Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One - Cheap Thoughts

What does Ethan Hunt believe in? He’s been a secret agent for over 25 years, we know very little of his backstory or motivations or morals. What drives him to be who he is? I imagine these are all questions Tom Cruise has asked while making this picture. He dedicates so much of himself to the craft and over the past 20 years has built up his own team of talented and trustworthy people to help make the best films possible, he is the best and he works with the best to make the best. Yet there has been such a focus on the technical side of filmmaking that here in the winter years of this franchise Cruise & Co have begun to look inwards. They know how to construct the perfect spy movie featuring Ethan Hunt, but why does Hunt do it apart from simply because he is the protagonist of a spy movie?

Ethan has people he cares about but almost seems like he doesn’t want to, because in his field to love people is to eventually lose people. The first Mission: Impossible sees Hunt lose his entire team and for a while there he was on a rotating cast of squadmates. He tried to have a normal life in Mission: Impossible III and all that did was put an ordinary person in danger. It wasn’t until Rogue Nation that he realised though he closed himself off to others, they didn’t do the same. His teammates trust him and care for him and to block them off only puts them in more danger. Ethan caring for people drives him, it makes him work harder and makes him do insane things in the name of protecting others.

“I can promise you, that your life will always matter to me more than my own”.

Ethan doesn’t view the world as binary, as one way or another, save this person or that person. He always finds a way, he does the unexpected, when told to go left or right, he goes straight ahead. So what could his ultimate enemy be? An algorithm that predicts what you’re going to do based on what’s been done before, and a person who knows the only way to beat Ethan is to hurt those closest to him. He’s pushed into a corner and is left swinging wildly hoping for an escape, which is not uncommon of Hunt to go in with no plan, just hope, but when someone is able to predict even the unpredictable what do you do then?

Mission: Impossible II had a villain who was able to predict every move Ethan would make, no matter how absurd, and that always sat wrong with me. No man should be able to predict Ethan’s next move. But an all-knowing pseudo-god artificial intelligence? That could crack it. The biggest threat to the future of filmmaking is also the biggest threat in the text of the film. They’re left without relying on technology for cheats and shortcuts, they only have each other and their natural talent, yet Cruise/Hunt will never ask others to risk more for the job than he will himself.

-Danny

Nimona - Cheap Thoughts

It’s no wonder that Disney were so easy and willing to kill this picture off. A film so openly Queer in its characters and storytelling, while also presenting the story in unique animation? I suppose it’s far too radical a film for the Mouse^tm even when tempered with a simple narrative. After the purchase of Fox and thus Blue Sky Studios, the initial company producing the film, Nimona was one of the many projects cancelled in the merger, however they were fortunately enough saved by Annapurna Pictures & Netflix who would continue to produce the film and distribute it respectively.

Nimona is a sci-fi/fantasy blend set in a world with Medival Britain aesthetics combined with futuristic technology and modern behaviours. Ballister Boldheart (Riz Ahmed) and his plucky-yet unwanted-sidekick Nimona (Chloe Grace Moretz) are viewed as villains in the eyes of society despite being innocent people, one of whom framed for a crime they didn’t commit and the other simply presenting as a villain is enough to determine them so. Together the two will prove their innocence, expose the true evil of the society they live in and hopefully make the world and each other better along the way.

The titular Nimona is very much deserving of that title, being incredibly entertaining, extroverted, and exaggerated in all of the right ways. While most of the characters are humbler in their animations, her expressions & movements are very traditionally cartoony, taking full advantage of their medium in a way many 3D Animated films seem embarrassed to do so. Though where the subtly lies is with her thematic resonance. Her abilities to shape shift, to change her body in ways that make her more comfortable very much has a subtext of gender identity, very clearly described by her creator ND Stevenson a non-binary/bigender writer & artist saying this was an intentional decision on his part. While the more overt queer representation comes from the second protagonist Ballister who within his first scene is shown to be in a homosexual relationship that gets torn apart by the events of the film, and the two now see their relationship shunned by society.

Some would complain that Nimona does have a basic narrative, which is does, many of the beats can be seen coming from a mile away from even the youngest of audiences. Though truly that doesn’t lead to major issues until the climax of the film, which doesn’t feel all too impactful with how predictable the film has been up until then. Though a complex plot is clearly not what the film is going for. Their goals were to express interesting characters and their queer stories through unique animation and that is something they have achieved with ease.

-Danny

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts - Cheap Thoughts

We certainly live in an odd time for Blockbuster Movies, or some would say a straight up bad time for them. Many would say the problem lies within the production. Overblown budgets, tight deadlines, a thousand rewrites and IP mining nostalgia-bait. Others would say the problem is external factors such as the simple quantity of them ruins the magic as we used to only get several a year and now its one a week, and with the prices of cinema tickets they hardly seem worth going to as they’re less special yet treated more like a commodity. Naturally the problem is of course both.

There is an irony that a property like Transformers which is heaped in nostalgia-bait as a long running IP, as the newest film has some yearning for the live-action films of the past, which they themselves were lampooned as the lesser blockbusters of their time. On one hand Transformers: Rise of the Beasts is a much simpler, crisper and functional film, it has a basic narrative and working character arcs that would pass an introductory screenwriting class, and it is even aware of the praises and shortcomings of prior Transformers films and attempts to offer something new. Instead of Bumblebee being the leading Autobot we now have Mirage (Pete Davidson), instead of Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) being a noble altruistic leader he is a desperate soldier who must overcome his flaws, instead of 2000’s Linkin Park we have 90s hip-hop…to each their own.

Are the comparisons justified or even fair? The short answer is yes; the film is very aware of what came before it, and is trying to avoid replicating it entirely, which comes with its own hills & valleys, by avoiding the bad, you also avoid the good. Michael Bay’s Transformers films, specifically the first one is a very polarising film, it has many flaws such as Bay’s reliance on stereotypes, pro-military propaganda and incoherent theming. Yet it is also visually dynamic, memorable characters (not necessarily good, but memorable) and has a very underrated score from Steve Jablonksy.

Rise of the Beasts in comparison feels hollow. It has better theming, but a story just as basic as before, yet the visuals, the action and the effects are all hollow and basic. The Transformers seemingly have no weight to them, you’d never believe these trucks with legs were walking around you, the fight scenes are shot from a distance with little impact and there is no gravitas to the events happening. For all its issues, 2007’s Transformers made it feel epic, like an event, and that the action meant something instead of just being the film equivalent of a seat filler.

In an attempt to avoid having any major lows the film has failed to try for any highs and is left a hollow and forgettable film. It is perfectly serviceable and is far from the worst Transformers film but it is unlikely anyone will feel something while watching it or even remember what happened the day after.

