Venom 3 + Red One

 

   

Red One

Score:  B+

Directed by

Starring Dwayne Johnson, Chris Evans, J.K. Simmons, Lucy Liu, Kiernan Shipka

Running time: 123 minutes

Rated PG-13

Following in a recent trend of Christmas action-comedy movies, Red One brings some serious star power and does so in a surprisingly effective and entertaining way.  The movie's world is clever, putting Santa and the North Pole in the midst of a human world-myth world security and intelligence network.  A silly concept, of course, but the movie takes just the right balance of tone between tongue in cheek with enough seriousness to be compelling and even tense at times.  The cast is also very well chosen: Dwayne Johnson is perfect as the head of Santa's security; it's basically his usual schtick, but it fits naturally here.  Chris Evans is also great as more of a cunning, sly ne'er-do-well, which also makes for a great holiday-style redemption arc.  The dialogue is snappy and funny throughout, with neat nods and tie-ins to its various components (Christmas, The Rock's movies, etc.); not surprising, as Red One was directed by Kasdan who made the impressive Jumanji reboot and several TV comedies.  The action is fun, too, but it's the inventive world, committed and well-suited star performances, and even some holiday cheer that make this a great trip to the theater.

Venom: The Last Dance

Score:  C

Directed by Kelly Marcel

Starring Tom Hardy, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Juno Temple

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated PG-13

Venom: The Last Dance is, apparently, the last in the superhero trilogy of anti-superhero Venom, a combination of human Eddie Brock (Hardy) and a symbiotic shape-shifting alien.  While the series has had entertaining moments and its main character is a nice change of pace in the genre, I'm not sad to see it end, particularly on this "blah" note.  The Eddie-Venom dynamic is the most interesting part of the series, but this movie strangely only has a few moments that focus on them.  Instead, much of the screen time is devoted to a whole new (dull) villain that is chasing after the main duo.  Worse than this unimaginative setup is the final, incomprehensible sequence when the internal "rules" of the world go out the window (Symbiotes can be eaten but... survive? Each character seems to get "killed" multiple times), ruining any suspense.  Venom still provides some chuckles from his untamed, predatory yet not-quite villainous persona, and some of the action is fine.  But mostly, it's a mess with little pay off.

***

It's been a pretty slow fall for movies so far, and I wasn't even going to write a review for Venom 3 at first.  But I thought it served as a nice contrast with Red One: while Venom seems a cash grab using its star and genre but serving audiences poor to mediocre results, Red One rises well above its seeming cash grab origins to provide a very solid, entertaining, and distinctive experience.  Fortunately, Red One just came out so you should still have a chance to catch it in theaters.  There are a few other movies coming out in the last month or so of the year - notably Gladiator 2, which I will see and review soon.  Hopefully the year will end on a high note at the theater!

* By SocialNewsXYZ, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77071925

* By Dwayne Johnson's Instagram post, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77219523

Saturday Night

 

Score:  A

Directed by Jason Reitman

Starring Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennott, Corey Michael Smith, Matt Wood, Lamorne Morris, et al

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Saturday Night is a well-conceived origin story for the storied NBC comedy show, putting audiences right in the thick of the chaos of the first episode.  The cast of mostly unknowns does great work - it's the characters themselves that we all know, and everyone from leader Lorne Michaels to volcanic Belushi to an overwhelmed aide are compelling to watch.  Combine this with a great script, direction, music, and more, and you have both an entertaining and Oscar-worthy trip to the theater.  Highly recommended.

October 11, 1975: it's 10:00 PM in New York City, and Lorne Michaels (LaBelle) has just arrived at 30 Rockefeller Plaza to launch a strange new late-night comedy show.  The problem is, well, everything.  Michaels finds out that NBC affiliates from around the country have come to see the show's debut in person, led by legendary NBC executive David Tebet (Dafoe).  The show's cast is mostly in place, although Belushi (Wood) still refuses to sign his contract, some wonder what the hell is going on, and others fret that their sketches will be cut.  Plenty more obstacles must be overcome in order to launch their live show at 11:30 PM, mostly having to do with the unique, not quite definable nature of the show.  But there is a lot of talent and willpower on set as well, and the various forces collide all the way up to the last minute.

