The movie spent a LOT of time centered around Grace. Which was fine at first but soon got old, or at least I got tired of it because after a while I realised I didn't really like her. Hayley Atwell was great, but all we know about the character is that she's a thief who keeps backstabbing Ethan when he's going out of his way to try to help her. There is no redeeming backstory or anything.

OK, sure, she makes the right decision in the end, but it was a LONG time getting there. A long time in which I mostly just found her irritating. And what makes it worse is the way that Ethan keeps, well, letting her get away with it. He keeps acting like she's on his side, putting his trust in her, even though she repeatedly betrays him. She just keeps making things worse; for Ethan, for the rest of the team, and even for herself. It's just annoying.

Hell, at one point she handcuffs him to the steering wheel of a car when he's not looking, trapping him in a car that's sitting on train tracks. He barely manages to survive. That's right, she almost KILLED him, yet he doesn't say anything and just keeps risking THE ENTIRE WORLD to try to be nice to her. What the hell is that?

This is a big problem because it turns Ethan into a moron, rather than the brilliant intelligence agent that we're told he is supposed to be. And that kinda breaks the movie. The way he behaves makes no sense, it lacks internal logic. And when a story lacks internal logic, I get turned off.

I just don't think the movie does enough to justify why it's all so centered around her. Is this one of those "introducing a new character to replace the old one" situations? Is Tom Cruise planning to retire from the MI series, and they're trying to set up a replacement protagonist? Because if that's what's happening, it's not being handled that well.

BTW, Ethan trying to protect Grace reminded me of Knight And Day. Which was a movie that I loved. But June was a far more likeable and relateable character than Grace, seeing as she didn't keep trying to betray the person who kept saving her life.


So Ilsa shows up and attacks Gabriel with a sword. On a narrow bridge, where she has enough arm-room to swing the sword around freely but his ability to dodge is restricted by the lack of leg-room. And he only has a pair of small knives. And yet she still loses? The odds were stacked in her favour, yet she loses. Later an unarmed Ethan managed to defeat an armed Gabriel, yet Ilsa lost when she was at an advantage. I... am not impressed.

By the way, Ilsa faking her death, then just showing up halfway through the movie only to not do anything all that useful (except die to save Grace I guess) was a bit of a wasted opportunity? The Entity dealt with information, that's its strength, so trying to keep the fact that Ilsa was still alive a secret in order to catch it by surprise, to throw off its predictions, could have been a useful strategy -or at least a dramatic moment. It didn't even have to succeed, just having them attempt it would have worked well with the theme of the movie. But as-is, her faking her death at the start of the film just didn't amount to anything.


The two agents chasing Ethan didn't really have much impact on the story, despite having a fair amount of screentime. I understand the archetype of that relationship, but the movie was already long enough that their role could have been cut down a bit or removed entirely without actually losing very much.


At one point Paris asks Ethan why he spared her. He did not answer. Which annoyed me because I also wanted an explanation; she was a dangerous enemy who had tried to kill him and Grace, and was stopping him from saving Ilsa and/or Grace. I mean, he's fighting to protect his friends and the world, and it's not like he's ever shown a reluctance to kill before. He didn't hesitate to gun down the mercenaries in the desert at the start of the movie, for example. Again, I am familiar with the whole "the hero helps someone even though it cost them, then gets saved by them later" story arc, but it really just didn't make sense in this situation. And the movie actually drawing attention to it without actually trying to explain it didn't make it any better. Am I just missing something?

Speaking of things I don't understand, why did Ethan try to get Grace to help him to begin with? He already showed he can pick a pocket - or place something into one, why not find a chance to slip up to the target and return the key himself? Possibly using one of those fake faces that he loves so much if he's worried about being recognised. Why involve an unpredictable wild-card? Someone in his position should know the importance of eliminating variables, he shouldn't be going out of his way to add more of them!


Cary Elwes was a little bit wasted. He shows up in two scenes: one where he's effectively clueless and just there for the movie to deliver exposition (which is a bit lazy: show don't tell guys!), and then another when it turns out he's the only one who DOES know what's happening, only for him to act like an idiot and die.


The team took far too long to start to think "we probably need an anti-hacking strategy since the Entity can mess with us". It somehow hacked ethan's GLASSES and interfered with his sight, that's probably a good point to start worrying about that sort of thing.


Can we just take a moment to talk about how unlikely it is that so many people would just casually carry around THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM IN THE WORLD in their pockets where it can be so easily snatched by a pick-pocket? Apart from being stupid and unbelievable, it's very... not the way M:I movies usually do things? Important items having tons of security is a cornerstone of the series!


How the hell did Paris just APPEAR in a vertical train-cart, when she was literally minutes away from dying from a stab wound? Why was she there anyway, why did she think "Let me go see what's happening inside the train cars THAT ARE HANGING ABOVE A CLIFF AND ABOUT TO FALL"?

