Revisited SORCERER and again just eviscerated by it. Freidkin turns the jungle into a malignant presence, causality and fate manifest as pure elemental terror. Some of the wildest, most incomprehensibly captured footage in the history of movies. For me, Freidkin's greatest film.
SORCERER is as much a horror movie as THE EXORCIST. Friedkin's hyper-vivid, totally tactile sense of cinematic style makes his nightmares feel real, every location oozing expressionist threat, danger and malice. Sections of it are among the most physically intense I've ever seen.
I don't have time to do a full-bore thread on SORCERER, but this wonderful essay by my man @aHeartOfGould is as definitive as it gets
and in the interest of trying to share more great film criticism as the profession is slowly eroded, this essay by the always insightful @johnneyred is also excellent:
Something weird is happening with box office tracking. Others have pointed it out, but ~all~ live-action superhero movies are underperforming tracking, while most non-superhero movies are making more. Something is broken. I made a list of most major releases so far this year:
Tracking always has a certain margin of error. It's rarely perfect. But two things strike me as especially unusual: the discrepancy of what movies over or under perform (IE, live-action superhero movies), and when movies fall outside that standard deviation, it's WAY off.
Part of it is surely that tracking is getting less reliable data. I'm guessing that's partly how telemarketing surged during the pandemic, and phone carriers now constantly flag spam (it's called STIR/SHAKEN), but that doesn't explain the full picture of what's happening.
With THE FLASH, ELEMENTAL and TRANSFORMERS underperforming, the hardest lesson for studios is if an audience isn't given a strong reason to see something, they simply will not go. "Let's just go to the movies" does not exist. We need movies that demand the big screen experience.
There's a reason ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE is crushing it: it's a true audio-visual spectacle that rewards the biggest screens. Movies need to justify the big screen experience more than ever, and I hope Hollywood takes the right lessons to approve visually bold programming.
This summer is proving studios can't throw money at franchised projects and bank on a return: many of the biggest hits cost a below-average 100 million (MARIO, SPIDER-VERSE, JOHN WICK, the upcoming BARBIE & OPPENHEIMER). It's not about cost, it's about appeal, artistry, or both.
This is obvious to say, but the color and stylization of design, movement and creativity that's only possible in animation nearly never translates to live action, and in the process mostly reaffirms the beauty and possibility of animation as a medium. I wish they'd just stop.
It speaks to how incredible the animation was in ATLA that Joaquim Dos Santos––who directed half the finale, and a bunch otherwise––just co-directed ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE. This show's look and rhythm is so animation-specific, live-action will always struggle to do it justice.
I genuinely believe adapting animation to live-action is harder than adapting literature: it's a transposition between totally different visual mediums. That requires a ground-up reimagining of how things should look, move and feel like, and its a near impossible balance.
There's some truth to this, but we’re also living in an age of the most softball, amenable criticism maybe in the history of writing about movies. If you think there’s a “binary” or “no nuance,” please seek out more criticism. Review scores keep on trending up, not down.
I keep seeing talk critics "like superhero movies less" or critics have more and more of a love / hate relationship with movies––there's no data to support this. Even THE FLASH has a mixed-positive 67%. That is the definition of a "tepid" response.
I love what INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY wants to be: a rousing, elegiac reflection of an aging pulp hero, and a surprising caution to nostalgia. But man, Mangold's direction is the dullest, ugliest, least kinetic in series history. It's just a huge missed opportunity.
The saving grace of THE DIAL OF DESTINY is how committed Ford is to playing Indiana Jones one last time; he brings a lithe physicality to Indy that grounds the movie in something real and even affecting as it juggles ill-conceived action scenes and plot noise. I loved him in this
I'm a James Mangold guy. He brings a thrilling tactility to his movies, and plays with genre in smart ways. This is the worst directed action of his career, with none of the kinetic lucidity of FORD V FERRARI. I was shocked at how awkwardly assembled, murky, and uninvolving it is