Change Your Image
TheSmithySmith
Reviews
Black Panther (2018)
A+
Electrifying character drama wound taught with contextual and thematic heft make for one hell of a film to witness; the central conflict is gripping, the performances by the cast robust, and the visuals sublime. The film is indeed lacking in the areas of CGI and fight choreography; these are undoubtedly symptoms of the conveyer-belt streamlined production cycles typical of "MCU" films, and it is indeed unfortunate that they do add a couple of wrinkles to such an otherwise incredible film, but to linger on those faults here is to miss the forest for the trees. The story and script here are absolutely best-of-class in ways few superhero movies strive for and even fewer actually reach.
Mad Max (1979)
A-
1979's Mad Max was a film made by any means necessary. Inspired by his life experiences with seeing the gruesome effects of vehicular injury and unchecked recklessness, director George Miller sought to realize a vision for a new kind of action filmmaking injected with raw cutting brutality, intimate humanity, and half-a-century-old (at the time) visual storytelling techniques. Miller worked with newcomer producer (and afterward close friend) Byron Kennedy to raise the funds on their own, and the product of their ambition is one of undeniable passion for the craft.
Mad Max (1979)'s budgetary constraints work in its favor rather than against it. The apocalyptic setting the franchise is now known for was first necessitated by their lack of funds to shoot anywhere but mostly abandoned locations. Lack of money for visual effects meant that when vehicles were destroyed for scenes, they were actually destroyed for real. Since they could only afford to have *one* of each vehicle, they would only have once chance to film each vehicle's destruction. The production crew was shutting down and filming on public roads illegally without permits to avoid paying for them; this necessitated scenes being done quickly rather than as well as possible, before law enforcement could respond. Once principal photography wrapped, Miller spent a year editing the film by himself, often facing immense frustration with the footage he did capture versus what he wished he had gotten. Miller said that spending the majority of the year "staring down the barrel of his own failures" was a personal hell; it's believable that this introspective process informed the visual language present in the final edit of the movie. All of these productional limitations work to imbue the picture with an enamoringly ungraceful mise-en-scène that can only be described as visceral, cutting, and candid.
This rawness on display in this film services its thematic core. The aforementioned apocalyptic setting is one of global collapse spurred by the governmental powers that be in all their political division, corruption, greed, and hubris. Here, the final still-standing tenets of what we recognize as civilization are being chipped away by the now-unobstructed self-cannibalistic caricatures of humanity; a marauding gang of bikers. This group embodies and embraces toxic masculinity as if it were biblical scripture or even the word of god, and they it's crusading zealots. There is a nuance to these lawless hellspawn, a deft hand, a subtlety, (especially in the masterfully villainous performance delivered by the late Hugh Keays-Byrne) that sets them firmly apart from the usual proceedings for antagonists such as these. They're the worst kind of individuals, and you want to see them killed, but there's a depth to them that can't be denied.
Every scene with the villains is an exterior one, shot outdoors away from sets and soundstages. Of those scenes, the majority of them are shot against the somewhat otherworldly Australian wilderness; the equal measures of desert and vegetation add a liminal feel to the visuals that is complimented by the the architectural use of both abandoned shooting locations and lively ones. These villains are the worst of humanity, and their frequent depiction against the backdrop of this wilderness visually speaks in a primal way; man and nature, flora and fauna, one of the most basic dichotomies in the world. Dichotomy is a constant throughout the film. For scenes shot against the wilderness, the camera is deliberately angled and manipulated to not show any of the buildings around the cast and crew as well as in the distance. All you see in the picture is the Australian countryside - and the human roads slicing through it; once again, man and nature. On these lonely roads flanked and engulfed by naught but the nature they are slicing through is where the aforementioned brutal, raw, very human instances of vehicular carnage and bloodlust take place.