Speaking of which, I hate to say it, but I think that scene was just a little too drawn out. How many train cars are going to very slowly be dragged off the cliff, always giving the heroes JUST ENOUGH time to climb their way up. It was just... a little bit too contrived, too convenient, even for me. Especially since the payoff wasn't really all that great; two people slowly climbing up a vertical train car is just not as impressive or exciting as the kind of action sequences that, say, the John Wick movies find contrived ways to justify including.


Ethan acts like it will be impossible to infiltrate the train without a magic face mask machine, so he comes up with a plan to jump a motorcycle onto the roof. And yet the two agents (who have been in the movie the whole time yet never managed to actually do anything useful) just casually walk onto the train, and just walk around without anyone stopping them. Never mind a whole bunch of passengers who just casually climb on. Tell me again why it was so hard for Ethan?


How did Grace end up at the bridge with Gabriel? There was no-one directing her and it was a whole damned CITY, why would she end up THERE? Ethan and Ilsa were being directed by the Entity, but Grace was just running for her life. I can't accept that there was no other way she could have gone, and I refuse to believe "the Entity predicted it".

Also why did Grace see Gabriel and decide to try to kill him? She's spent the ENTIRE movie running away from Ethan - the guy very clearly trying to PROTECT her - up to and including what she's doing RIGHT NOW, why not just run away from the guy who has already said he's going to KILL her? Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall seeing anyone else around to stop her from running. She was running away from people (but there was no-one actually behind her at the time so she wasn't cut-off and could have turned and gone back), then she saw him and just decided to stop running and act COMPLETELY out of character!

D&D: Honor Among Thieves review

I didn't expect much from another Dungeons And Dragons movie, not after the 2000 film, and especially not with the state that cinema and streaming has been in recently. I figured we would run into the usual problems that happen when Hollywood decides to adapt a geeky franchise to the big screen for mass audiences. Sure, they would adopt some of the surface trappings, use some familiar names and so on, but ultimately the writers tend to lack respect and affection for the source material when it comes to this sort of thing.

The trailers did little to get my hopes up. It looked like, on top of the usual adaptation issues, it would be full of the kind of storytelling problems we've been seeing in big budget movies and shows in the last few years. Comments from the directors seemed to confirm it. Coupled with the backlash against D&D's owner, Wizards Of The Coast, for the OGL nonsense, and I fully intended to give this one a pass.

Then I started hearing good things from sources that I respected. So when the chance came to watch the movie on streaming, I went ahead and did so. And I enjoyed it.

Now my fears were not completely unfounded; some of the issues I had been expecting were indeed present, though not to the degree I had feared (more in the spoiler section). But where I had been expecting a generic fantasy story with some D&D window dressing - a couple of familiar spell names and monsters, a Beholder perhaps - what I got was a movie that really seemed to me to understand Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm not just talking about the official fiction of D&D, although that was here too; iconic places, spells, and mosters were all there for the knowing fans to enjoy. No, more importantly, and much more impressively, was how the movie understood the way the game actually feels to play. I'm not all that knowledgeable about Dungeons and Dragons, but I know a little. I've played some pen-and-paper RPGs in the distant past (though not D&D specifically) and more recently I've watched a lot of youtube videos about D&D: groups of friends playing together, animated retellings of players' craziest adventures, comedic videos riffing on various elements and tropes, and I've even read some webcomics centered around the game. So I think I have a bit of a feel for it.

And so much of what I've seen was reflected in this film. The unlikely collection of unrelated individuals, each with their own Tragic Backstory, the crazy improvised plans that use bizarre abilities in novel ways, the random macguffins the party picks up in weird places, the swingy dice as characters fail at easy tasks and succeed at impossible ones, the way the Dungeon Master sets up a path for the players but they refuse to take it and end up making things much harder for themselves, that one Non Playable Character the Dungeon Master controls directly who is way cooler and more capable than anyone in the party and solves a bunch of their problems for them, and of course the under-developed Big Bad Evil Guy who it turns out was behind everything the whole time. This really felt like a story you would actually see played out on the tabletop, making it feel like an authentic Dungeons And Dragons experience. And that's pretty impressive.

The movie was funny, the effects were good, and the action was very creative and enjoyable. The story focused on its characters first and foremost, and so felt engaging and mostly succeeded in connecting on an emotional level - though I suppose the larger stakes felt a bit tacked on at the end. The characters themselves were likeable so you could root for them and enjoy watching them, though they didn't all have as much personality or get the same degree of character development. The actors were suitably cast and did a good job. There was some creative camera work, especially in scenes where large spells were being cast; some might feel the big swooping camera moves were a bit overdone, but that I found it all novel and entertaining.