-Danny

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to imagine the pressure this team must have been under to produce this film. The original Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse is (with no exaggeration) one of the seminal works of animation the film industry has ever scene. It changed the game in a way we haven’t seen since the original Toy Story in 1995, its influence can be seen in the world of animation with the likes of The Mitchells vs The Machines, Puss In Boots: The Last Wish and the upcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem; and in the world of superhero films with the MCU’s next saga being centred on the multiverse. Even the character of Miles Morales has been permanently shaped by this film, just look at Insomniac’s Spider-Man videogames and see the difference in Miles’ writing & presentation from the first game to his spin-off. So with such a legacy created, how much pressure must have been felt internally? To live up to creating a modern masterpiece and duplicate that while going bigger.

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse has gone bigger in every regard. We spent the last movie observing fragments of other universes. Well now we travel to half a dozen of them. We had 6 Spider-Folk in the first film. Now we have 600. Production wise there were 240 animators in the prior instalment. Now the staff is over 1000. Bigger budget, bigger crew and it all shows on screen. Across The Spider-Verse offers a maximalist bricolage of styles clashing with each other in this multi-dimensional crossover. From 70s punk rock anarchy zines, to experimental reinterpretations of artist  Robbi Rodriguez’s water-colour designs, to cyberpunk neo-noir darkness contrasting with neon lighting. The visuals are bright and noisy and cover every frame of the film, trying to be as big as possible, everything wants to stand out and from that we get one of the most distinct animated films we’ve ever had.

Yet with in this clutter of style and indulgence of Spider-Man cameos the film never loses focus on its characters and their stories. The film is happy to tease us early on with the potential of Spider-References but this is a tale about people, mainly Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) and Spider-Woman (Hailee Steinfeld), two young Spider-Folk trapped in their home dimensions burdens with the great responsibility of being Spider-Folk and the greater isolation and tragedy you feel from the task at hand. These Spiders are lonely, and they’re young with very little of their journey decided, and so with the introduction of an elite Spider-Force with hundreds of Spider-Folk just like them they find relief in some problems while others just become so much worse.

There is a joy seeing the Spider-Folk effortlessly work together to save the day, to distribute the tasks easily with minimal planning to capture the bad guys, rescue innocent people and save the day. The status of being a Spider Variant means bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders, and now you have endless allies who empathise with you and help lighten the load. Yet with all these Spider-Folk with similar roles come dangerous patterns, a “Canon” to the events that can’t be broken, that they all must experience to truly become Spider-Folk. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility, and also Great Tragedy.

An incredible set up for a narrative that has the unfortunate placement of being the middle-child of a now conceived trilogy, though really it can be better described as a single film, then a sequel split across 2 films. While we don’t have to wait long to see where this story goes, this very much feels like half a film and it’s impossible to say how well the story is told when we don’t have the whole picture just yet, so we’ll just have to wait and see how this one plays out.

This is a path Miles refuses to take, a rebel, a creative, a freethinker but also a family man who loves his parents, his community and his friends. If Spider-Man must choose to save 10 people or 100 people, he’ll find a way to save 110 people. Patterns are not destiny, no one has their story told for them, and Miles will save the day whether it be with 100 Spider-Folk in his corner, or in his way.

-Danny

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 – Cheap Thoughts

It’s not going to be too controversial to say that Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been a bit of a slump, the quality ranging from “Pretty Good” to “Genuinely Awful”. There was a time in the public consciousness when Marvel was shooting nothing but bullseyes, but in a Post-Endgame world where more of the film’s productions become automated, repetitive dull features, audiences are catching on. Leave it to the losers of the universe to steer the ship in the right direction.

James Gunn’s Guardians films have always been outliers in the universe, the broken misfits who find each other and help heal from their trauma of lost or abusive families. An important note to these characters is while they do get better as people, they are arguably never “good people”. Their trauma has damaged them and there is a limit to how much that can get fixed. Sometimes the awful things in your past do define you, but with help it doesn’t have to be the only part of you. Gunn himself comes from a production history of making grotesque, violent and cynical pictures, to now be helming stories of victims of abuse trying to better themselves and the world around them. Even his words and actions of his younger days nearly cost him this film when he was temporarily fired due to old tweets coming back to haunt him. Your past doesn’t have to define you. It’s a message Gunn clearly cares about.

There is no cleaning up the stains on these characters or this film, in order to explore a character’s history you have to show the darkest and most upsetting elements to get a proper picture. In some ways this might be the most upsetting MCU film, it is unafraid to rely on grotesque imagery, violent actions and disturbing visuals (at least, as much as you can get away with for a PG-13 rating) but this film isn’t holding back. You get the big picture, so at least when it returns to kindness, to the bond of this team, to their love for each other you truly appreciate it.

The usual traits of these films are here (Beyond the tragedy), the film still follows a group of rambunctious a-holes travelling from place to place in search of objects to save the day and defeat an egomaniacal monster of destruction with a god-complex whose greatest adversaries are this immature team of sloppy heroes who bicker amongst each other, trading gags and insults and blasting a banging playlist of Earth Music. Also, bright lights and pretty colours.

This review could just be a summary of all the ways the latest Guardian film is better than its MCU contemporaries. It’s so much better looking, has a more coherent plot and clear themes and character progression and balancing these elements so everything gets equal focus. At times Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 is a bleak film, filled with violence, heartbreak and loss; but it’s core is one of broken people who may not love themselves, but their love for each other is so strong they will traverse the universe and take on powerful beings of indescribable power to protect one another.

-Danny

The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Cheap Thoughts

It always seems to be the most undeserving of movies for audiences to become champion defenders for against the villainy of critics. These fans believing the delusions that between a combination of two-billion dollar corporations coming together to make a guaranteed blockbuster and individual journalists with opinions on movies, that the former is somehow the underdog. Also this idea that 58% on Rotten Tomatoes is somehow a bomb, and not a sign that the majority of critics enjoyed the movie to some degree. It reeks of insecurity and unfounded arguments such as critics being unable to enjoy movies that aim simply to entertain, as if recent movies Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves which is also a family friendly adventure film that aims to entertain didn’t get good reviews, or rival family friendly videogame mascot Sonic the Hedgehog didn’t also get good reviews, or the majority of Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli, Sony and Warner Bros animated films don’t also get good reviews. There are people out there who enjoyed The Super Mario Bros Movie and are seemingly so insecure in that opinion that they need to shout at other people who’s job it is to have opinions on movies and scream “No! You’re wrong!”. This is a warning to state that if this is you, this is going to be another negative review of this movie, so you might want to leave now.