Vehicles represent more than just transportation and combat in this film. An oil crisis was one of the primary instigators of this world's collapse. Now, the infrastructure that this civilization has constructed itself around is but a monument to its own failure. Gasoline is becoming rare; it's a rather grim outlook by the film that when confronted with this reality, humanity rejects concepts such as reform and instead plunges deeper into self-cannibalization. Vehicles are, for all intents and purposes, the horsemen of this apocalypse, and humanity clings to what's left of them in ways that venture fully into childlike deification and worship (especially in the sequels). Vehicles, and humanity's over-reliance on them, are the manifestations of man's folly and shortcomings in this film. From this yarn was spun our downfall, and our entanglement with them only becomes more exaggerated and dangerous over time. In this setting, the tools of our societal collapse quickly become the tools by which the remnants of humanity would enact even greater death, war, evil, cruelty, and destruction against the backdrop of the wilderness that we have mistreated and exploited and is now outlasting us.
In the path of this mountain, this tsunami that is the collapse of a doomed civilization, and the forces of evil acting as its harbingers, stands the last few good men still clinging to the misguided hope of an eventual return to normalcy. They are fools. They are in denial of what is the inevitable end result of a species that could not stop killing each other for thousands of years, even as they stood at the edge of, and gazed into, the abyss of societal collapse. In the film, one character says to another "Some say that people don't believe in heroes anymore. Well damn them! You and me, we're gonna give them back their heroes!" These men don't realize that in times such as these, the concept of a hero is an oxymoron. There are no more heroes. They're gone. You don't see a hero standing in the path of an oncoming tornado. You see them taking shelter with their loved ones as far away from the destruction as they can get, praying to god that they're still living once the storm has passed. To stay and fight against this tide, this cyclone, is to ensure that if you're still living by the time it's all over, there'll be nothing separating you from what you once stood against. The only way to destroy an evil like this at a time like this is to engage it on its own terms; if you are to fight against it, the "high road" will take you nowhere but to an early, shallow grave. This isn't a hero's journey. This is a hero's undoing. The changing of the times, of the eras, is a rough water that wears down even the sharpest, sturdiest of rocks it crashes against; those that try to oppose the waters of inevitable change will find that they are broken down into unrecognizable shapes by it just as the rocks are.
Mad Max is not a perfect film. The script could've used another draft or two to iron out the final kinks and tighten the pacing, but to linger on such things with a film like this is to miss the forest for the trees. Now, this film may not have the scope of an entire forest, but therein lies the greatest draw of this franchise - it's as wide as a puddle, but as deep as an ocean.
Civil War (2024)
A+
I saw this film during its opening weekend over a month ago. Since then I been reflecting on it, ruminating on it, and attempting to fully digest it. This is my attempt to organize my complicated thoughts and feelings on it:
My earliest memory as a child was the 9/11 terrorist attack on the world trade center twin towers in New York City. At that age, I could not understand why people would perform such acts of violence and cruelty against each other. I was naive but also, in a sense, unbiased. But as the USA then invaded the Middle East, I saw it as justified. With age, I came to see more and more instances of violence and cruelty on a global scale that appeared justified by way of political and religious dogma. With age, I became more and more unable to see things as they actually were - unable to see them exactly how I saw them in my earliest years.
Alex Garland's Civil War might be the most horrific film i've ever seen, and that is entirely because it returns a person, regardless of their will, back into that state of youthful naivete. Acts of tangible, disturbing violence and cruelty between Americans - between brothers, sisters, and neighbors - are shown, but divorced from the dogmatic justifications that birthed them. Without seeing the catalyst for these fictional events, viewers are left unable to comfortably dissasociate from them as being escalated-to conclusions between conflicting political and religious beliefs. Deprived of that safety blanket, viewers are forced to confront what they see for what it is - acts of horrifying violence and cruelty. There will always be newer, "stronger" reasons for people to do these things; CIvil War communicates that those "justifications" don't change the naked truth behind it all, that being that war has always, and will always, be a horrifying depravity.
This film transcends the typical limitations of movies and feels like something more, It feels like a warning. The divisions currently consuming the American people seem to be worsening with each passing day. Long gone is the day that neighbors can comfortably leave their doors unlocked. It feels like the world is coming apart at co the seams, like a fabric. One would usually be unable to relaxingly dismiss the events of alternate-history fictions such as this film as being fake stories that occur under fake circumstances that are far differet from the ones in our world and would never actually happen. But like I said, this film strips that away from the viewer. What's left is a prophecy - a timeless portrayal of what the current conflicts in our nation
can tangibly, realistically escalate to if we as a people do not better ourselves.