Overall I would give it a 7/10: it's an entertaining and well-made film. If you're a big Dungeons And Dragons fan you could probably add a point or even two to that score. If you're not, well, it's a fun movie, but you probably won't find it particularly special, and it still does have it's flaws.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
Even though the film follows a party of four, the true primary antagonist is of course Chris Pine's Edgin. His character is the most fleshed out, as is his story - the main plot of the movie centers around it in fact. His desires are the main motivation for most of what happens, giving him the most agency as it's his decisions that push the story forwards. He makes mistakes, but is a very sympathetic character as those mistakes are understandable. He is flawed, but his character arc as he faces those flaws and improves himself is engaging.

He is also almost completely useless in a fight. I get that he pulls everyone together, he makes all the plans - and a few of them even work, but I really don't see a reason why he couldn't have had some combat ability as well, especially when he's introduced as being a former member of an order that fights for justice. In D&D combat is typically almost inevitable, most players are going to have a character who can at least fight a little bit - and Bards are a class with decent combat ability. So yeah, watching him fail to make himself useful when the chips were down was a little frustrating.

Michelle Rodriguez's Holga, in contrast, is a powerful fighter who, on several occasions, takes out multiple opponents practically single-handedly. While there are a couple of instances when she says things that on the surface sound stupid, in context they almost feel like trolling: she never actually comes across as stupid herself.

She's never really scared, never really makes mistakes; she has no real flaws. She doesn't grow or change over the course of the movie. We do get a glimpse of her personal life outside of her relationship to Edgin, but it's only a glimpse, it really doesn't tie into anything or affect the character or the movie in any real way, and it's surprisingly drama-free considering how difficult a situation it was. Overall she was likeable, but not particularly interesting.

Justice Smith's Simon joins the two later, and is presented as a bit of a comedic sidekick. He lacks confidence and courage, tending to mess things up. The movie spends very little time on his backstory; we arguably know even less about him than Holga.

But it tells us just enough for us to root for him, to cheer for him as his character grows and changes. Despite the way he is initially presented, he is not a burden; rather he is a valuable and, by the end, reliable member of the party. He is entertaining, but also likeable and relateable. I actually think he was my favourite of the four.

Finally we have Sophia Lillis' Doric. She is introduced through an action scene where she single-handedly defeats multiple armed and armoured soldiers, and throughout the film her shapeshifting is shown to be a powerful asset. She also has the least personality and development of the four.

Don't get me wrong I still liked her, but... after the film was over I tried to think about what I know about her, and drew a blank. Her backstory is delivered through a couple of lines of exposition that I have completely forgotten, her character development is that she went from not trusting humans (because the only ones she met were trying to destroy her home) to accepting that actually not all humans are bad. Which didn't feel very impactful seeing as she didn't act particularly antagonistic towards our human protagonists when they first met, agreeing to fight alongside them without very much resistance, and she didn't really seem to overtly change the way she treated them over the course of the movie.

So what we have are two women who are basically perfect, and who are kind of boring, with rather little personality or character development. And two men with flaws and weaknesses, who are interesting and have engaging characters arcs. It really illustrates the problems with a lot of the writing we've been getting from Hollywood for the last few years. Fortunately the film managed to avoid the trap of making the women actually unlikeable; it's surprising how many movies make that mistake.

Edgin's wife Zia was unrealistically perfect as well. You can chalk that up to him being an unreliable narrator I suppose, but Robin Williams talking about his character's wife's imperfections in Good Will Hunting was far more moving to me than watching clips of Georgia Landers' Zia being this inhuman angel.

Speaking of Edgin's family, it was annoying watching Edgin get berated by his daughter Kira, when she's never done anything or faced any difficulty or opposition in her life. Especially when she doesn't treat Holga the same way even though Holga was right there with Edgin every step of the way. Somehow it's Edgin's fault but not Holga's? Do you see what I'm getting at here? And of course part of Edgin's character arc involved apologising to his daughter and admitting that he was wrong. Of course.

Overall I didn't actually care about Edwin's family. I did care about him and feel for how much he loved his family, I was invested in his desire to save/re-unite them, but I actually didn't care about them. It's kinda weird actually.


Once again I enjoyed Hugh Laurie as a villain. He's not very menacing, but is enjoyably charismatic. You almost don't want anything bad to happen to him even though he was complicit in attempting to kill thousands; I think him surviving but ending up in jail was a fair compromise and a satisfying conclusion.


The whole "only one thing can bring one person back to life" macguffin felt a touch contrived, especially when it's first brought up, but I will admit it was fairly well woven into the plot - Red Wizards were established as being dangerous and tied into the plot in a major way, it was shown that the dead could be brought back to life under certain conditions, and in the end the tablet was made to be a part of an important character moment. So overall it wasn't just a lazy writing convenience, they did put the work in.