Truth be told it’s not even going to be that harshly negative, arguably more positive than the Sonic the Hedgehog movies which I was very critical of (Though we’ll see). The Super Mario Bros movie is the second attempt by the west to adapt the Mario franchise into a feature length movie, the first attempt in 1993 with a live action film that was truly panned by critics and audiences, it’s main criticism being that it is incredibly unfaithful to the source material, and so this film has gone to obscene lengths to be as faithful as possible, in visuals, in tone, in music and even in plot by being paper thin and lacking anything substantive.

Mario videogames can get away with this because they have always been about spectacle. They have fun gameplay, creative worlds and often multiplayer components to make them entertaining experiences. Being adapted into a movie, and thus having their main benefactor removed you would think that they would replace it with something, perhaps give Mario a personality, an arc, anything resembling a character beyond his iconic look? Nope. He is a mascot first, a mascot second, a mascot exclusively.

The film begins with Mario (Chris Pratt) & Luigi (Charlie Day) recently starting their own plumbing business in Brooklyn and everyone seems to be against them, both their former boss and their family members mock them in their attempts to follow their dreams, yet the two brothers ignore them. On their first job they are shown to be perfectly competent plumbers, and it is due to external forces that disaster happens. Shenanigans occur and they are eventually brought into the Mushroom Kingdom, quickly separated, they meet all the staples of the Mario cast and are dragged into the middle of a war as Bowser (Jack Black) wants to kidnap and marry Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), while all the two care for is reuniting and making their way home.

When people say their enjoyment for this film comes from what if offers them in terms of entertainment it’s easy to see why they view that, it is a bright and colourful films-truth be told it is easily the best looking film Illumination have ever produced-and it has heavy emphasis on comedy and loyalty above all else. It’s rare for people to root for the corporate overlords over any artistic merit but it is very clear Nintendo were breathing down Illumination’s necks to make this a faithful recreation down to the smallest of details and fill it with dozens of easter eggs for audiences to enjoy.

Yet it also relies on incredibly lazy needle-drops to make sure the audience is paying attention, songs that have no relevance to what's happened but they are broadly appealing enough the film hopes it can cheat by passing this off as quality entertainment. Where critics interrupt this is simply asking why not offer more? Don’t you want something other than cotton candy to eat? Don’t you want something of value to be gained from watching the film? As harsh as I was on Sonic the Hedgehog it at least put in the bare effort to try and tell a story, to give Sonic an arc. I ask you, what does Mario do? What does he learn? What does he want? Several times in the film people exclaim “you just don’t know when to quit” but at no point is he given a reason to quit. He’s a good plumber, he’s a good brother, there is no reason for him to change throughout the events of the film. Well okay, that can also work, have him be a flat character and change the world around him, yet he is an outsider in the world of the Mushroom Kingdom and has no direct impact on anyone and has no skills to offer. He wins because of power ups that anyone can wield. He fails as a plumber due to external forces and he succeeds in being a hero due to external forces.

A big marketing factor for this film was it’s star studded A-List cast, and I’m not going to be arguing against what other people are saying. The scene stealer was Jack Black, the runners up are Charlie Day and Keegan-Michael Key, everyone else was fine, even Chris Pratt. Yet them being just fine does further prove they could have just hired professional voice actors who would have been better and cheaper, but they still are willing to spend all that money for the sake of placing a name on a poster.

Part of me wants to be more lenient on the film and offer it the same benefit of the doubt I did Dungeons & Dragons, where that film took the easy route because their main goal was to prove a D&D movie could work, this film clearly had a similar mindset and just wanted to prove that a Mario movie could work. Yet there was still an attempt in the D&D movie to give their characters some emotion and arcs. Watching this film feels like the equivalent of eating a can of whipped cream, it is sugary and sweet yet lacks anything of nutrition or even solid substance to make it worth something.

-Danny

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves - Cheap Thoughts

What do you do for a Dungeons & Dragons movie? This is a legitimate question as while there is certainly lore and logic to the property that makes for good set dressing, it’s not exactly a product with reoccurring characters & stories, that’s for the players to make, Dungeons & Dragons simply offers you a setting to tell that story in. There have been adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons before, most infamously the 2000 film, most famously would be Critical Role’s The Legend of Vox Machina and most nostalgically would be the 80s cartoon also named Dungeons & Dragons. The appeal of the world of D&D is that you get to tell the story you want to tell in a traditional Tolkein-esque fantasy world with characters of your own creation, without that you are simply watching a standard fantasy film that those in references and easter eggs for hardcore fans of the game…So that’s what they went with.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves is certainly a treat for D&D fans, getting to see certain elements be brought to the big screen and seeing these creatures and magic visualised, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t giggle a bit seeing a Green Flame Blade vs Magic Weapon sword fight, and I’m happy to see some Paladin Propaganda on display. Truly what they captured best from the game is simply the tone, which might sound odd because each game is personalised for your group of players, but most commonly agree the average campaign is a mixture of sincerity and hilarity. We all love to play pretend and do dramatic monologues with our friends but at the same time when your master thief of a Rogue rolls a Nat 1 on unlocking a door, the silly events that are about to play out are going be a comedic delight. While the irony stained comedic senses undercutting dramatic moments are certainly a plague on the majority of comedy/action blockbusters of today, it would honestly be out of character for a Dungeons & Dragons movie of all things to not embrace that tone. There is a character named Jarnathan and I can immediately picture how that would come about in a regular game with the DM failing to prepare a name for a random NPC.

For the non-D&D fans here there is still plenty to enjoy, a fantasy film filled with adventure, laughs and truly impressive practical effects littered everywhere, even with barely present background characters. There is an argument to be made that the film is rather basic, or as the kids say these days “mid”, which is difficult to argue against. The film has a very standard plot, the characters are the most basic interpretations of their respective classes and their cookie cutter arcs offer them little in the way of greater substance. Yet I don’t see this as massive a flaw as I would for other films, simply because when I picture the filmmakers sat down to write this film I don’t imagine they were aiming higher than “Make a good D&D movie” which as history has shown us, is not an easy task, so I don’t blame them for bunting the ball on occasion and going for the less risky options. In a sense I view this film very much how one plans their first D&D character, they often go for something basic and conventional just to get the hang of things, and once they’re comfortable it make something creative and experimental with the second campaign.