A character in Civil War, a war photographer, states that she used to travel into active combat zones and document the atrocities so that her fellow people back in the States could receive warnings on the horrifying true nature of war as being something they as a country should avoid at all costs. As you can determine from the title of the film alone, she fails in this personal mission and the country falls into self-cannibalistic conflict. The warning she put forth fell on deaf ears. I pray with every ounce of my being that the warning this film puts forth does not.
Sora no daikaijû Radon (1956)
D-
Rodan is known today as an early spin-off film in the showa era of Godzilla, but it began its life as the next monster movie by director Ishiro Honda after his success with the 1954 original Godzilla. Arriving in 1956, Rodan was indeed a financial success but nevertheless lacks the cohesion, vision, and timelessness of Godzilla. The first half of the film does a commendable job at drawing up some effective dread and unease in its viewers with mystery and intrigue, but the second half takes on a different feel once the winged monster himself appears up close for the first time.
The characters, vibes, and themes from the first half are entirely abandoned as time goes on in favor of focusing solely on set piece sequences involving Rodan; I am not at all complaining on this increased focused on the beast as the film progresses, but it is all far too disconnected from what came before. The script just doesn't really seem to have anything on its mind outside of providing the most basic framework for the film to simply exist in, which is frustrating after how well-written Godzilla was. Additionally, the VFX work here pales in comparison to Godzilla despite having a larger budget, which is a shame as the miniatures created for the picture seem impressive. The suit for Rodan is not as enamoring as the one for Godzilla, and this film being in pristine color actually works against it as many distracting details (draw cords on the flying objects, cloth-like folds in Rodan's skin) are on clear view that otherwise would have been obscured and hidden by the B&W film grain of 1954.
Rodan isn't a bad movie. There's obvious effort put into it on many fronts. It is, however, very disappointing compared to the film from just two years earlier that it was supposed to follow up.
Gojira no gyakushû (1955)
D-
Following up a masterpiece is never an easy task to undertake - unless, of course, you're not at all concerned with meeting those same expectations. This is the unfortunate case with 1955's Godzilla Raids Again, which arrived in theaters just six months after the 1954 original did without director Ishiro Honda returning. To the film's credit, there are some well-done well-choreographed action sequences littered throughout. However, the film as a whole lacks any kind of coherent, meaningful storytelling and feels very disjointed and inconsequential in contrast to its predecessor. It just reeks of being a rushed cash grab.
The Empty Man (2020)
A+
David Prior's The Empty Man, set within (not adapting) the world of the comic series of the same name, is nothing if not beautifully ambitious. From the opening minutes, an enamoring passion for original horror filmmaking bleeds through every facet of the film so thoroughly that the viewer is practically assaulted with it. Between instances of being entranced by the craft and haunted by some of the most disturbing visuals ever put to film, the viewer is wound tight by dramatic thread that spins one man's investigative descent and exposure to the Lovecraftian cosmic amidst his inability to recover from trauma. The attempts by DisneyFox to bury this amazing film are creative vandalism at best and abhorrent affronts to all of filmmaking at worst. Do your part to make sure this film doesn't meet the end they wanted for it; give it a watch and spread the word.
Gojira (1954)
A+
1954's Japanese classic has begun to show some age as most of a century has passed since its release, but it still, as a whole, stands the passage of that time. Godzilla is a testament to passionate, inspired filmmaking achieving the most with what little is available, all while spinning a thread of meaningful subtext and allegory on nuclear terror and weapons of mass destruction. Innocent civilians in Japan endured two horrendous tragedies just 9 years prior to this film's release, and their perspective on that atrocity not as soldiers, but as women and children serves as the emotional and thematic core of this film. Those two halves - the perspective of the filmmakers and the achievements of their filmmaking - are what make Godzilla so timeless even today.