I'll admit I did enjoy the cameo of the kids from the old cartoon a great deal (even if it did take me a moment to recognise why that party looked so familiar). I'm not sure that it's "canon" that it was actually them, but it's kinda fun to think that they are still out there, having adventures. I tend to be quite jaded these days about what often feels like cynical nostalgia-mining, but for some reason this one worked for me. Perhaps it's because the whole movie felt authentic, or maybe it's because it wasn't thrown into our faces but rather just a subtle little nod in the background. In a way I think that made it feel more genuine and less manupilative. At least to me.

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 review

The first Guardians of the Galaxy came out after the successful experiment that was the Avengers, when the MCU had earned itself a lot of good will and I was watching to see how they continued this shared universe they were creating. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I had no reason to doubt that it would be a good movie.

The second Guardians film came out while the MCU was in it's prime. Marvel movies were a known quanity, with even the worst still providing solid entertainment. And of course it was following up a successful first installment, so expectations were high.

Volume 3 came out when the MCU was in rapid decline, not just in general but for me specifically. The last couple of movies I had seen were not working for me. Important in-universe events were happening in TV shows on channels that I didn't have, leaving me feeling out-of-the-loop. The movies and shows were heavily abusing the "multiverse"; a concept I have long thought needs to be used sparingly, and have grown quite weary of.

Of course I wasn't alone. Film after film was getting raked over the coals by reviewers, box office numbers were down. What's more, James Gunn had been quite publicly fired by Disney. But even though they eventually hired him back to finish off the trilogy, he had already been given the reins to the the rival DCU, being entrusted with rebooting their entire cinematic universe.

Would James Gunn be able to create a fitting final instalment to the beloved series, or would behind-the-scenes forces sink this sequel? I must admit I had a lot of doubts walking into this one. But almost in spite of myself, I still wanted this one to be good.

And it was. Volume 3 continued the trend set by Volume 2 of ratcheting up the emotional impact; seriously, I found this one to be a real tear-jerker. Not just at the end like the second film, but almost right from the start. In lesser hands the story might have come off as emotionally-manipulative, but I just couldn't see it that way. Even when I could see what the movie was doing from a mile away, I still felt every damned gut-punch it threw at me. If you like movies that evoke an emotional reaction, I think you will want to see this one.

The film brings the same kind of irreverant humor as the previous entries, though I didn't think it was as funny overall. That's not a criticism, just an observation: I felt there was less focus on jokes this time around, and they don't really intrude on the more emotional scenes. Considering that a lot of people complain about the jokes taking away from the drama in Marvel movies (at least in the later films), some people might be happy to hear that Volume 3 is far less prone to trying to squeeze humor into every scene. It's still funny, just in a more compartmentalised way.

Endgame left the Guardians in a bit of a strange position, especially when it came to Peter and Gamorra. So it was interesting seeing how this movie handled that, how the characters interacted and moved forwards. And it wasn't just the core cast: once again the movie introduces and fleshes out new characters without neglecting the old, expanding and enriching the world as a whole while telling a story that is deeply personal to the main cast.

As expected there were stylish action scenes, great performances, good music, and fun cameos. The VFX were great, and I personally enjoyed the sci-fi environments a bit more than I did in Volume 2, coming closer to the vibe I enjoyed in the first film.

It's worth mentioning that Volume 3 did a good job of capping off the trilogy, without closing the door on the possibility of more stories in the future. Endings can be hard to do right, this one gave me a satisfying sense of closure that I think is becoming rare in these days of never-ending franchises.


I think I'm going to have to give this one a 9/10. I think I still prefer Volume 2, which is much easier watching, but this one just hits harder.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
In Volume 3, there is a sense of... moving on. Of accepting that things aren't going to be the same forwever, that sometimes you just can't go back to the way things were and you need to find a new way to move forwards. But also of new beginnings, of passing on the torch, leaving behind a legacy. I think that's a very fitting way to end the series.


In the first movie it was just Rocket who understood Groot, then at the start of the second everyone seemed to be able to understand him. This time Gamorra, being a younger version from before she met the Guardians, could not understand Groot at first. After some time however, she was surprised to realise that she was finally able to understand him.

Then, at the very end of the film, there's a brief moment when Groot finally says something other than his trademark line. Just like Gamora, I did a double-take as I realised what I had just heard. It felt like, just as Gamora had learned to understand Groot over time, so had we, the audience. It was as if HE hadn't changed, WE had. It's a powerful moment, and a great payoff to three movies of what originally seemed to be a simple running gag.

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 review

After enjoying the original so much, I had high expectations for the sequel. While there were some bits that didn't quite click for me, overall I felt Volume 2 surpassed its predecessor.