-Danny

John Wick: Chapter 4 - Cheap Thoughts

It has been 4 years since the release of the last John Wick film, delays due to covid have given the filmmaking team behind these pictures plenty of time to think on what they want to achieve with this next film. The decision they have come to is not to practise newer crafts to bring something different to the table (for the most part) but to polish and perfect the elements that have already existed. John Wick: Chapter 4 continues it’s predecessor’s video game like structure of sending John to a variety of locations, fight a variety of enemies to achieve some trivial goal, yet as tradition they do it bigger, sleeker and prettier with each passing instalment. Chapter 4 can boast away at its absolutely gorgeous digital photography, stellar use of neon lighting, dark shadows and dramatic poses to make is just a treat for the eyes. Yet it doesn’t stop there, the obscene talent on display from the stunt team continues to impress even all these years later. There’s true style and craft on display with the majority of action scenes, they make them hurt, make them cool and make them memorable. The Wick films put every other western action franchise to shame and they themselves never settle, never too comfortable, always thinking “what more can we do?” and they’ll always find an answer.

One of the bigger developments in modern filmmaking since the last instalment is the popularity of drone cameras, to allow for more 3-Dimensional and uninterrupted shots. It’s a dangerous tool to use unprepared, as the smooth movement of the drone can create a melancholic feeling, as if the camera is drifting through the scene as an impartial and uncaring observer. Wick 4 avoids that by locking the camera in a specific location, a top down shot in an enclosed environment Hotline Miami style. It certainly helps give the scene (and thus the film as a whole) a unique flavour to make it stand out while avoiding the easy pitfalls the drone cameras open up.

Other new instalments include an expanded cast, not limited to Bill Skarsgård as the newest uptight European High Table obstacle acting like if P.T. Barnum as a Bond villain, Clancy Brown in a small role as a strict rule abiding operative known as The Harbinger, and Scott Adkins as an arrogant eccentric German gangster/nightclub owner. This is another example of one of Wick’s greatest strengths, they have so many minor roles across their films yet they love to fill them with great character actors who truly embody the phrase ‘There are no small parts, only small actors’ in the best of ways. Of course, it would be remiss not to mention the absolute scene stealer that is Donnie Yen as a blind assassin and old friend of John Wick (Keanu Reeves) struggling to balance his duty to the High Table and his loyalty to his friend.

Friendship is the word of the day, the film has many characters making emphatical decisions on where their loyalties lie, with the organisation? Or with their allies? These are people who make their money in killing people who bare them no ill-will, in some cases they are ordered by duty to kill good people, even friends. John Wick as a character is one that refuses the call, he challenges the High Table, and relies on the help of friends who follow him as an individual, not a faceless replaceable group of criminals. The High Table as a concept we never learn much of their goals. They are an Illuminati style organisation who secretly control everything, and they have a strict set of rules you must never break, yet they seem to exist simply to exist? To have all the power and must never be challenged on it for the sake of having it. Like a child who refuses to let you play with their toys simply because it is theirs to own. It’s no wonder people flock to John Wick as not only do they have loyalty to him as a person, but should he succeed, they will have proof that the High Table is fallible. They are not the all-seeing, all-knowing hydra they claim to be.

The Wick franchise have always struck an interesting tone. They are expansive over the top action films with deep lore of an underground guild of assassins that goes so extreme into how serious they are that it makes it all the way back round to lunacy. Yet there is a clear self-awareness on the filmmakers part, very aware of this inflated premise, Wick’s uber intense performance of grunts and gritted teeth and Lawrence Fishburne’s dramatic monologues of his Hobo Kingdom, and not a hint of irony to be found they never laugh at themselves, only sincerity from frame one of the original film. It’s a rare balance to meet and that may be why these films have no true competitor, most lean one way or another. No other franchise can do what Wick does, offer a dark & violent world filled with techno music as Keanu Reeves slams a nunchuck into a man’s head again and again and again. What a laugh riot.

-Danny

Pinocchio (2022) - Cheap Thoughts

In front of every film there is a question to be asked, “What is the point?”. This can be anything from to entertain, to educate, to experiment, to empathise, there are a multitude of answers. The answer to every one of these live action Disney remakes is “To make money”. Which is why Pinocchio’s existence is so confusing. It is a straight to Disney+ film, and it’s difficult to see who exactly benefits from that. Do they really see people signing up for the platform just to watch a remake of Pinocchio? Well, perhaps that’s not the actual answer, perhaps there is just a genuine inspiration to remake the film, to modernise it and tell a new version of the tale…No.

With each passing live-action remake Disney have been putting less and less effort into creating any sort of distinction between the clone and the original. 2019’s The Lion King stole the script verbatim, and now 2022’s Pinocchio is cloning the exact visuals of the original, everything from the character designs to the bloody entrance to Gapetto’s shop, smearing it all in unfinished CGI from likely overworked and underpaid artists. Meanwhile Robert Zemeckis returns to his motion-capture filmic style of gently gliding the camera through the scene at a breezy pace with no sense of motion or purpose, just pure visual noise to keep things going, as if the camera was strapped to an escalator by accident. The film steals the visuals-because yes, this is theft-regardless of it being owned by the same company, the crew of the original film are the artists that brought it to life and are now seeing their work ripped-off and made worse-while losing any sort of character. Classic Disney films have a tendency to rely on their visuals, they lack narrative cohesion because they never really strived for it, you’d simply see characters walking down the street and appreciate the slow, relaxing pace and detailed animation painstakingly drawn by hand. Modern films are too busy, everything has to be made fast and move fast-yet simultaneously take longer in a paradox of incompetence-which if you’re adapting a visual focused picture like Pinocchio, you can’t rush through that and hope the narrative you’re copying will carry it for you.

Speaking of, who thought it was a good idea to copy the narrative yet remove any of the spine that gave the original film a point? 1940’s Pinocchio may not have had much for character arcs or textbook loyal plot points, but it was a film blunt and heavy in its messaging for kids. Pinocchio lies and his noes grows, lying=bad. Yet this film decides to use this ability as a method of the wooden boy escaping his cage, so…lying=good? How about Pleasure Island, where in 4kids style censorship they have replaced beer with root beer, removed all reference to smoking and gambling, and now have Pinocchio realising that this place is bad and never once gives into temptation. This is despite the fact the whole point of Pleasure Island is that Pinocchio learns the dangers of temptation, that’s what temptation is; something that feels good in the moment but has negative consequences long-term (Being turned into a Donkey), that’s why they used alcohol, cigars and gambling, very common addictions that have a divisive appeal. If Pinocchio is never tempted, then he has no indulgence, and thus no reason to be punished. It’s amazing how the original film can be so incredibly on the nose about these lessons and yet the grown adults who wrote this film missed them entirely.

This is becoming the worst aspect of these live-action works of theft, they steal the scripts, steal the visuals, yet leave behind the themes and morals that gave the original works any sort of spirit and meaning. It is as hollow and transparent a film can get, it doesn’t deserve to be referred to as a film, it is a nothing, an empty shell, a meaningless display of noise and colour that will leave no signature it ever existed.