Spider-Man: Lotus (2023)
D-
I will not, in this review, be addressing the controversy surrounding the people behind this film and their recorded racism/sexism. Because even going in to this film without any potential bias against it, it still fails.
Spider-Man: Lotus is a movie. Many dismiss criticisms of it under the pretense that it is a small student project and not an actual movie, but I adamantly reject that notion. It has a budget of $25,000. It has a runtime of two hours (meaning it's not even the shortest Spider-Man film). With the status of being a feature length indie film with a respectable indie budget, there comes expectations; it is very much within reason to expect this movie to be well-directed, well-written, well-shot, and above all, economic in its production. Spider-Man: Lotus is none of these things.
This movie is unpleasant on the eyes; the directing is deeply uninspired, shots being comprised almost always of very drab imagery that do not grab one's attention. Similarly, the movie is also unpleasant on the ears and brain; the script only shows slight potential just once or twice, and the entire runtime is a plodding chore to get through with a motionless story that numbs the senses at its best infuriates at its worst.
When Spider-Man: Lotus was first announced, the filmmakers affirmed their fans that they were going to work within the confines of their budgetary limitations by shooting a drama first and foremost; the typical hallmarks of what makes a superhero movie would not be a priority. This is not what they did. There are still two superhero-y fight/action scenes in the movie; they are both distractingly terrible. These, along with a few other severely misguided creative decisions, chew through much of the budget that should've been used in other, smarter ways.
Spider-Man: Lotus is not a good film. At best, it is still very much subpar. It had all the tools and ingredients necessary to be an incredible version of itself, but it used them either incorrectly or not at all. To those that still feel this is all too much to expect of a film of this size, here are some other movies whose budgets were at or below that of Lotus:
El Mariachi (1992) with a budget of $7,000
Primer (2004) with a budget of $7,000
Paranormal Activity (2007) with a budget of $15,000
Resolution (2012) with a budget of $20,000
Creep (2014) with a budget of $0
One Cut of the Dead (2017) with a budget of $25,000.
Hannibal (2001)
F
Outside of the final ten minutes, "Hannibal" is a wildly uneven letdown not only as a sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs", but also as a basic movie.
Adapted from Jason Harris's 1999 novel of the same name, "Hannibal" saw a less-than-desirable pre-production once the novel released and its controversial, bewildering story was made known to all. Upon reading it, the director (Jonathan Demme), screenwriter (Ted Tally), and lead (Jodie Foster) of "Silence" opted to not return for the sequel, with Sir Anthony Hopkins being the only returning star. The absence of all three of these tentpoles is felt dramatically in this film, and they are missed greatly. In their places are Ridley Scott as director, David Mamet and Steven Zaillian as screenwriters, and Julianne Moore replacing Jodie Foster as the lead.
On paper, this is a great replacement line-up, which makes it all the more confusing as to why the film is so lacking. The cast do try and do their best with what they were given. Jonathan Demme cut his teeth as a filmmaker directing dramas, which instilled within him a very grounded, practical kind of visual storytelling that really elevated "Silence". In comparison, Ridley Scott's directing in "Hannibal" feels bizarrely pedestrian and closer to an action-thriller than a horror-thriller. The visual storytelling feels lightweight, even in comparison to Scott's other works; it lacks the communicative heft and nuance of, say, "Alien" and instead feels closer to "Gladiator".
As a novel, the story of "Hannibal" is flawed at best. As a film, it's not much better. The most egregious, bizarre elements of the novel have been rightfully culled, but the remainder of the story hasn't been properly reconstructed into a new whole. You see, I'm still not entirely sure what "Hannibal", as a film, is really about. I understand that Thomas Harris intended for the soul of the story to be the crisis of faith Clarice Sterling experiences as she comes to blows with the same kind of evil as in "Silence", but now in a systemic form within a corrupted government; the institution she's dedicated her life to, that took her father's life, is a sham. However, that central idea was married to the actual story and events of the original novel with very questionable success. Within this movie, it's all but completely divorced from it. The film is, quite definitively, soulless. You witness a sequence of related scenes and events occur, yes, but afterwards you're not entirely sure for what purpose they served. What greater thematic conflict did they work to further? What kind of heart is the film weaving?
