Jackie Brown (1997)

When a struggling airline stewardess is caught smuggling money into the U.S. for her gun runner boss, she must hatch a complicated plot in order to escape being arrested or killed (and also get away with the money), with the help of a bail bondsman who has fallen in love with her.

Another entry in the list of films that I'm kicking myself for not having seen earlier (tried watching it in film about five, six years ago in film school but the DVD was scratched), Jackie Brown is a solid winner.

Skillfully adapted from the novel, "Rum Punch" by Elmore Leonard (whose work I should probably start checking out more of now, considering I've seen a couple of adaptations of his work like Get Shorty and 3:10 To Yuma), this is definitely a unique entry in Quentin Tarantino's filmography. Self-described as his own version of a "hangout movie", the film is very much so with a slower pace, minimal violence (the least violent of all of his films, in fact), an especially emotionally powerful soundtrack, more subdued and understated characters and relationships, and a more tightly wound and complex plot with an ending (and its aftermath) that can be interpreted in multiple ways. 

In contrast to many of Tarantino's other films, which have a quicker pace, a more flashy and stylistic tone, and more aggressively quirky and cartoonish characters (in a great way), its easy to see why audiences at the time weren't as receptive to this as they were Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, but also a major bummer as well. (On a side note, I now find it a bit confusing that some critics consider Once Upon A Time in Hollywood his most mature film, when Jackie Brown is right there). 

Pam Grier absolutely radiates in the title role with a mixture of brains, sass, and heart. It's easy to see why she was a star in the 70s and it's a shame she hasn't really had that many lead roles since. Same with Robert Forster (RIP) who plays the bail bondsman, Max Cherry, with a gruff, world-weary sincerity and charm, and the pair click together beautifully. I'm eager to check out more of their work as well, including Medium Cool, The Black Hole, Foxy Brown, and Coffy.

Samuel L. Jackson pulls in another solid performance as the main villain, Ordell Robbie, who is charismatically slimy and has a very quiet and subtle menace that slowly grows to a terrifying level by the film's end. Michael Keaton also has a fun turn as the strait-laced but individually weird ATF agent Ray Nicolette. 

Ironically, the only weak point for me was the relationship between Robert De Niro as Louis Gara, Ordell's cohort and ex-con buddy, and Bridget Fonda as Melanie, Ordell's beach bunny girlfriend, with the chemistry between them feeling slightly off somehow (this might possibly be more on De Niro's end as he isn't given much to do character-wise and its reported he and Tarantino didn't get along while on set). Other than that, I don't really have any issues with the film. 

While not my new top favorite in Tarantino's filmography, it's still pretty darn close with a solid placement in the Top 5. That being said, Tarantino also said that its a movie that gets better with every rewatch, which I heartily believe and I have a feeling that once I've had time to fully digest this viewing and eventually watch it a second time, it'll be even higher on that list.

Definitely see it if you can.

4 Stars out of 5

Classic Review: Sullivan's Travels (1941)

A comedy film director aching to make a "picture that matters and shows what the world is really like", decides to go on the road and "experience real trouble" for research, only to get more than he bargained for when he encounters a struggling actress and eventually a reality check that he didn't expect.

While I had seen Sullivan's Travels previously, as it was some 10-15 years before, I didn't really understand or like it at the time. But, now that I'm older and a bit more knowledgable, I find it to be a real winner.

A playful parody of the film industry at the time, as well as writer/director Preston Sturges's response to comedy pictures of the era that had "abandoned the fun for the message", the story really holds up, and feels especially prevalent today.

Sturges masterfully directs the action both in dialogue and in montage, swinging from silly screwball comedy (with hilarious moments including a bonkers chase scene and a goofy sequence where Sullivan tries to escape the house of an old woman that has a major crush on him) to a dark tonal shift that both hits HARD in the last half hour and feels organically earned.

The film is also well cast with Joel McCrea as the idealistic but wisecracking Sullivan and Veronica Lake as the jaded but heartfelt actress who Sullivan eventually befriends (I was initially mixed about Lake's performance but she quickly won me over), as well as a solid cast of character actors playing the studio heads, Sullivan's staff and others.

Really, my only issues with Sullivan's Travels was that one of the montages felt like it went on for just a little too long (the film is only 90 minutes though) and the ending feels slightly abrupt and a little too somber, but those are pretty minor (and more so nitpicks).

I feel bad I haven't seen more of Sturges's, McCrea, or Lake's work but I hope to amend that soon.