The central plot is a bit strange, and is perhaps a bit slow to develop. The main cast, the Guardians themselves, get split up and pulled in different directions. New characters are introduced, and existing characters receive more screen-time and development. Some returning characters who I had previously dismissed as being, well, "minor", become central to the emotional core of the movie this time around.

This genuinely surprised me, and in a way made the emotional scenes that much more memorable. To be clear it's not done at the expense of previous "main" characters; rather it actually helps flesh them out as the relationships between them are the heart of the whole matter. Likewise the new characters don't take away from the old, as their interactions reveal more to us about both. Overall I walked out of the movie even more emotionally invested in the Guardians than I was before.

As well as hitting harder in the feels, I found the movie to be even funnier than the first. I would say it's arguably more stylish too, with more memorable action scenes that weave musical and visual elements together incredibly well. The cast is great, and there's a lot of fun cameos this time around. I think the best way I can describe it is to say that: Volume 2's highs reached greater heights than before. If that makes sense.

I do have a couple of criticisms, though minor ones. The plot lacked a bit of direction, with some major characters really just kind of "hanging out" for most of the film. Personally I also missed the feeling of exploring distant worlds that I enjoyed so much in the first movie, although Volume 2 still delivers very cool sci-fi visuals.

Overall I think I have to give this a 9/10. It's one of my personal favourite Marvel films, and one of the most memorable movies I've seen in the last few years.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
The toe scene? Probably the funniest thing I had seen in years! Just thinking about it would crack me up for ages afterwards. And the scene with Yondu striding through the ship, after regaining control of his arrow was amazing.

I still marvel at how Yondu somehow managed to become the emotional heart of the movie. It's impressive how a comedic interaction where Yondu and Peter talk about Mary Poppins manages to have so much emotional weight; the GotG series really does interweave comedy and emotion in a way that no-one else has managed. At least that's how it feels to me.

Guardians of the Galaxy review

I had heard the name, and the names of some of the characters, but I didn't actually know anything about the Guardians of the Galaxy when the movie was announced. But Marvel was on a roll, and while I wasn't instantly invested the way I am for a movie about characters I already love, I appreciated the willingness to take a risk on lesser-known characters, so I was interested in the movie and hoped it would be good.

I found the film to be very funny, and at times quite touching. It was also very stylish, weaving action and music together into creative spectacles. It had good character work, with a motley crew of rogues who might seem antagonistic at first, but who I liked and cared about by the end.

One thing that I personally really appreciated was, well, the originality of the worlds we were shown. We've had so many superhero movies featuring extraordinary characters in ordinary environments, that watching our protagonists travel across these wonderfully alien worlds was very cool. It was a different type of sci-fi, one I don't see much of these days, and I loved it.

The cast nailed it of course. I think this is the first movie that I enjoyed Chris Pratt in. This was also the first time I saw Bautista showing off his comedic chops. Zoe Saldana and Bradley Cooper were great, and Vin Diesel's performance was surprisingly impactful for how little dialogue he had. Of course there were a lot of other seasoned actors putting in great performances in smaller roles, but I want to specifically call out Peter Serafinowicz as leaving a lasting impression on me.

I give it a solid 8/10. It's a great sci-fi adventure movie that delivers both laughs and feels, and there's nothing wrong with the action either.


This was the film that first brought James Gunn to my attention, he's earned himself a lot of faith in recent years. I also recently discovered that Dan Abnett is one of the credited writers, which is interesting to me because I quite enjoyed some of his novels and comics in the past.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie review

Let me start by saying that I unironically love the old 1993 Super Mario Bros film, so I haven't felt the "need" for a Mario movie as keenly as some. Also, while I played some Mario games as a wee lad, that was a long time ago and I've haven't really played much since then (I've barely touched the Mario Karts, Mario Parties, and Smash games), so my affection for the character is not as great as some.

Because of this, and also because I'm a jaded and joyless old man, I wasn't originally particularly interested in this movie. But I heard good things, so I decided I wanted to catch it while it was still in the local cinemas. I'm glad I did.

The movie avoids most of the many traps that the majority of adaptations seem to suffer from. First and foremost, it doesn't look down on the source material. It's sad that I need to say this, but I feel that so many film adaptations in the last few decades have been made by people who don't really care about the source material and don't bother to try to respect or stay true to it. So I was genuinely surprised to find that this movie really feels like they straight-up brought the games to life.

Part of that is the art style; it's bright, colourful, fun, and consistent with how Mario and his gang have been portrayed for decades. But it's not just the art style that captures the feel of "Mario": the movie just straight up shows worlds that work the way they do in the games. Floating blocks, moving platforms, mushroom people, winged turtles; everything is just there. The movie feels no need to explain anything, and doesn't even dwell too long on characters reacting to the more fantastical elements, which I think was the best way to approach it.