Saturday Night is a wildly entertaining, very well-made, and highly appropriate origin story movie for the legendary SNL (now celebrating its 50th season!).  The structure is its main strength: it all takes place in the 90 minutes leading up to the first broadcast (mirroring the show's is 90 minutes run time).  This gives the movie urgency and, yes, a feeling of being live and in the moment.  We get just enough backstory/exposition to understand what's going on but the movie is mostly about the nuts-and-bolts chaos of actually putting this crazy thing on air.  The events portrayed are also a very nice mix: the movie mostly follows Lorne Michaels, who created SNL, though it focuses on others, too.  The primary lens shows Michaels dealing with his cast members and crew both on stage and behind the scenes.  We get just enough of the "bigwigs" to portray the stakes involved: how slim SNL's chances were of success and how ready the execs were to pull the plug.  There's also a perfect amount of re-enactment of SNL sketches being rehearsed, sprinkled throughout the movie: they are brilliantly and hilariously shot, from Weekend Update to Billy Preston to the construction workers sketch and more.

The cast and the vibe of the film are perfectly suited as well, drawing audience in closely to the events.  LaBelle is great as Michaels; he's certainly nowhere near as charismatic as the cast, rather he is a combination of audience surrogate as well as a distinct character with sheer grit and determination as well as the kind of cool under pressure leader the show required.  The actors playing cast members are fantastic, from Belushi to Chase to Akroyd to Radner, Curtin and Morris.  They all show both comedic chops on stage but also are believable as "real" people off stage.  There are plenty of great non-cast member roles, too: Sennott as Shuster, Michaels's wife (in a rocky time) and a writer/co-leader of show who appears just as visionary as him; a put-upon Dick Ebersol; fiercely funny and passionate head writer Michael O'Donoghue, Dafoe, Simmons, etc. etc.  It's amazing that the movie could fit in all these characters so well (plus a few intriguing "cameos").  The script is excellent, both for comedy (few direct jokes - mostly just natural humor) and for the inner workings of a TV production.  The overriding vibes of the movie are fun and excitement; it's easy to root for Michaels and Co. to succeed, and feel drama even when knowing the final outcome.

***

Saturday Night is the first drama of the season I've seen, and it was a great way to start!  I've been a fan of SNL for years, which perhaps biases my opinion.  But I feel the movie really captured the essence of the show well.  Does SNL always work and is hilarious? No - it's often just OK, or even bombs at times.  But there's a constant feeling of upbeat, fun, positive energy from the show, and it keep me hooked - and that comes through in the movie Saturday Night, too.  Now, beware that, just like the show, the movie gets a bit raunchy at times - and there's a fair bit of cursing.  This is just a really fun ride, though, with all the elements clicking together so well.  It might be too late to see it in a theater, but catch it on streaming if you can!

* By Columbia Pictures - https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1821568411362795671, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77575339

Deadpool & Wolverine

 

Score:  A

Directed by Shawn Levy

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman

Running time: 128 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Marvel is back!!!  The only new theatrical release this year for the blockbuster action franchise is a biggy, teaming up two of the most popular characters.  Although they come from very different origins, Deadpool and Wolverine turn out to be like chocolate and peanut butter.  Come for the lovable, 4th-wall-breaking snark from Deadpool, stay for the MCU's unmatched event-movie spectacle. Warning, for those expecting a typical superhero movie: there is lots of bloody/gory fighting and plenty of swearing.  Still, for those who can stomach it, this is a tremendously entertaining summer movie!