-Danny

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie – Cheap Thoughts

One of the greater strengths of the Ninja Turtles property is its versatility. There have been dozens of adaptations since their comic debut in 1984, and the majority of them bring their own flavour to the franchise. In truth there is no one way to present the Turtles. That being said, to give some of my own history with the series, I have been a fan of them since I was a child and have watched most of the shows and films, with the only exception unfortunately being the series this film was based on, besides a few spectacularly animated fight scenes, Rise is a version of the Turtles I am unfamiliar with, so was going in as a mostly newcomer, which would explain my more complicated feelings towards this version.

The first thing of note, I like anyone who has a passing knowledge or more of the Rise series would have gone in with great expectations over the animation, after all if they can achieve great feats on a television budget and schedule, surely they can do even more with a film? The short answer: Yes. Not just with the action sequences which are as spectacular as one could hope, but every scene is wonderful to look at, thanks to the detailed character animation, beautiful lighting and fluid movement.

It also has the best version of the Krang I’ve ever seen, genuinely making them a threat and dare I say…intimidating? Yeah, who would have ever thought the Krang could be describes as intimidating, but here we are. Krang being turned into John Carpenter-esque body horror visually toned down for younger audiences while keeping the psychological trauma it unleashes to its characters, and who doesn’t love watching a film knowing it could scar children?

This leads us into the biggest issue with the film…Ben Schwartz as Leo. Look, if Ben Schwartz wants to spend his career playing the same character, that’s fine, many actors do that, and he’s good at it. I would ask you do it with new characters and not ones with pre-established characterisation that has to be thrown out for your benefit. Leo is traditionally the noble leader of the group who has to ground the others. All other adaptations have stuck to this principal while finding ways to expand on the character in their own distinct ways. Yet here we have a Leo who is arrogant and childish is having to be grounded by Raphael of all people. Who would have ever thought we’d see the day when Raph was the level-headed one!?

They’ve taken it so far that this version of Leo literally has the same arc as Schwartz’s version of Sonic seen earlier this year in Sonic 2. A powerful yet cocky and childish wannabee hero who has to learn to respect the responsibility needed to be a true hero. Even down to their opening scene involves both characters chasing after thieves in a speeding truck and in their efforts to save the day cause just as much chaos and destruction due to their own hubris. If I had a nickel.

It doesn’t entirely ruin the film as the other 75% of the Turtles are the perfect blend of staying true to their counterparts while doing something different to make them stand out, but when your main Turtle who takes up the most screentime is the complete opposite of who he’s supposed to be, you have to ask what is the point in adapting this property if you’re going to ignore everything that came before it?

-Danny

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero – Cheap Thoughts

Irrelevancy is the number one concern for any Dragon Ball character not named Goku or Vegeta. A long running series with a multitude of characters means some get left to the wayside, particularly in a series obsessed with power scaling, if you can’t keep up, you get left behind. It has taken 4 movies and 131 episodes of modern Dragon Ball to figure out how to rectify this problem.

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero (Yes, that naming is awkward) is not only a film for fans – of course that statement is true, no modern Dragon Ball movie has been made for anyone but the fans – but specifically for the fans of the supporting characters, the underdogs, the unrepresented pillars of this universe. With Goku and Vegeta off-world training with Broly (a great continuation from the previous film), it is down to Piccolo to act as Earth’s mighty defender, very much begrudgingly as he would rather anyone else deal with the problem so he can be left alone in peace. The return of the classic Red Ribbon army now building up their own forces to take on Capsule Corp and the Z Warriors, recruiting new hero-themed androids who have been fed propaganda representing our protagonists as threats to the Earth (to be honest, they’re not far off) and now seek to prove themselves as heroes by defeating these alien threats.

It's always a delight to be reminded of how far Piccolo has come as a character, from enslaving demon king to protector of Earth by night, and uncle babysitting the adorable Pan by day. However, he would certainly wish Gohan would take more of an active duty in raising his child instead of obsessing over his hobbies and improving himself in those fields (Like father like Son-Gohan). Gohan on the other hand is a more difficult character to say where his character arc should go. From early Z he was hinted to one day be the greatest fighter on Earth and become its main protector, by the end of the Cell Saga, this goal was achieved. However his story didn’t end there, as his mother also dreamed for him to thrive academically and live a happy normal life. Come the Buu saga this character arc seemed to have come to fruition, and Gohan would live out his life as a scholar, loving father and retired fighter. All well and good, except the story kept on going, a story all about fighters, and if Gohan doesn’t fight, then what does he do here? Not much really. Super Hero brings him to the foreground and challenges this identity, though to questionable success when it is no longer a choice of Gohan’s to make whether he will become a fighter or a scholar, but instead others trying to force him into one specific side. It ends in questionable success, though to be honest, just seeing Gohan actually be given any kind of character development is a blessing at this point, let’s be thankfully for what we get.

The fanservice does not end there, as this may also be the funniest Dragon Ball film released so far, filled with plenty of references both obvious and subtle, character-based humour, meta-commentary and even basic things as characters modernise themselves for current audiences (Piccolo struggling to hold a smartphone will be funny every time).

There is some hesitancy amongst the fans over the animation style, being the first fully 3D animated Dragon Ball film and considering the franchise’s history with CGI people were…sceptical. Thankfully those fans can take a sigh of relief, the film looks great, the character designs mostly translate well into the new style (Saiyan hair can look somewhat wonky in 3D) and it’s great to see the series experiment in new ways, both with its writing and the style of animations.

That sums up this film perfectly. Dragon Ball is a very old franchise in terms of anime and yet is still going strong to this day, and is even making new fans with the younger generations, this is despite no easy entry point besides going back to the original anime from 30 years ago, and yet people go through it, and they stick around because of these newer films that offer them something they still haven’t seen before. Broly offered the best fight scenes the series has ever seen, Battle of Gods expanded the universe into scopes yet undiscovered, Resurrection F…well you can’t win ‘em all. Super Hero continues that trend by not only experimenting with the animation, but offering the supporting cast a chance to shine and even bring in new characters to the ensemble. This film is a welcome edition into the canon and a breath of fresh air into a very old franchise.

-Danny

Lightyear - Cheap Thoughts

No one should be surprised when a spin-off film based on a literal toy franchise feels like nothing more than a big advert for toys, yet that doesn't make the feeling any less hollow. The Toy Story trilogy are 3 of the greatest films in modern animation, they literally birthed the format that every animated feature partakes in, meanwhile they took traditional animation down to the river and shot it in the back of the head. They were certainly profitable through supplementary products, no one's denying that and no one's judging either, they are literally toys, of course they took that and ran. Yet there is only so much you can do before milking this franchise dry, they learnt this with Toy Story 4, a film that has much of a right to exist as a malignant tumour. Rather than continue to whore out their beloved entourage of Andy's former toys, they decided on a spin-off, featuring the "real" Buzz Lightyear, a premise so confusing they have to open the film with it just to explain how this film can possibly exist.