Of course some concessions have been made. Perhaps most immediately noticeable is that the titular brothers have traded the exaggeratedly stereotypical Italian accents they have sometimes sported in the past for more natural-sounding Brooklyn accents. Which I don't have a problem with; actually I'm pretty sure I would have gotten annoyed eventually with the older over-the-top accents if they had stuck with them. The movie does acknowledge the originals, for what that's worth, so it's not like it ignored their existance. And Mario does say his "Mamma Mia!" catchphrase a lot. So I feel it's a fair compromise.

Another change is Princess Peach's traditional role as a damsel in distress. She is shown here as being extremely cool and capable. I'm glad she wasn't there just to be rescued; I don't think anyone wanted to see her like that. I would argue though that they went a bit too far in the opposite direction: Mario almost didn't have anything to do for much of the movie, which is a bad look for the one who's name is on the poster. Also, as is usually the case when a character gets this treatment, she didn't actually have the chance to go through any character development as she was basically too perfect right from the start.

Of course supporting characters don't really need character development, though it's nice when they get it. What's a bit more of an issue is that Mario himself didn't really get any character development either. Oh, the movie kind of pretended that he did, but I didn't really feel like he changed at all over the course of the movie. At the start there was a thing that he wanted, and by the end he got it, but he was still the same person he had been at the start. It didn't ruin the movie, but I feel it was a missed opportunity.

Luigi might actually be the only character who we saw grow. I quite liked how Luigi was written, I think they got him "right" in a way that a most fan creations I've seen don't. But I didn't like how little screen-time he got: he really is pushed to the background for most of the film and doesn't really contribute much overall. It's called "The Super Mario Bros", Luigi deserved better!

I did like how well Bowser was established as a genuine threat. I thought he was quite scary - you know, within the context of the movie. However I didn't really like the way he was written, his motivations and so on, though I guess technically he's not inconsistent with how we've seen him in the original games?

Of course the voice acting was a part of what made the characters feel right. All the cast worked quite well in their roles. Peach might have been the least "traditional" sounding one, but overall her voice worked with her character. I think Jack Black was the only one who's voice I actually recognized, and I only remembered it was him when he was singing. Even knowing who it was, he sounded good as Bowser, so it didn't take me out of things.

Oh, and speaking of singing, I did enjoy some of the "period-appropriate" (read: nostalgic) muscial choices.


For me this movie was a 7/10. Not as deep or emotional as some animated features, but it was a lot of fun, and I think it will be satisfying for Mario fans.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
At the start of the movie we see Mario step up to a much bigger guy without any hesitation. Throughout the entire movie he takes pretty much all obstacles head-on, no matter what. Peach compliments him on the fact that he never gives up.

Then, for a few seconds near the end, he gives up. Then he shakes it off, and once again steps up to a much bigger guy.

Don't get me wrong, I get it: sometimes you're chugging along full steam, then suddenly you just hit that point where you feel like you can't go on, like you've got nothing left. I understand it. But it doesn't work well in a movie. In movies, things have to be set up, or else they feel contrived. The moment when Mario almost gives up felt like it came out of nowhere. It might not be unrealistic, but it was not consistent with how the character had been established up to that point.

And when he gets over it and gets back in the fight, all he's done is returned to where he was at the start of the movie. There was no growth, no change in character. Mario ends the movie the same as he started, only now he has the thing he initially wanted: respect. Which is fine, but it's not as compelling as a character arc in which a character actually changes. Luigi overcoming his fear in order to save his brother and fight alongside him, for example.


I really liked the scene with Luigi being chased by the skeletons. I found it surprisingly intense for a kids movie, at least these days.


I didn't like that they wrote Bowser as being in love with Peach. I guess I would have preferred if he was trying to kidnap her, or even marry her, as a power-play. A way to help him bring the Mushroom Kingdom under his control; a political marriage/hostage situation. I guess it worked from a story perspective, allowing Bowser to hate Mario in a personal way despite them not actually meeting up face-to-face until the climax. But I still didn't like it, it felt off to me, and it's not how I usually think of Bowser.

On a related note, I didn't like Peach's reaction when Bowser proposed to her. I understand that she hates him, but the way she said "eww"... I dunno, I guess it felt more like she was disgusted by the idea of someone who looked like him? I just found it unpleasant is all. I would have prefered a strongly worded refusal that exhibited defiance, not disgust. Anyway, I just didn't like the whole marriage sub-plot.


Seeing as this is a kids movie based on a VERY old videogame, I was ready to go with things and not worry about questioning stuff like the floating blocks and random powerups or whatever. But at the end of the day the film did have some rather forced contrivances, a few of which I think were maybe a bit much. I don't want to get too carried away nitpicking, but I will mention a few questions I was left with.