Definitely see this if you can!

The Fall Guy (2024)

A love letter to the stunt community (and a little bit to filmmaking as well) while also being a loose adaptation of a TV series from the 80s (which I'm curious to check out now), The Fall Guy is about once-prominent stuntman Colt Seavers, who, 18 months after being injured on a stunt gone wrong, is asked to return to work on his ex-girlfriend's directorial debut, only to be pulled into a dark mystery when the film's leading man disappears.

Right away, I absolutely have to say that the stunts and the stuntmen are the star of the show, from crashing through plate-glass windows, car rolls, and being set on fire to leaping from helicopters and surfing behind a dump truck in traffic, you can tell the filmmakers, especially director (and former stuntman) David Leitch wanted to stuff as much of the craft into the film, and with as much love and care, as possible and all those elements are top notch as a result.

But that doesn't mean that the film doesn't have heart either as Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt give solid performances and have a nice chemistry together with their two characters slowly rebuilding their relationship. Hannah Waddingham and Winston Duke have fun in their supporting roles, also as the film's producer and the film's head stunt coordinator and an old friend of Colt's respectfully.

The film unfortunately gets held back a little bit in the first half, however, with some writing choices (It felt like some of Colt and Jody's, Blunt's character, conversations were repeating themselves), pacing (just as one plot line was starting to rev up, it felt like it would be interrupted for a stretch by the other, one scene felt like it went on for a smidge too long), and editing (again, one storyline sometimes interrupting the other or certain events felt like they were happening too fast, and some events or conversations felt like they should have happened earlier).

But once the second half kicks into gear, the stunts, the pacing, the romantic plot line, and the mystery story (which I actually found pretty solid and satisfactory and felt like an old fashioned TV mystery in a good way) all just seemed to gel together seamlessly, leading to one hell of an absolutely awesome and epic finale (that is the best one I've seen since Mission: Impossible: Fallout. I was originally going to rate the film 3 1/2 stars but that ending bumped it up to a 4 for me).

Ultimately, the film is a solid, old fashioned fun time at the movies that, despite some hiccups in the first half, I really enjoyed. It instantly made me think of. miss, and appreciate even more, epic stunts from movies I grew up with like Indiana Jones crawling along the bottom of the truck in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dr. Richard Kimble jumping down the dam in The Fugitive, all the stuff in James Bond, Speed, Westerns, etc. 

While the stunt community is still alive today thanks to series like Mission: Impossible and John Wick, I hope this film is a success so that more projects with those teams in mind can be made, as well as possibly finally getting an awards category at the Oscars because they sure AS HELL deserve it!

I definitely say see it.

The Call of the Wild (2020)

Having not read the book and only seeing the Charlton Heston 70s movie version when I was in middle school (as well as cheating a bit by scanning the Wikipedia page), I only had a vague idea of the story of "The Call of the Wild" going into this new version, starring Harrison Ford. What I ended up getting was a new appreciation for and interest in checking out the original novel, and a good, fun old-fashioned adventure.

The story is about Buck, a St. Bernard/Scotch Collie who lives a contented life in 1890s Santa Clara, despite being a bit of a headache for his masters due to his destructive size and large appetite. When he is kidnapped and taken to the Yukon, however, he goes through an epic journey involving several masters, that brings him closer and closer to his wolfish ancestors.

Directed by Chris Sanders of "Lilo and Stitch", "How To Train Your Dragon" and "The Croods" fame, its been widely noted how most if not all of the animal animation, including Buck, is CGI, and many have considered that a detriment to the overall film. I, however, didn't mind it for several reasons. 

First, Buck and the others are made so likable, interesting, or engaging through their facial expressions and actions, as well as the performances the human actors gave opposite them (which I'll get to in a second), that I was immediately taken and able to buy them as characters, following them along through the story. Second, considering Sanders' animation background, the complicated and dangerous stunts some of the animal characters had to do, and the recent controversies involving animal actors that have happened, it made a lot of sense as to why they went in this direction (although I couldn't help but wonder at times what a fully animated "Call of the Wild" would look like, but this was more of an observation and pondering than a complaint). Third, and I think this is the biggest reason, is that it captured the heart and spirit of the original story, reminding me of the similar and cherished "dog and wilderness" adventure films that I grew up with like "Balto", "Iron Will", the "White Fang" movies, and this year's highly underrated "Togo", as well as certain other animal films like "Black Beauty", "The Black Stallion", and "Hidalgo".