The "Merc with a Mouth", Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool (Reynolds), is going through a rough patch.  He aspires to the heroics of better-known icons like Thor and Captain America, but he can't seem to leave parts of his past behind him.  While working mundane jobs, a mysterious agency introduces him to the multiverse, however, in a development that threatens to literally upend Wade's entire world.  Wade knows that he can't fix the problem on his own and, using the newly discovered multiverse to his advantage, searches for a partner.  He manages to locate the mutant he has always worshipped, Wolverine (Jackman) - but it's not what he expects.  The two odd bedfellows must work past their differences and together confront a deadly threat to the multiverse.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a great return to form for Marvel superhero movies, full of fun and able to manage some tricky balancing acts.  Deadpool is a unique superhero, not only more sarcastic and vulgar than most, but also frequently breaking the "fourth wall" by talking directly to the audience.  While Marvel doesn't take itself completely seriously, either, it is still "traditional" story-telling; as Deadpool himself remarks, his appearance in the MCU is thus an awkward fit.  However, this third Deadpool movie, and the first one "sharing" space with another franchise, works very well, largely due to the now-maligned multiverse concept.  When you have infinite universes at your disposal, it's a perfect situation for Deadpool, who thrives on the bizarre, extreme, and unrealistic (and each of those elements is still kept in check enough to hold the audience).  Among the most entertaining scenes are those showing different versions of the title characters; perhaps the best is "Dog"-pool, which is, naturally, the ugliest breed of dog on the planet.  The plot is not super interesting; it does nicely build off previous Wolverine /X-Men movies, but between this and the multiverse components (even I'm not sure I got everything!), it's a bit reliant on superhero fandom.  Still, it's solid enough as a vehicle for the main entertainment.

Instead of plot, the movie focuses mostly on the co-leads' relationship, which is a great decision as they are both distinct, charismatic - and very different - characters.  Deadpool is the primary focus, and his character is developed in small but thoughtful chunks despite all the surroundings shenanigans.  At the same time, his trademark dirty humor isn't toned down at all - and Wolverine's own more subtle but also dark humor is a great companion for him.  The whole movie is hilarious - particularly the more familiar you are with superhero movies, with several great cameos.  But even for those who aren't, there is plenty of slapstick and sight gags as well as Marvel's signature wisecracks and banter.  The action is also a lot of fun, even though it suffers from "Superman syndrome" in that the leads are basically immortal.  However, at least half the time they are fighting each other, so rather than worrying about what may happen to them, you just enjoy the impressive, creative, and funny choreography.  There's only one regular "henchman" fight, but it basically turns into a music video (hint: boy bands) so it's great, too; the finale battle isn't amazing, but the movie didn't really need one.  Even the ending is somewhat poignant, despite the good-humored cynicism of most of the movie.  After all the blood and bickering, it shows that even the rougher-edged among us need good companions.

***

Deadpool & Wolverine had a lot to live up to as the only Marvel movie to be released this year and the first time the unique Deadpool experience was mixed with a more traditional movie.  Fortunately for audiences - and Marvel - it was a resounding success.  It was truly an open question, to me, if Deadpool could really work within the MCU framework.  As much as the multiverse concept has been worn out, though, it turned out to be the perfect tool to re-introduce this almost "meta" character.  Deadpool himself suggests that perhaps it's time to retire the multiverse plot, winking at declining critical and box office results for Marvel.  Along with the legal troubles of actor Jonathan Majors, who played the key villain, this could well be the right call.  Whether or not Deadpool returns is left nicely ambiguous by the ending (although $$$ signs seem to point toward "yes") - if he does, I now have quite a bit more confidence that it can work out perfectly well.  Now that Marvel is already done for the year, though, it's back to the guessing game of what's next for me at the movie theater!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/deadpool_and_wolverine_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73871602

Fly Me to the Moon

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Greg Berlanti

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Woody Harrelson

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Greg Berlanti (producer behind everything from Dawson's Creek to my favorite CW superhero series) directs an intriguing rom-com, mixing fact and fiction in the time of the moon landing.  Johansson and the supporting cast are great but Tatum is awful, and the movie has sharp writing, humor, and design.  It just lacks a genuine "spark" to truly lift off into the upper echelon.  Still, a worthwhile, change-of-pace summer visit to the movie theater.