Only in the final minutes does everything come together in a way that feels like a proper "Silence" follow-up; that's far too little too far too late. "Hannibal" is a tad longer than its predecessor, clocking in at two hours and eleven minutes - it accomplishes less for the viewer in this entire runtime than "Silence" did in just its opening alone.
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)
D-
What begins as a touching tribute to the late Chadwick Boseman quickly succumbs to an overstuffed plot that meanders and lacks direction. The movie's packed with unnecessary characters, subplots that go nowhere and are never mentioned again, and a woefully underdeveloped villain to compliment a woefully underdeveloped central conflict.
2018's Black Panther succeeded on the merit of its electrifying character drama and how well that conflict tied into the central themes of the movie. It was a taught, masterfully assembled film that stood not only as one of the best "superhero" movies, but also an incredible achievement as a film overall. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever isn't that; it's just another Marvel movie, one that happens to serve as a disappointing follow-up to a genuinely amazing film and is all the worse off for it.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
A+
Very rarely do you see a film dance so elegantly with themes and ideas of darkness and corruption as its sides are licked by the flames of gothic eroticism. Even rarer is it that you see such a delicacy bolstered by some of the best practical-effect visuals ever put to film and some of the most beautifully haunting music ever put to score. This is a feast for the senses; a total masterclass in filmmaking on all fronts.
The craft on display, and the synergy all of it has with every other aspect of the cinematic assembly, is hypnotic and intoxicating in ways one simply cannot forget. It's without a doubt the best movie of its kind, bar none. This was not the final movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola, but it was his final masterwork; the last time we saw him in total command of his craft and delivering on his absolute fullest potential as a filmmaker.
Commando (1985)
C-
A definitive 1980s cheesewheel. However, the villains are woefully undercooked and the final twenty minutes resorts to using some extremely uninspired action choreography.
Resident Evil (2022)
F
We live in an era of overreactions; an era of clickbate headlines, toxic fandoms, and undeserved backlash. Out of all the media to be "targeted" by the general internet zeitgeist as the new worst thing, (whether they be Star Wars sequels, Marvel movies featuring minorities, or episodes of a sci-fi TV show daring to develop a female side character) almost none of it is genuinely deserving of even a fraction of the criticism it receives, if at all.
Netflix's Resident Evil is exceptional in that matter, in that it is one of the only times I have seen something actually live up to backlash that would usually be classified as fan overreaction. This is the worst TV show I've ever seen. The single redeeming quality is that the entire cast is really doing everything they can to deliver commendable performances with the material they were given; while almost all criticisms leveled against this show are deserved, criticisms against the actors and actresses are not. They deserve better roles than this.
Uncle Drew (2018)
C-
An uncompromisingly funny, heartfelt comedy that punches notably higher than its assumed weight. It's not the most revolutionary or brilliant film, but it's still thoroughly entertaining throughout and considerably satisfying in its execution. The athletes-turned-actors are all surprisingly competent at executing their roles with hilarious comedic timing, and the overall film does have a resonantly emotional message, albeit an arguably cliché one, that it successfully drives home by the end.
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
B+
J. J. Abrams's directorial debut emphasizes the best parts of the prior two films while also avoiding most of the flaws. Ethan Hunt is less an invincible badass in this film and more a vulnerable person, and the writing reflects that with a shift in stakes and plot that is more about the drama and characters than the scale and scope. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays an amazingly intimidating, effective villain to oppose our protagonist here, and the actiony set-pieces are the most exhilarating and beautifully-shot they've been yet. A little does bog down the film, but any and all of that is ultimately very dismissable due to how enjoyable and robust the final product is.
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
C+
Many attack this controversial sequel as preposterous; I defend it as preposterously entertaining. Tom Cruise previously stated that he wanted each film in this franchise to be creatively different and "owned" by their respective directors; that's exactly what John Woo has done here. This sequel oozes the passion and style of its director in ways many films don't, and while it may not be perfect by any means, I found it to be very fun albeit flawed. Absolutely everything here is completely over-the-top in very exciting, endearingly cheesy ways, and while it's a ride that many may gawk at, it's one I am totally on board with and thoroughly enjoy.