The film's at its absolute best in the first half with Buck interacting with the other dogs and his first few masters, with wonderful performances by Bradley Whitford as the exasperated judge who is also Buck's first owner and Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Francoise, mail carriers and Buck's second owners, and of course, Harrison Ford as John Thornton, Buck's fourth owner. Ironically, when Buck comes into Thorton's possession and they set off on their adventures, I felt a little less engaged, due in part because the pacing and editing of some of those scenes felt a little too quick and jumpy, Thornton's character started to take the story away from Buck a little bit, and it was foreshadowing an event that I could see coming (which I found distracting and maybe which led to the other two issues).

However, when that event occurred, I found myself in tears, and I realized it was because of Ford. Ford's performance here is so subtle and understated that it could be overlooked, but along with his relationship with Buck, is 100 percent effective and engaging. Its easy to just think of Ford as the legendary action guy we grew up with due to his legendary roles of Indiana Jones and Han Solo, and  in movies like Air Force One and the Jack Ryan films, but he's shown himself to be a great actor all around in underrated works that should be seen like "42", "Working Girl", and "Witness". 

Funnily enough, besides this, "Cowboys and Aliens" and "The Frisco Kid" from the 70s, I'm surprised Ford hasn't done more Westerns, as he plays the rough, grizzled cowboy type very well (considering James Mangold is now the new director of Indiana Jones 5, he produced this film and grizzled cowboy type movies are his specialty, maybe that's the direction he'll take that film. We'll have to wait and see).

Really, other than that and a corny line here or there, the only other issue I had was that Karen Gillan is listed fairly high up in the credits, but she had barely three to five minutes in the film overall and even less presence as the companion of who would become the major villain, so it was a bit odd as to why she was there in the first place (she possibly had a bigger role and it was cut in editing and or she was most likely shooting Jumanji: The Next Level at the same time though, so it kind of makes sense).

Lastly, while the adaptation does soften some of the edges of the original material, it still provides the full emotional power of the characters and story. It's a shame that this hasn't done so well so far, because overall, "The Call of the Wild" is a solid film; a good old-fashioned adventure for the entire family and a great way to introduce the book to kids, a great way to become reacquainted if you read it as a kid, and a great way for someone who has never read it to be introduced to it. If you're not bothered by the CGI (or even if you are, I still think you'll get something out of it), I definitely say see it!

Rating: 3.6 stars out of 4

My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy

 

When I originally heard that a Sequel Trilogy was being made, I was excited to see what was going to be done because it felt like the possibilities were endless and it'd be great to see the old cast back. But then when I heard George Lucas had sold Lucasfilm to Disney, I wasn't sure how to feel. While most of his later films weren't the strongest in terms of quality (I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, don't @ me), I didn't mind because that tends to happen with any filmmaker. But I just didn't understand at all the vitriol hatred Lucas was getting. Star Wars and Indiana Jones wouldn't exist without him. What would they be like now without him? What was Disney going to do? All I could do was wait and see.

Now having watched all three films in the Sequel Trilogy, I'll be able to give my overall thoughts.

First, I do agree with the major criticism that J.J. Abrams, Lucasfilm, Kathleen Kennedy, or whoever was in charge needed a plan to charter where things were going to go with the story and characters. A road map if you will because, without it, the three films go in different directions, taking random exits, and even a few U-Turns. As a result, some plot elements and characters are introduced and forgotten or randomly introduced and not given much to do, lacking consistency. Having consistency would have also have made sure that all the future sequel filmmakers would have been on the same page and saved them from having to scramble in case their predecessor made any drastic changes.

Individually, here are my thoughts on the three films:

Episode 7: The Force Awakens: On the first watch, I had good fun with it. I liked the introduction of the three new characters Rey, Finn, and Poe, as well as the introduction of Maz Kanata. Also enjoyed how they brought back the mysticism and magic of the Force and the Jedi as well. Found the callbacks to A New Hope a little bit on the nose (like a planet-sized Death Star) but it was understandable. Did not care for Kylo Ren at all then, thinking he made Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker look like Alec Guinness's Obi-Wan Kenobi in comparison, and was interested in Snoke a whole lot more. Also, didn't really care for the fate of Han Solo because it was telegraphed pretty obviously.