The great Space Race of the 1950s and 60s kicks off with great excitement and apprehension.  Yet, when America finally closes in on President Kennedy's vision of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the country's interest has waned.  Apollo 11 mission launch director Cole (Tatum) is hard at work in Florida, working on the rocket and training with the astronauts, but he struggles with tightening budgets.  So the government calls in saleswoman/conwoman extraordinaire, Kelly (Johansson), to bring back buzz, attention - and most importantly, dollars - for the moon landing mission.  Cole and Kelly appear to be polar opposites, but the country depends on their magnetism to achieve a spectacular success.

Fly Me to the Moon is a fun, well-made rom-com despite its odd conglomeration of parts; still, it could have been even better, perhaps a classic, except for some key shortcomings.  The movie has three main distinct, though intertwined, components: romance (Cole and Kelly), historical (based pretty closely on Apollo 11 preparations), and "Hollywood" (filming a fake moon landing).  It was a tall task, considering the different tones needed for each part - but it pulls off the balance impressively.  The "rom" is more restrained, focusing more on "com" and the plots, both historical and Hollywood.  Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as the lead, easily the main character draw in the film.  She is charismatic and clever, a little ruthless and self-centered but very sympathetic.  Tatum, on the other hand, is just... not good.  I've never thought much of him, but it's painfully obvious here how out of his depth he is.  The movie could have been much better with a different actor.  The supporting cast is great, adding a significant boost to all elements of the film, from Harrelson's devious agent to Garcia as Kelly's partner, to Cole's various co-workers (young, charmingly naive engineers, as well as his old partner played by Ray Romano, etc.). Johansson's husband (SNL's Colin Jost) even gets a hilarious cameo!

The comedy is excellent, as is the dialogue and writing, but there is a glaring vacuum where there should be a strong emotional investment.  Once again, the cast does a great job with the comedy.  Johansson is superb here as she is in her overall performance, and Harrelson was made for his role - even Tatum manages some good laughs.  But it's Kelly's film director friend, played by Jim Rash, who is the comedy MVP.  The writing feels very natural, crisp, and understated, in a movie that was ripe for florid overwriting or on-the-nose dreck; each scene is well done and fits together nicely.  Unfortunately, while it's easy to admire the skill of (most) of the actors, writing, set design, directing, and so on... it just can't seem to find that one, strong connection to really pull in the audience.  The romance is fine but hampered by Tatum's acting; even the plot also lacks a spark to truly pull you in, to fully invest the audience like the best movies do.  It's also too long, mostly due to a drawn out conclusion.  Those involved should be proud of their accomplishments here, but no need to take too long a victory lap.

***

Fly Me to the Moon is much different from the kind of movies I usually see in the summer - but that was one of the main reasons I wanted to see it.  I find that good variety is key to my enjoying movies of all kinds.  I advise you pay closer attention to the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes (91%) than the critics' score (65%) for this movie.  Is it a classic?  No - but it is well worth seeing in the theater, particularly since so few of its genre are shown in theaters at all anymore, let alone in the summer.  It is a shame that it's so far flopped at the box office.  Casting Tatum was an avoidable error, but I don't blame the movie for lacking the "spark"; it's there or it's not, you can't control it.  Everything else that could be controlled - from the performances to writing to directing - is finely done.  Next up for me is another sharp turn: Deadpool & Wolverine, here we come - Marvel is finally back!

* By Columbia Pictures/ Apple Original Films - http://www.impawards.com/2024/fly_me_to_the_moon.html#google_vignette, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76870601

Inside Out 2

 

Score:  B

Directed by Kelsey Mann

Starring Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, et al.