Lightyear like its predecessor has no reason to exist and is just here to make money, but that’s not upsetting, because this is not the Buzz Lightyear we all know and love, this is just…some guy. Some guy who looks similar to him, just enough that they can sell him again as a new toy, but familiar enough people will want him, he also travels around with a toy cat pretending to be a robot, but looks very much like a toy cat for very obvious reasons.

Again, this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, wanting to make a profit through merchandise is not the sinful anti-art message some would deem it so; but when there was clearly no other motivation behind it. Nobody ran into the Pixar office one day begging to make a Lightyear film because they had the passion and the story the world needed to hear. They were told to make another Toy Story film so they could sell more toys and they worked backwards from there, and what we have is a sloppy narrative held together by tape and gum.

Lightyear sees Buzz (Again, not the one we already know, a different guy in the same suit) go on an adventure to save the day and hopefully along the way learn the value of teamwork and relying on others, except this theme shared throughout the narrative is as clumsy as one can expect in a film that was forced into the world. The film opens with Buzz (Chris Evans) and his Commander (Uzo Aduba) exploring a new world with a Rookie Space Ranger-something Buzz actively dislikes-and disaster strikes while Buzz tries to save the day with the help of his Commander, while actively refusing the help of the Rookie and eventually failing.

Later and in a large chunk of the narrative we see Buzz team up with a ragtag group of untrained misfits to save the day and earn Buzz his redemption and learn the value of teamwork. Except no, Buzz very clearly does understand the value of teamwork, he trusts and respects those who are competent in their positions, such as the Commander or his robot partner Sox (Peter Sohn) and works well with them. The people he doesn’t work well with are the Rookies, the people unprepared for the mission and any responsible officer would make the correct decision in leaving them behind as taking them aboard would make them a danger to themselves and everyone else.

The film naturally is a beauty to watch, Pixar continue to improve on their detailing and lighting engines far beyond what anyone could expect, once you think they’ve reached their peak they somehow top themselves. In fact while many complain (rightfully) that Turning Red should have gotten a theatrical release being the better of the two films, to be perfectly honest Lightyear earns that honour as well as it’s visuals are stunning on a cinematic scale.

This isn’t anything new, no matter what the plot of a Pixar movie is, they are never going to disappoint on the technical aspect. Where this film is a disappointment begins and ends with the narrative…which is sadly rather important to most films.

-Danny

The Bob's Burgers Movie - Cheap Thoughts

When the news broke that Bob’s Burgers was getting a movie it seemed…odd. Not due to the show’s lack of quality or popularity, but the fact it’s not a very “cinematic” series. Bob’s Burgers is a series about a working-class family in a small town running a struggling business. The conflicts are always small and relatable, the show in both tone and plot was grounded, there was no rubber band logic of other animated hits turned into films like The Simpsons or South Park. You were never going to see Bob Belcher fly into space, but you will definitely see him worry about how he’s going to pay rent this month. Then there is the whole aesthetic of the show, which is very minimal and to be honest, ugly. It certainly has it’s charm but it’s not exactly silver screen worthy, the most they can do to improve upon their presentation is the typical transition of TV Cartoon to Movie Cartoon: Characters now have shading. Even the more cinematic element of the show’s identity, their passion for music is underplayed in a seemingly missed opportunity when the film opens with a catchy number implying a full blown musical but it fizzles out after the second song.

This is all a very negative introduction to what is honestly a good film. The Bob’s Burgers Movie is sure to please all fans of the series, it maintains their trademark good sense of humour, family friendly and consistently chuckle worthy from beginning to end thanks to talented writers and equally talented voice cast. It’s unlikely to cause any belly buster laughs but that was never what Bob’s Burgers was as a franchise, it’s comfort food. It is something to relax to, know you’ll be comfortable and have a jovial time for the next twenty minutes, only this time it’s stretched out to an hour and a half yet maintains that momentum (however glacial it may be).

If you have never seen Bob’s Burgers, it’s safe to say you’ll get just as much enjoyment out of this picture as any long-term fan. Heck, you might even get more out of it by hopefully becoming a fan and now having 9 seasons worth of television to enjoy. It’s as simple as that, The Bob’s Burgers Movie is an enjoyable quick picture for all audiences, fans or otherwise.

Elvis - Cheap Thoughts

Musical biopics have risen in popularity over the past few years. With the baffling success of Bohemian Rhapsody it seems it opened a floodgate for more (and better) films of the genre. 2019’s Rocketman framed the narrative as a traditional musical, and this year’s Elvis approached it with Baz Luhrmann’s trademarked maximalist style of fast editing, loud visuals and an awful lot of passion. Everything you could want from a Luhrmann picture is found here, his rapid pacing, sweaty emotional outbursts from characters and a bricolage of styles and aesthetics coming together to somehow make a cohesive vision.

Luhrmann’s style is definitely a welcome approach to the subject matter, it is the films beating heart to prevent it from becoming stale, as on a script level this is still as standard a musical biopic as you can get. Show their childhood, their influence, their rise to fame, their inevitable downfall and end it with one final great performance to show their comeback. The film tries to add something new of a framing device formed from the perspective of Elvis’ (Austin Butler) manager Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks), traditionally viewed to be the bad guy of the King’s story that we’re told through a Salieri style narration. The man who destroyed Elvis presents his side of the story…except not really. It is very clear from minute one that Parker is the villain, that all of his actions are manipulative, selfish and damaging to Presley and his family. There is no debate or discussion, no presentation of an unreliable narrator, just a man claiming he is not the bad guy, only to spin you a yarn in which he makes no attempt to present himself as anything other than the irredeemable monster of the narrative.

Hanks’ performance is somewhat of a divisive nature, there is a level of goofiness to it, after all its Tom Hanks in a fat suit putting on a cartoonish Dutch accent, in itself fine and fitting for a Luhrmann film, but when contrasted with Butler who is putting in a career defining performance is where the issue lies. Delivering nuance and depth to a performance that could easily fall into a cheap impression, after all people have made entire careers out of being Elvis impersonators and in comes Butler to dance on that line, only to act across the cartoon character Hanks has developed.

If Biopics are here to stay then it’s nice to see developments in the styles these films approach the tales, but if there are truly going to stick around then it is imperative they all find new ways to approach the narrative structure on a script level. If any screenwriters out there are writing their big biopic on a classic musician, ask yourself if your script shares any similarities with Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, then maybe rethink your plot.