First of all, I don't understand that one turtle suddenly turning into a blue shell. What was that? Was it a suicide attack - is the turtle dead now? Could they all do that at any time? That part was a bit weird and took me out of things a bit.

Was the super-star a one-time-use thing? Is it gone forever now?

Bowser's information network seemed to know everything that was going on. Does he have spies among the Mushrooms and Apes? Don't turtles stand out? Does he have locals who are traitors, or are his spies using magic/power-ups to stay hidden/blend into the population?

So the effect of the shrinking mushroom wears off after a single hit? Does that mean Bowser can just slap himself in the face once, or maybe run headfirst into something, and poof: he's back?

Was Peach beating the obstacle course without any powerups? Mario implied that he couldn't jump that high naturally, so in this world humans can't just jump super high? And yet Peach could? There's this crazy obstacle course in the castle, and there's fields full of flowers that let you throw fireballs etc, yet we don't see any Penguin or Mushroom people with any real combat ability? I dunno, I'm having some difficulty resolving how this world works in my head. No big deal, just saying is all.

Peach seems surprised at the idea of turtles that aren't evil. OK, I mean, yes, in games you have X enemy type who is evil etc. But that's... something that's a little harder to get away with these days. I can accept it in an adaptation of an older property, but I do prefer more nuanced approaches to "good vs evil" nowadays. Anyway, it wasn't a big deal for me, just thought it was worth mentioning.

John Wick Chapter 4 review

If you haven't watched chapters one, two, or three, you should obviously watch them all in sequence first. And if you've made it through all three, I assume that means you enjoyed them. And if you enjoyed them, you will absolutely enjoy this one too.

This series has always been about the action. And I will say right off the bat: the action in Chapter 4 is amazing, perhaps the best in the series yet. I quickly lost count of how many really good gunfights, martial arts battles, and mixes of the two this movie has. I enjoyed pretty much all of it, though worthy of special mention are two extended action sequences that I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like before, I absolutely loved them. I would call this movie a must-see for action fans for those two scenes alone.

While the movie is full of action, it does take the time between battles to allow us to enjoy the stylish locations and characterful personalities that fill this world. The atmosphere is great, the heroes are cool and the villains are fun. The world of John Wick is just full of flavour.

Of course it's a great cast bringing that world to life. The movie is so stuffed with talent that Keanu himself doesn't actually get very much to do outside of the action scenes - but of course he really delivers in said action scenes. When he wasn't busy delivering pain to those in need, he was playing the title character in a quiet, introspective fashion. After all John has been through I think the anger is gone, leaving behind a grim determination to see things through.

I was very happy to see the late Lance Reddick again. His role was brief but in that time he delivered one of the most touching scenes of the movie. He will be missed. Of course it helped that he was playing alongside Ian McShane, who brought a sense of class and importance to his scenes. It was also nice to see Laurence Fishburne return to chew up the scenery; he definitely seemed to be enjoying himself.

Donnie Yen might have just stolen the whole movie as the blind hitman Caine; I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he ends up with his own spinoff prequel movie or something. Hiroyuki Sanada is great, I enjoyed him as Shimazu, the last honourable man in the world. Scott Adkins was quite entertaining as the cartoon-villain Killa. Clancy Brown worked well as the ominous Harbinger.

Rina Sawayama brought an intensity to her role as Akira that provided a good contrast to most of the other older, more world-weary characters. I liked Shamier Anderson's mysterious Tracker, he brought a touch of levity to the film. Marko Zaror was physically intimidating as Chidi. Bill Skarsgård was great as primary antagonist the Marquis: pretentious, self-important, and definitely someone you want to see dead.


I do have a couple of complaints about this film. The first is that the movie doesn't really do a good job of establishing John's motivation, what's driving him. This is an issue I've mentioned in previous reviews; after the first film, I just never really felt like I knew what John really wanted. Revenge? Freedom? Simple survival? I couldn't tell you.

My second complaint is not a new one for the series. It's common for action movies to build up an antagonist such that the audience enjoys a sense of satisfaction and closure when they are defeated. Funnily enough I think Chapter 2 was probably the only John Wick film so far to actually pull that off. Sadly Chapter 4 also stumbles here; while the ending was pretty good overall, I personally didn't find the conclusion to the film's main conflict to be all that satisfying.


I'm giving this movie 8/10. I was actually tempted to give it a 9; while it has it's flaws, it's a lot of fun and damn is the action good!




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
In Chapter 3 there was a big battle at the end of the movie where the opponents were armoured, which created gunfights with a different dynamic: just shooting an opponent wasn't enough, John had to either deliver repeated shots to the same area or find ways around the armour, leading to a mix of hand-to-hand combat and gunplay. It was new and interesting, adding to the variety of the action and elevating the challenge.