Running time: 96 minutes

Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Inside Out 2 brings Pixar back to the world of one of its biggest original hits, this time with the Emotions contending with an adolescent host.  Like the first movie, there are plenty of clever ideas and gags, but the sequel falls well short of the masterful 2015 film.  It's just too overstuffed, and doesn't bring enough freshness to the world despite the new Emotions and real world setting.  Still, it's a perfectly good option, especially for families looking for a summer theater trip.

The Emotions of young Riley (Tallman) - Joy (Poehler), Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust - continue to steer the girl through life, which is now entering the treacherous high school stage.  Riley loves hockey, and she attends an important camp with her two best friends; her performance at the camp could determine whether she makes the high school team.  Joy and the others feel confident that they can help Riley succeed, but their usual directions start to go awry - and they also find new company in Riley's head, led by a determined Anxiety (Hawke).  The Emotions must act fast to prevent the hockey camp from becoming a train wreck for Riley, and also work out their own new roles in her life.

Inside Out 2 is a fine animated film, but it is a pale follow-up to a Pixar classic, trying to stuff in too many themes and characters with not enough originality.  The structure is quite similar to the first Inside Out with the action playing out in two areas: Riley's real human life and the anthropomorphized Emotions working inside Riley "HQ": control rooms, vast memory vaults, etc.  I would have expected to like the sequel to follow the original's successful formula, but it just didn't work as well - primarily because it's overstuffed in both "worlds": more time on Riley's life, and a new batch of Emotions.  Those colorful beings are still fun, with all the originals returning.  Unfortunately, two of them have new voice actors, which I found pretty distracting (Hader and Kaling had been perfect for Fear and Disgust).  Familiarity brings fondness, but the filmmakers also realized they needed to spice up Riley's internal world with some new Emotions.  Anxiety and Embarrassment are particularly good but again, it just ends up being too much, a dilemma for the film.  Meanwhile, though it makes sense to see how the battle of the Emotions is playing out in Riley's life, her hockey camp story is fairly bland.  Partly this is the difficulty of aligning real events to match the internal work of Emotions but there are some highlights, too, including Riley's sudden overreactions to the Emotions' prompts (thanks, puberty).

The overarching genius of the original Inside Out was in the way that it literally connected traditional movie action/plot to fundamental human psychology.  Somehow, it also melded all the intricate details with a cohesive message (i.e., the importance of sadness).  The sequel has some great psychological and human themes as well - but maybe too many of them.  I really liked the final theme, of humanity's complexity - we each hold many, often contradictory, feelings and qualities and have to balance them, but it's also what makes us resilient.  The other ideas leading up to it are thoughtful, too, but it's so much that the impact of each diminishes.  It feels odd writing this, but there's almost too much dialogue here - the film could have done more showing and less telling.

***

Since Inside Out was one of my favorite Pixar movies, I really looked forward to the sequel.  I enjoyed it but, maybe inevitably, was disappointed.  I should also note that I was feeling pretty tired during a good portion of the movie, so that could well have affected the way I felt about it.  Unless a second viewing completely changes my mind, though, I am pretty convinced of one thing: Pixar needs to get back to making original movies and keep the sequels to a minimum.  Last year's Elemental was a great example, I loved it - unfortunately, because it didn't do well at the box office, Pixar is probably going to lean even more into the sequels (especially now that Inside Out 2 is over $400 million in just two weeks).  I want to emphasize: this is not a bad movie by any means and, as with just about all Pixar movies, both kids and adults will enjoy it.  But I am a bit depressed by what the box office returns for the last two Pixar releases will mean for the creative direction of Hollywood for the foreseeable future.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/inside_out_two_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75269099

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

 

Score:  A-

Directed by George Miller

Starring Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Burke

Running time: 148 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Furiosa is a high-quality follow-up to the 2015 post-apocalyptic action thriller, Fury Road.  Newcomers Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth are steady, but the real star is director George Miller's degraded desert world that nevertheless teems with the desperate remnants of humanity.  They chase and slay one another in vintage internal combustion vehicles, keeping the audience rapt in scenes that come up with one marvel after another.  Highly recommended for theater viewing.