-Danny

RRR - Cheap Thoughts

This is as far removed from a picture as I can be. My experience with Indian cinema, culture and history is astonishingly small, and all information I do know about this film and it’s cultural context comes from secondary sources, so this is practically my entry point that came to me entirely through word of mouth. This is important context to establish when discussing RRR because my god, what a film to start with.

If you’ve heard anything about RRR it’s most likely been hyperbolic praise claiming that everything the film does is simply…the most it could be done. Every action, every emotion, every camera movement is as bombastic and grandiose as it could be, which is very much the truth. There is no ambiguity or room for personal interpretation, the film is determined to make sure you not only understand exactly what the characters are feeling, but they are feeling the most of that specific emotion than anyone possibly could. If two people are friends, they are frolicking in fields with glee, if someone is heartbroken, they are screaming their heart out and flooding their home with tears, if there is a fight scene they strike with so much adrenaline and power the Earth will tremble at their presence. The film follows the story of two men who quickly become best friends, not realising they are on opposite sides of a war, and we follow the tale of their friendship and their inevitable clash of ideology as well as fists. The two are described as the friendship between a storm and a volcano, and they absolutely earn those comparisons, these men Bheem (N. T. Rama Rao Jr.) and Raju (Ram Charan) do everything with the passion and force that alters the world around them.

These large personalities aren’t just limited to their macho violence but in their love for one another, their sympathy for those around them and their utter joy when dancing together, oh yes because this film is also a musical, they really put everything in here and somehow do it all excellently. This is the true beauty of RRR, yes everything is dialed up to 11, but it never loses the passion and love that focuses the picture, everything the characters do is not for their hatred of the enemy, or the external desire of the actors to look cooler than everyone else, but on Bheem and Raju’s love for their people, for their families and for one another. They will move Heaven and Earth for them and the talents of director S. S. Rajamouli gives them the girth and gravitas to make it happen.

RRR is a little bit of everything, actually, no, it’s a lot of everything, it is the most of everything and it is the best of everything. A Maximalist Modern Masterpiece.

-Danny

Top Gun: Maverick - Cheap Thoughts

Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell is a fossil, a pilot of a bygone era that doesn’t have a place in modern society. That is how he is described early on in the film, that his character and his way of doing things is a relic of the past. This is also how Tom Cruise could be described as a movie star, in fact his entire filmography of the 21^st century is something of an outlier. Cruise is often described as the last true movie star, he’s a name that draws an audience and he also retains creative control over a lot of his productions, and with that power he commits anything and everything towards making the film. Cruise doesn’t half-arse anything, if he is making a film where he is a fighter pilot, he is going to learn everything he can about the jets, he will have his team learn everything they can about the jets, and they will film as much of it practically and realistically as possible. Forget “They don’t make movies like this anymore” they just simply don’t make movies like this, anywhere, at any time. Unless of course you’re Tom-Bloody-Cruise, the most committed man in Hollywood to the craft.

It doesn’t take long for the film to leave you jaw-dropped, with an early flight sequence of Cruise making it to Mach-10 not even 10 minutes into the film and the absolute power you feel from the jet, the beautiful scope of planet Earth as Maverick takes it in and even he can’t help but be awestruck at the view. The film takes that level of adrenaline and never loses it, and not just in the flight sequences-all of which are just stunning in their practicality, choreography and weight-but all these impossibly beautiful people dramatically posing in front of a never-ending sunset before driving away on a cool motorcycle, there is such an attitude to the film that it’s hard to argue it doesn’t earn.

More so than just aesthetic or production being against the grain of modern blockbusters is the attitude of the picture. Top Gun is one of the most stylised, personality driven action films of the 80s, it is also incredibly corny by modern standards. In a post-modern sarcasm ruling world, it’s amazing that there is not a hint of snark to be found anywhere in this film. No cringing of their younger selves, no pointing out the newer hotter models of old characters; no irony, no cynicism, no mockery to be found, just honest heartfelt storytelling. That exact attitude is what the film lives and dies by, because no one is going to argue the film has a complex story exactly, it is very simple Unnamed Bad Guys^tm have weapons that are hard to get to, Good Guys need to train to destroy them and hopefully overcome their emotional barriers on the way. Simple, smooth, slick. That’s Top Gun: Maverick baby.

-Danny

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers - Cheap Thoughts

You know why Who Framed Roger Rabbit was successful? Because it wasn’t the cartoon references, that might certainly have gotten people into the seats, but that’s not what has kept people coming back to it for 40 years. It’s because of the effort. It’s because you notice how much time and detail went into every fraction of that movie, how the live-action actors interact with their 2-Dimensional counterparts, how the sets and props will do the same, how the film is designed to accurately function as a pastiche of 40s noir thrillers, and so on, and so on. It also does all this while telling its own story and keeping the references to simple set dressing.

You might say it’s unfair to begin this review by comparing one film to another made a long time ago, but that’s the thing, this film isn’t interested in being a real film, it just wants you to remember things. A self-referential irony plagued pop-culture nostalgia bate that offers nothing in terms of legitimate story or jokes, just plenty of pointing at the screen and saying “hey I remember that thing!”. You know what the worst part is? It’s not even the worst film amongst this genre. It’s still been beat out by Space Jam: A New Legacy as the most self-indulgent drivel that’s lucky a literal pandemic had to happen to stop it from being the worst thing to happen to cinemas. Yet somehow that makes this worse, it’s not even a film bad enough to worth getting angry about.

Everyone did the bare minimum, they showed up, did their bit, went home and thought nothing of it. Everything from the pathetically shallow performances that never convincingly have you believe these live-action actors and animated characters are ever sharing the same space, to the jokes that again all consist of “Hey remember this thing” except sometimes sprinkled in with “Hey remember this thing, we’re gonna have it be pathetic now”. Bit of advice for you filmmakers, if one of the big plot points of your film is that one character is traditionally animated and the other is computer generated, perhaps have the former be traditionally animated and not computer generated trying to look traditionally animated? But of course, doing that would require any kind of thought, or effort, or style, you know, the things needed to make a movie?

This is definitely a bare-bones lazy review, but this is a very lazy movie, it doesn’t deserve effort being put into discussing it because no effort was put into making it. It’s bad, of course it is, so let’s go home and think nothing of it.

-Danny

Everything Everywhere All At Once - Cheap Thoughts

There’s nowhere to begin with this movie. It goes everywhere and encompasses everything. Comedy? Action? Existentialism? Family? The film becomes everything and leaves nothing except…nothing. Which is in itself the question, when you have everything, when you experience everything, what is left except nothing? Describing the plot is a little hard, to describe the themes is to address everything. A grandiose piece of philosophy and godhood, what matters? Does anything matter? Does it matter if nothing matters? Did you file your taxes properly?