On second viewing, liked it even better, catching details that I missed beforehand that cleared up some of the earlier problems: The First Order was born from the ashes of the Empire so the Starkiller Base made sense, and also got a better sense of Kylo Ren and found him to be a fairly interesting character. Just not a very threatening one. I think my favorite film of the Sequel Trilogy.

Episode 8: The Last Jedi: On first viewing, I was left pretty disappointed. A lot of character elements didn't make sense or felt forced, sudden twists or story turns felt underwhelming and like they were winking at the audience, some really bad pacing in one section of the film, and I just didn't have very much fun with it. Had some good ideas and themes, but didn't like how they were executed.

On second viewing, however, I actually liked it a bit better. Rey and Finn's arcs made a lot more sense and tied in pretty well to their arcs in The Force Awakens, and I got a better sense of Kylo and Luke's as well. Also liked how it expanded the Star Wars universe a bit further and added a little more complexity and the section of the film that I felt had bad pacing originally, went by a lot quicker and smoother this time for me because of Finn's character arc (although one or two elements still felt a bit forced). Also got a better sense of the Rose character as well. BUT, and this is a big but, I still feel like Poe's whole arc was problematic (if Poe hadn't blown up the Dreadnaught, it could still have followed the Resistance and blown it to smithereens with its big cannons, if Holdo had told him from the get-go about the plan, I have a feeling he would have understood and accepted it pretty quickly because he did so pretty quickly when Leia and the others told him. If Finn was able to get that close to the cannon, why couldn't Poe? Blowing up said cannon would have hindered the First Order for enough time for them to escape. Plus Poe realizing that Luke had come as a distraction for them to escape felt like a better ending to his arc than backing away from the cannon. Still my least favorite of the Sequel Trilogy, but like it more than I originally did.

Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker: Has some genuinely strong and effectively emotional moments, fun action, new planets and creatures that appealed to the space opera fan and kid in me. Despite some of the plot twists and revelations being a little underwhelming, confusing, or stupid, I ultimately was able to buy most of them and just have fun. One twist was explored quite well though and left me pretty emotionally satisfied by the end of the film. I will admit though, a lot of character arcs were left dangling/not much was done with them like Finn and Poe's or some characters were introduced mainly just to mislead the audience of where certain character arcs would end up. Did like some of the cameos like Lando's and Wedge's despite not too much being done with them. Also thought Leia's sendoff was nicely done.

I mentioned in my review of Rise of Skywalker that fans of the other two films might be disappointed, but if you view it casually as just a big random space opera adventure like I did, you might have a good time. I say that ultimately because I didn't really go into the film with any kind of expectations, other than to see what would be answered. A horrible thing to say, I know. As an avid filmgoer and wanting to make films of my own, I should go into every movie, expecting and hoping they're of at least decent quality, right? Well, to be frank, the Sequel Trilogy kind of burned me out a bit.

Not so much the films themselves, although the evidence/effects are apparent in their viewings, but because of the factors outside the films: Lucasfilm and the "fandom". One thing I didn't mention in the ROS review is how Abrams seems to take pains in ignoring/rewriting some elements that The Last Jedi created or changed/disregarded from Abrams' own The Force Awakens, even though he was a producer of TLJ and he said he liked what Rian Johnson did. It's well known that The Last Jedi left audiences very divided about its quality, even to a toxic level: bashing others who disagreed with them,  having the attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong, my way or the highway!" and "people who like/dislike this aren't "true fans!", and worst of all, attacking and sending death threats to the director and the poor actors on social media.

My immediate answer to that, of course, is there are no such things as "true fans". They're movies, plain and simple. They're not going to appeal to everybody and people are allowed to have different opinions about something. That's part of the fun of it too: spending hours hearing those opinions and how others view certain things and just discussing those films and topics. Not only might you have your own opinion changed as a result, but they could lead to really fun debates (as an example, I highly recommend watching Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper's review of Attack of the Clones. Their debate over Yoda gets absolutely hilarious!).

Being toxic and forcing one's opinion onto someone else, however, will only serve to sap this fun out of the conversations, and most people don't really want that.

Unfortunately, this toxic division has been the most vocal and attention-grabbing to Lucasfilm and despite their initial brushing off of it, they seem to have listened and gone along with it to please that group, hinting at it both while promoting the film and in the film itself.

Not to get on a soapbox or anything, but while I totally get that filmmaking is a business (you need money to keep making more projects after all) and Lucasfilm is part of a corporation, filmmaking is also an art form that allows artists to not only shine a light on what's going on in the world but also to express themselves as individuals and to make films that they personally would like to see, sometimes inspired by media that they grew up with.