Decades into the future, Earth is a post-apocalyptic wasteland; Australia, the setting of the film, is now almost entirely desert except for a few miraculous oases.  Raiders stumble across one such oasis, and a young girl, Furiosa, tries to stop them from escaping and revealing the secret of her land to the many savage gangs that stalk the desert.  Instead, she is taken prisoner to one of the gangs, the Horde, led by Dementus (Hemsworth).  As she struggles to survive, Furiosa meets others in the ruthless, "mad" desert world and finds that she has the strength to hold her own.  Furiosa blends in with the gang, proving her value, but all the time waiting for the chance to escape and return to her beloved home.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a thrilling, well-made action movie; while it lacks the elegant simplicity of 2015's Fury Road, it is still a worthy prequel to that visually gritty, unique movie.  Furiosa portrays the growth of its main character from an innocent girl living in the sanctuary of the Green Place, right up to the events of Fury Road, where she has become a fully battle- and tragedy-hardened woman.  That's about fifteen years, quite a difference from the few days over which all of Fury Road takes place; this has both positive and negative effects.  The best part of Fury Road comes over fully intact, however: the action.  Once again, it is quite violent but with relatively little gore, and more importantly, it is such creative and intense work in an entirely unique setting.  Most of it involves fighting among vehicles driven at break-neck speeds, from motorcycles to souped-up, broken down cars to improvised gliders to the mammoth "War Rig".  There is surely a good bit of CGI involved, but there is also plenty of  incredible stunt work as fighters jump from vehicle to vehicle and pulverize each other in all sorts of ways.  Frequently, the action appears "sped up", the frame rate increasing to make it look almost cartoonish; this heightens the fantasy of it while keeping the grittiness and also symbolizes the brief, fragile reality of life in this desert world.  The movie's extended sequences are by far its best parts: the opening, with its hunting of raiders and subsequent escape; a War Rig chase scene reminiscent of Fury Road; and Furiosa (and her ally's) main showdown with Dementus, a particularly long, brutal showcase.  These scenes absolutely capture your entire attention and hold you in the moment, which is especially impressive for how long they last - they're worth the price of admission by themselves.

Alas, not everything in Furiosa is as good as its action.  The characters are fine - not classic, but worthy of following through the film.  Taylor-Joy's Furiosa does a good job following up Theron from Fury Road; neither of them are recognizable, from their bald heads and grime-covered skin to the hardened edges they present.  Taylor-Joy seems a bit too slight for this brutal world, but she still does well with the physical work and it feels believable enough.  Hemsworth is a very engaging antagonist, at least in the first third of the movie: while he's crazy and ruthless, he somehow also manages to often be funny and give off traces of sympathetic humanity.  There are other characters with lines, too, but to be honest, the waves of deadly, anonymous desert pirates are the third most interesting role.  As mentioned, the extended scenes are great; however, the movie's longer timeline results in a bit of disjointed unevenness.  The movie attempts to expand and further mythologize the Mad Max world, which is intriguing at times but overall is pretty difficult to follow who is who and why they do what they do.  The ending is also a bit of a letdown, largely because of how quickly and suddenly (to me) things wrap up and before you know it, we have the inevitable final Furiosa-Dementus confrontation.  It's at least quieter than most action movie finales, but I wanted more for Furiosa.  Still, what a ride!

***

Now this is more like the summer movie season starter I usually expect!  It made a paltry $26 million in its opening weekend, though, despite a 90% Rotten Tomatoes score and the popularity of Fury Road.  C'mon, people, this is the kind of movie you have to see in the theater!  Anyway, it's interesting that this is the second desert-based action epic I've seen this year, following Dune: Part Two from the spring (which was properly rewarded for its quality and entertainment value, as it's currently the year's top-grossing movie).  I'm finally becoming a little more discriminant about the sequels and reboots I will go see, but this was a no-brainer.  Hopefully more filmmakers will continue to bring this kind of creativity and intensity to the movie theater.  Until next time!