The first real action scene in Chapter 4 follows on from this, pitting two groups against each other where one side is armoured and so resistant to bullets. This time it didn't work for me as well though; I felt it wasn't obvious how effective any given attack was, and when they got hit or went down it wasn't clear how much damage they had taken and whether they remained a threat or not. It wasn't clear if John Wick was constantly fighting new faceless goons, or the same ones who had gotten back up.

Plus, somehow knives were stabbing right through these bulletproof suits? Overall it was just hard to tell what was going on and the battle, despite having some great choreography and stunts, was leaving me cold. With this being the first real fight of the film, I was starting to feel worried.

Turns out I had nothing to fear. Practically every other action scene was great. The shootout with the dragon's breath shotguns in the old building? Amazing, one of the best action scenes I've ever seen. The big fight between the traffic around the Arc De Triomphe? It was so intense, I loved it. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like those two, but even the slightly less original action sequences were usually still great. The battle up the steps before dawn for example was incredibly tense, and it was agonizing (albeit funny) to see John get knocked all the way back down again. I honestly could not see how he could come back from that, but was desperately hoping that he would.


I danced around this in the main body of the review, but the way the "Table" was built up as this ever-present all-powerful entity, it would be very hard to write the story in such a way that John Wick would be able to take them down himself. And yet that seemed to be exactly the direction that the series was heading ever since John sided with Winston against the Table in the third movie, with Chapter 4 only reinforcing that by showing the Table killing John's remaining friends - or forcing them to turn against him.

But the writers didn't seem to actually have a way for John to take the Table down - it seems to me they pretty much wrote themselves into a corner in Chapter 3 (I'm not surprised; I've complained in previous reviews about how I think the sequels over-exaggerated the criminal underworld, losing their grounding). Instead they created a new figurehead to serve as the proxy antagonist in this film. And yes, I did want him to die. But the thing is, he was never the real antagonist. He was never the one who was really behind it all. His death should always have been just a stepping stone towards ending the Table.

The movie even tells us, straight up, that his death would be meaningless, that the Table could easily replace him. And yet the film ends with his death, presenting as though John had won in the end. But he hadn't: he died to kill a replaceable pawn. That is not a satisfying ending. And with John's death, the goal that he had somehow ended up spending half the film working towards again - earning his freedom by killing the Marquis in a duel, which didn't really make sense to me since he seemed to have moved past that - was nullified. So all John had was the Marquis' death: the exact thing the film told us was meaningless.

Yes, Caine had earned his freedom, that part was satisfying and a big part of why the ending wasn't too bad overall, but remember Caine spent most of the movie as an antagonist, and he killed Shimazu (even if it was against his will). I don't feel sufficiently invested in Caine's happiness for it to be a completely satisfying ending.

OK, Winston got his hotel back. But Winston, much as I like him, is still a supporting character and his happiness is not all that important to me. Plus did betray John at the end of Chapter 3, so him getting his hotel back isn't the payoff I was after either.

And yes, I do believe Winston betrayed John; the argument that "he shot John in the chest even though he knew John was wearing a bulletproof suit" does not hold water with me because:
A) Shooting someone in the head is NOT easy AT ALL, aiming for center of mass is natural and we had no reason to believe Winston had the skill to pull off a quick headshot. On the contrary, he sat in a saferoom drinking while John and Charon fought off the attackers.
B) He shot John OFF THE ROOF; there was no reason for him to believe John would survive, and neither Chapter 3 nor 4 address the issue with any kind of an explanation for why Winston could possibly expect John to survive the fall.

OK, the films didn't expressely state that Winston DID betray John either, theoretically leaving it ambiguous, and John doesn't seem preocupied with revenge against Winston, but... I just can't see any way for Winston to expect John to survive. I'm sorry, but I'm trying to read between the lines, and what I'm reading is that Winston sold John out. Remember that, while Winston had delayed the kill-order against John in Chapter 2, he did ultimately sign it, so he has consigned John to death before.

Oh, did the Bowery King get his... "Bowery" back, or however that works?


I'm very disappointed that we never got to enjoy the death of the Adjudicator from Chapter 3.


Initially I was not sold on John's bulletproof suit; I felt it let him get away with too much, if that makes sense. And it wasn't very realistic, for bullets to just bounce off this thin fabric without doing noticeably harm to the body underneath. But ultimately I think it enabled the action scenes, allowing them to flow in a way that would have felt more forced otherwise. So overall I think it worked.


I guess the film does foreshadow John's death. My friend mentioned a poster in the subway for an anime in which the protagonist dies at the end. Thinking back I seem to recall Caine calling John "brother" at one point; in the Bible of course Caine killed his brother. I noticed in the poster his tie seems to be an hourglass full of bullets; is that trying to tell us the John's time is running out?