While the Sequel Trilogy is made by people who grew up with the other Star Wars movies, this time around it, unfortunately, felt like they were just following company orders with the same mindset that Lucas himself derided the studios for in the 60s: "Our market research says this, so you make that" (and I absolutely hate saying that because I like a lot of the people that are involved, especially Daisy Ridley and John Boyega who make an excellent Rey and Finn!).

On the other hand, maybe after this whole experience, Lucasfilm has learned from its mistakes and having stepped back to take a couple years break, will eventually put what they learned into practice if they haven't already (Saw all of The Mandalorian. It is quite awesome and I'll try to review it if I have time). We'll have to wait and see.

For the time being though, whenever the Star Wars films are mentioned in conversation, the only ones I'll be thinking of (my head-canon if you will) is the Original Trilogy from 1977 to 1983, not just because those were the ones that I grew up with and their being some of the core films that inspired me to become a filmmaker, but also because of what they started out as: a film fan reminiscing about the media he digested as a kid and wanting to bring it back because "they don't make 'em like they used to". In George Lucas's case, it was the action/adventure and science-fiction serials of his youth, the Golden Age of the Western, samurai films by Akira Kurosawa, swashbucklers like Captain Blood and The Adventures of Robin Hood, old daring World War 2 films, and the classic storytelling of myths, legends, and fairy tales like King Arthur, Beowulf, and The Brothers Grimm, among others. As a result, Lucas was able to create something new and unique that was inspired by old and classically familiar sources combined together and had the help of a skillfully talented cast and crew to get his vision to where it needed to be. This is the kind of film that I hope to make, and the kind of film that a lot of others have made as well (even better, it's inspired me to check out some of those inspirations as well like the Flash Gordon serials, The Hidden Fortress, and hopefully some of the World War 2 films like The Dam Busters).

While Lucas did eventually become the head of a corporation, Star Wars became a franchise, and mistakes were made with both, he still seems to have never lost that creative spirit: staying true to his vision, maintaining a consistency in his work, making the kinds of films that he would like to see, and mentoring other filmmakers.

Star Wars still remains one of my favorite movies to this day, not just for the adventurous thrills, action-packed cliffhangers, sci-fi escapism, and mythical characters, but because of its story that anyone can relate to: finding one's potential, escaping our limitations, and doing good in the outside world. Embarking on our own heroic journeys.

Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker

I have seen Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker and in addition to covering the film, I'll give my thoughts on the Sequel Trilogy as a whole in a separate post, so things don't get too long. (I recommend reading both just so you're able to get a full sense of where I'm coming from.)

First, Episode 9: In the following weeks since its release, I'd been hearing a wide variety of opinions about the film: some liked it, some hated it, and some were indifferent. so I knew it was going to be an interesting experience either way.

What did I think?: I actually...kind of liked it and had fun, leaving the theater with a big dumb grin on my face. HOWEVER, I do acknowledge that there are also a lot of problems with it.

Does the Emperor feel needlessly wedged in? Yep.

Are cameos from the Original Trilogy here just for the sake of nostalgia and catering to fans? Yep.

Are characters and plot elements introduced just to muddy the waters of how things turn out in the end and in some cases, just left hanging? Pretty much.

Was it inconsistent in certain cases with the other films? Definitely yes.

 J.J. Abrams is usually known for his "mystery box" method of storytelling, sometimes not even giving answers to things he's set up, so I went into the screening curious to see what he was going answer, if anything,  how he was going to answer them, and if they were going to be any good. Indeed, when two twists were revealed back to back, I instantly feared the movie was going off the rails. But, as I thought about it, I realized that they made sense and did tie in pretty well to the previous two films, with certain hints being given. One of which even added more depth and tension to a main character's arc, which I found satisfying (I will admit though that I found the execution of that other twist still pretty stupid). On that level, I was able to accept most of the twists and revelations in the story and just go along with it, but I can see how others may not care for it.

Some other positives: The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous and it is awesome to see a number of new species and planets introduced, especially with puppets. A lot of the action scenes are pretty fun, it was nice to see some of the cameos from the Original Trilogy like Lando and Wedge, it was neat to see Luke as a wise and more upbeat master, and in particular, Carrie Fisher's Leia Organa received a touching and emotionally satisfying send-off.

Overall, The Rise of Skywalker has a number of solid positives that should be seen, but it also has a number of problems as well. Ultimately, I'd consider it a middle of the road Star Wars film.