* By IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76616879

Fall Guy

 

Score:  B+

Directed by David Leitch

Starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Blunt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, et. Al.

Running time: 126 minutes

PG-13

Long Story Short:  Stuntman-turned-director Leitch turns his camera back on the dirty, painful business behind action filmmaking in a fun, cheerful, if a bit too over-the-top action comedy.  Gosling and Blunt are a great pair of leads with good chemistry, and the first part of the movie is rollicking.  Opinions will vary on the wisdom of going beyond the movie's initial premise, but it all comes back around for a nice finale.  Recommended for a fun start (? - it's already available on streaming now... sigh) to summer movie season.

Colt (Gosling) has a good thing going: the stunt man (or “fall guy”) for a superstar actor (Taylor-Johnson), he does the coolest scenes in the movies while spending time with his flame, camerawoman Jody (Blunt).  In an instant, however, Colt’s life is turned upside down and, a year and a half later, finds himself alone and out of the business.  Life seems to give him a second chance, and Colt seizes it, returning to the stunt world.  His reunion with Jody does not go as hoped, though, and even his meal ticket, the lunkhead actor, seems to have gone off the reservation.  Colt must fight for himself, and the ones he loves, or his second chance could quickly go up in smoke.

Fall Guy is an entertaining movie with an interesting spin on the action comedy genre, but it goes too far afield and extreme when focus and restraint would have mostly been better.  The director, whose debut was the superior action movie, John Wick, started as a stunt coordinator himself and fittingly pays tribute to his original field here.  And that premise is a really good one which pays off in a great first third of the movie.  It focuses on the movie-making business, with the stunts at the center, of course, featuring not just Gosling’s brash but likable Colt but also Blunt’s shy yet capable camerawoman as well as a feisty, energetic producer (played by Waddingham from Ted Lasso).  It’s only after Colt and Jody’s falling out, though, that their chemistry really kicks into high gear with some hilarious banter.  Gosling, other than being one of today’s megastars, was a great choice for the lead as he does well as a counterpart for strong female leads (with Stone in La La Land, Robbie in Barbie, etc.).

Unfortunately, a somewhat strange development ends up turning the course of the movie upside down, as Colt is forced to grapple with the movie star’s having gotten himself into trouble.  There are several scenes of essentially the kind of action you might expect from John Wick or something similar - and yes, there’s plenty of humor involved and doesn’t take itself too seriously, but the characters seem bafflingly unfazed by it all and the action starts to crowd out - in time and attention - what could have better been used on plot and character work.  Colt and Jody could have used more direct interaction, and the movie star and producer would have been more interesting were they less exaggerated.  Still, the climax is well-conceived and executed - largely because it finally brings it back to the ostensible point of the movie, stunt work.  Colt and the “good guys” make a clever plan that is silly but not ridiculously action-y, and allows everyone in the cast a chance to shine.  It’s easy to leave the theater with a smile on your face.

***

Fall Guy is not the kind of movie I expect to kick off the summer movie season - in fact, 2024 is the first year since 2009 that Marvel has not occupied this space.  Still, we got a perfectly enjoyable - if considerably smaller-scale - popcorn movie here.  Due to the writers’ and actors’ strike last year, and Marvel’s (hopefully short-term) pullback after a tough 2023, the offerings are a little more meager this year.  I would love to see more movies along the lines of Fall Guy, though - if anything, scaling back the action even more.  Perhaps I’ve just seen enough movies at this point that action alone isn’t nearly enough to satisfy me.  Originality and creativity, on the other hand: more, please!  Once again, I’m not sure what is coming up next for me at the theater, but hopefully it’s another good one.

* By Universal Pictures - http://www.impawards.com/2024/fall_guy.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75207794