Mission: Impossible (1996)
B-
An indisputable classic that is more than the sum of its parts. While some things like the convoluted plotting do weigh the film down a tad, the thrilling stunts, superb performances, and engaging moment-to-moment filmmaking thoroughly succeed in reigniting the flame of the classic television series while also spawning one of the most iconic film franchises today. Mission: Impossible is a damn good time.
Tomb Raider (2018)
D+
While this is indeed a cut above most other videogame films, it doesn't at all mean it's a good movie; it's just a very passable one among a crowd of far worse ones. The film itself is sloppily executed, and while I can appreciate the well-directed action and faithful respect to Lara Croft's character in the acting, I also cannot deny how messy and undeniably mediocre the final product is. It's not at all good, nor is it necessarily terrible; it's just there, and "there" will soon be the $5 movie bin.
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
D-
Ghost in The Shell's live-action western adaptation surgically removes the challenging, iconic aspects of the source material, replacing them with abrasively generic fluff. The visuals and soundtrack may dazzle some, but those are elements that can be enjoyed without watching the actual movie. The actual meat of the film, as in the writing, story, directing, and more, are all executed with an offensively cookie-cutter mentality that seems focused not on adapting the source material, but rather disrespecting and misunderstanding it. Comparisons to the original aside, this one fails even on its own merits; it's indefensibly below-average and, at times, rather offensive.
Suicide Squad (2016)
F
DC's film universe hits new lows with this impressively below-average misfire. The writing and editing are both incredibly poor and often cringe-inducing, and pretty much every aspect of this film is executed with mind-boggling incompetency in spite of the budget and talent behind this. It reeks through and through of corporate overreach; of assembly by committee board as opposed to creation by filmmaker.
The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)
F
I didn't think it was possible to be this disappointed in a movie I didn't know existed until an hour or two before I saw it, but here we are. Every conceivable aspect of this film is either impressively lacking or just bad; there's more or less no redeeming qualities here and viewers, as well as the franchise itself, are better off pretending this embarrassing misfire never even happened.
Tag (2018)
D+
A fun enough entertaining summer comedy. It's well-acted and wittily-written enough to satisfy those looking for a fun distraction but will inevitably disappoint those looking for something more robust and substantial.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
D-
Luc Besson's newest sci-fi romp is abrasively disappointing. While it's very clear from the opening scene that tons of passion and creative heart have been poured into this film's world and visuals, any of that strength is quickly annihilated by some of the worst writing, characters, and overall plotting I've ever seen in a film of this budget and scale. A colossal waste of staggering potential.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
B-
Ridley Scott once again returns to his iconic franchise in this entry that acts as a sequel to Prometheus and a more emphasized prequel to Alien. The intelligence and allure of the last film remains intact while also doubling down on the scares; it continues down a path that Prometheus set foot upon back in 2012, further pursuing the questions and mystery that the 1979 original opened the door to. The result is some of the most strikingly brutal, intensely satisfying horror in the franchise accompanied by some of the most mesmerizing, thoughtful themes and writing yet. While some slight issues from Prometheus remain persistent in Alien: Covenant, that doesn't at all stop it from being another robust, sublime entry by Ridley Scott in this franchise.
Prometheus (2012)
B+
Ridley Scott returns to the Alien franchise in this prequel to the original classic. After the previous non-canon misfires (two disgraceful sequels, two even worse crossover films), this entry returns to its cosmic horror roots with surprisingly successful results. The final product is a film that subverts expectations set by the original, bravely leaving the franchise name behind to stand on its own as a commendable sci-fi thriller that asks difficult questions while also fleshing out the tantalizingly minimalist lore of the original. Despite this, it ultimately keeps things mysterious and ambiguous, as it should. This film may be polarizing to some, and while a little does bog the film down, many viewers will realize and appreciate that it comes from the exact same brilliance that spawned the original film and takes a daringly different path.