Within all those questions is simply a mother regretting her life, a father unable to fight for what he loves and a daughter feeling unseen and unheard. How can you matter to the universe if you don’t matter to your mother? Can you fight for what you love without fighting at all? Is every decision you made the wrong one? Artists and philosophers have asked these questions and their variants since history began. We’re a species obsessed with finding purpose in a universe of random events and our attempts to find answers simply leaves us feeling smaller and less significant with every development.

Directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert somehow find a new way to ask these questions. They present us not with a filmed thesis but with a multiverse hopping action-comedy that sees average joes become martial art stars, sausage fingered humans, infinity bagels and googly eyed rocks. The adrenaline fuelled nonsensical creativity is a staple of The Daniels style as seen in their directorial debut Swiss Army Man, another film that layers deep introspective questions over farcical comedy and vulnerable people. The film is a joke, it is ridiculous down to the bone but doesn’t act like it. It’s silly to us, but not the characters, this is their lives, their norm, there is nothing to laugh at and so they will commit everything and present it with just sincerity it’s amazing how well they blend these ludicrous set-ups with such genuine human emotion (Human being optional). This allows the action to flow with such intensity and violence, it makes for some truly wonderful fight scenes. Likewise the comedy is creative and highly entertaining, after all who wouldn’t find a woman using a dog as a pair of nunchucks hilarious? Then finally throughout all that, the sci-fi jargon, the stellar action and the surreal premises, it’s simply a film about a family, a family trying to find purpose, to find meaning and to find love.

We are so small, and we are getting smaller every day and one day all of us will be gone. But a thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts, or because it’s big or because it’s easy. You do not have to be the most important thing in existence to be important, you just need to be important to someone, that is what makes you matter. So what does the film suggest we do to make that happen?

Be Kind.

-Danny

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to feint excitement for a new MCU product, not because they always lack quality, but because they are on an endless conveyor belt of content you never go any time without them. The final episode of Moon Knight came out on Wednesday and this movie came out on Thursday. You can’t anticipate something that is omnipresent. What we can be excited for and haven’t seen in a very long time is a new film from the one Sam Raimi. 9 Years since his last directorial feature and it’s with the biggest corporation in the film industry, considering this man has been burnt by studio’s before, all the way back with his sophomore (and underrated) feature Crimewave, to the infamous studio meddling of Spider-Man 3, to the watered down and voiceless Oz The Great & Powerful, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the man swore off any studio film for the rest of his life…so yes let’s say interest was certainly peaked when this production was announced.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (Yes that is the best title to any Marvel movie) is certainly the most vocal a director has been behind the camera. His distinct style and voice is definitely there, the use of horror, the over the top presentation, the wonky camera movements, everything you would expect, but it is still Raimi being reserved. Marvel doesn’t just hire this man because he’s a marketable name, but because he does have a genuine style they want to utilise, they also know it has to be held back and blended with the style of the MCU and frankly, on that level, this might be the best studio film Raimi has ever made. Not in terms of plot, style or creativity, but in production. There is no clash to be felt, purely compromise on both ends, as any good collaborative experience should be. Raimi gets to bring his toys to the playground but doesn’t force everyone else to play with them.

The unexpected yet best collaboration to come from this production is that of Elizabeth Olsen, the longest running cast member of this film, who has certainly grown as a performer with each instalment and yet does her best work here working with Raimi (Yes, even more than WandaVision). It’s hard to pin down why, certainly a lot of it is for the legwork done by other productions to develop her character, but there is a physicality and lack of restraint to this performance. Olsen is an unstoppable force and Raimi is steering her in all the right directions, absolutely the scene stealer of the film.

If you’ve been around the block and you know how this modern Hollywood system works, you can probably tell what’s coming next. It’s unthinkable that Sam Raimi would spend nearly a decade of not making movies, only to come back for a studio production where he had to restrain himself without something promised in the pipelines. The trend of directors promising to make a billion dollar movie for a studio so they can get a blank check on their next passion project is clockwork, which means it won’t be long before we get a true unchained Raimi flick in the next couple of years and if so then we truly have something to look forward to, and as far as compromise films go for better productions later on? Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is certainly in the upper echelon.

-Danny

The Northman - Cheap Thoughts

For nothing else Robert Egger commits to the bit, whatever work of supernatural historical fiction he is working on, it feels like you are being transported back to that time and place. The Northman is the latest in this line, with vicious, animalistic Vikings who seek bloodshed, honour and kinship. Half the time you will not understand the words being spoken due to their archaic dialect, and yet every emotion is felt with such ferocity, everything that needs to be understood will be.

This commitment doesn’t just lie within the violence, but within every fibre of its being. The cultures being represented, the dialogue being spoken, the outfits and make-up on the actors. There is no shame even in the more ridiculous parts because why should there be? This may be a film being shown to 21^st century audiences but it does not act like it is. This is a retelling of these people and their rituals and their lifestyle, it shall not compromise itself for your modern sensibilities, either come along for the ride or get off.

That being said, the plot itself is relatively easy to follow even if the presentation does not always act like it is. It is a simple revenge tale supposedly based off of real world events, but has been adapted and influenced multiple times across the past thousand years many people can catch on simply due to osmosis. If you’ve seen Hamlet, The Count of Monte Cristo or The Lion King, chances are you will understand this plot with ease, and can simply be carried by the immaculate vibes of the production.

To list everything good about The Northman is to simply list everything about it, every actor gives wonderful performances, no one holds back, they bare their bodies and souls quite literally for the sake of the film. The visuals are gloriously spectacular, the camera is slow and methodical for most of the picture, it is unnerving with its movements, and yet has such an aggression during the action scenes, there is a dynamism to every frame, in simple terms it is a very cool looking movie even when it’s not trying to be.

It is rare a treat for someone like Eggers to be given such a large film, it is an epic in every sense of the word and few films are like it. Many historical epics still feel the need to modernise themselves for the sake of audiences desires, which is certainly not a bad thing, there is a place for them, but to have such an authentic feeling experience on the big screen on a large budget is a treat that should not be taken lightly. Egger’s prior films also had this authenticity, but they were on the smaller scale forced onto them if they wished to exist.

The Northman combines the best of all features. A basic plot, a unique vision and a strong emotional thread to carry the film. Those three things fused offer one hell of a picture, you’re sure to leave the film with your adrenaline pumping and ready to fight your mortal enemy by the gates of Hel, and if you don’t have a mortal enemy, by Odin’s beard you’ll wish you did.

-Danny