Will I ever watch The Rise of Skywalker again? Maybe, if it's on TV again or a friend wants to watch it. Will my opinion change if I watch it again? Most likely.

As a big Star Wars fan, why am I giving this a pass and yet was so conflicted about The Last Jedi, you may ask? I'll get into more detail about it in the Sequel Trilogy post, but will hint that it involves the words "fandom" and "corporation". Also, another thing J.J. Abrams is known for is making simple escapist entertainment and, as I was having a bit of a bad day mixed with the issues hinted at above, viewing it just as a random big action-packed space opera adventure and not as a Star Wars film was just what I need to feel better, so I may be a bit bias in that regard. (If that reasoning is a bit confusing, don't worry, it'll make sense in the next post).

A lot of people maybe/probably are heavily disappointed by the film, but if you watch it with a more casual mindset, its a pretty fun time.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Knives Out

Growing up, I've always been a big mystery fan: Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, Murder, She Wrote, The Maltese Falcon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Clue, The Purloined Letter, Encyclopedia Brown, The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, etc. so it's a real treat to see an old fashioned style Whodunit (with a new modern twist)  like Knives Out in theaters again after so long.

Synopsis: When famed mystery and crime writer Harlan Thrombey is found dead with his throat slit, it's assumed his death is a suicide and nothing more, but when private investigator Benoit Blanc is anonymously hired to investigate, he soon suspects foul play and must navigate a complicated web involving Thrombey's slimy and self-absorbed family members to figure out what is going on.

Getting straight to the point (no pun intended), Knives Out is very well done. The cinematography is wonderfully atmospheric, reminding me of the classic Whodunits from the 70s and 80s. The performances and dialogue are all top-notch, especially Daniel Craig as the eccentric and expressive Blanc (using his Southern accent to excellent effect, both here and in the underrated Logan Lucky), Chris Evans with relished sliminess as the smug playboy Ransom, and in particular the lovely Ana De Armas (who was wonderful as the hologram A.I. Joi in Blade Runner 2049) as Harlan's nurse, Marta, with the solid and reliable Jamie Lee Curtis, Toni Collete, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Christopher Plummer, and others to back them up.

Rian Johnson definitely knows his way around mysteries, crafting a complex story that lovingly pays tribute to the films and books that inspired him, while also subverting certain tropes of the genre to give his own unique take to it. He doesn't get lost in the complexity either, as everything is meticulously thought out and executed in such a detailed way, everything made logical sense and I was personally able to buy it (Makes me want to check out Johnson's first film, Brick, a homage to film noirs even more now).

That being said, I did have two issues that prevented me from fully embracing it: the political commentary and the murderer's motives.

With the former, I have to note that I am not against political commentary being in films in general. A lot of, if not most of my favorite films have some sort of political commentary in them (The Lion King, Casablanca, Star Wars, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz), but just at a certain level necessary for the story's needs. Indeed, for the most part, Knives Out handles its political commentary quite well nicely blending it with the mystery plot by focusing on a certain character, their background/backstory, and their relationship with the other characters, effectively building tension and expressing the themes Johnson is going for.

However, Johnson also goes a bit overboard in places as well, expressing the commentary directly on the nose through dialogue in a scene that not only slowed things to a crawl until the mystery elements came back, but also, I think, immediately dates the movie a little bit. There is also a "topical" family character who serves little to no purpose other than to be a one-note joke and didn't really need to be there. As a result of those factors, it felt like Johnson was beating the commentary over the audience's heads, which took me out of the film a few times. Luckily he only does this once or twice, wisely choosing to focus on the characters and mystery investigation the majority of the time.

With the latter issue of the murderer's motives, because their plan was so detailed and well thought out, I was a bit underwhelmed when it was revealed why they did it as it felt too similar to the other suspects' motives (although this issue may be due to personal preference and having experienced a lot of mysteries where the killer's motives were different or unique to other suspects' motives). If the killer had had another motive like they were hiding something terrible that Harlan found out about and killed him before he revealed it, on top of the shared motive, then I would have been a bit more satisfied.

Overall though, the rest of Knives Out is so strong and effective that it outweighs those issues and I definitely recommend it if you haven't seen it yet (curious to see what I think after a second viewing). I also look forward to seeing Craig solving another mystery as Blanc (which Johnson has hinted he has an idea for).

First viewing rating: 3.5 stars out of 4.