Top Gun: Maverick - Review

 

In the age of sequels from decades past, it’s hard to know what’ll be brought back next. Honestly, a “Top Gun” sequel is one of the more sensible sequels Hollywood has made recently. It’s a simple premise; throw in some additional characters and old school cameos and you’ve got a ready-made blockbuster. But that’s not how “Top Gun: Maverick” plays things, because that’s not how you do a sequel when you’ve got Tom Cruise (“Mission Impossible: Fallout,” “Jerry Maguire”) involved.

Since the events of the original film, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, played by Cruise, has been living out his military test pilot life in relative solitude. But, he’s called back by Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson, played by Jon Hamm (“Mad Men,” “Baby Driver”), and Rear Admiral Solomon “Warlock” Bates, played by Charles Parnell (“The Last Ship,” “The Venture Bros.”), to instruct a group of former Top Gun graduates for an incredibly dangerous mission, while also balancing running into an old flame, Penny, played by Jennifer Connelly (“Labyrinth,” “Requiem for a Dream”).

While it seems like this new adventure will likely tread a lot of familiar ground as the original, it quickly becomes apparent that things are hardly as simple as that. While the film does open with “Danger Zone” and Maverick has clearly not given up his reckless, authority questioning attitude, there’s one thing “Maverick” has that the original film sorely lacked: genuine emotion.

The sense of comradery and friendship between the new pilots is palpable. “Hangman”, played by Glen Powell (“Set It Up,” “Everybody Wants Some!!”), and “Rooster”, played by Miles Teller (“Whiplash,” “War Dogs”) have fantastic chemistry. Their rivalry is taut and Hangman’s shit eating grin staring down at Rooster’s thick mustache is a constant highlight. “Bob”, played by Lewis Pullman (“Catch-22 (2019),” “Bad Times at the El Royale”), and “Phoenix”, played by Monica Barbaro (“UnREAL,” “Chicago Justice”) have a wonderful friendship, and the entire team oozes charism and wonderful chemistry. Even a character that could’ve been one-note and forgettable, Maverick’s friend Chief Warrant Officer “Hondo”, played by Bashir Salahuddin (“GLOW,” “Cyrano (2021)”), is elevated by the sheer amount of charm pouring out of Salahuddin’s performance.

Director Joseph Kosinski (“Oblivion,” “Tron: Legacy”) and writers Ehren Kruger (“Dumbo (2019),” “Ghost in the Shell (2017)”), Eric Warren Singer (“American Hustle,” “Only the Brave”), Christopher McQuarrie (“Mission Impossible: Fallout,” “Edge of Tomorrow”), Peter Craig (“The Town,” “Bad Boys for Life”), and Justine Marks (“The Jungle Book (2016),” “Counterpart”) make one thing very evident from the start: it doesn’t matter how much action is on screen or how good it looks, if there isn’t human emotion behind it all, then the audience isn’t going to care. From Maverick’s reckless opening test flight all the way to the third act spectacle, there’s a big beating heart pumping pure emotion through every moment of “Maverick.”

There’s the obvious connection between Maverick and Rooster, of course; Rooster is the son of Maverick’s deceased wingman and best friend Goose. However, there’s more here than just that. Maverick is an old dog trying to learn new tricks while still being valued for some of the old ones. It’s a double-edged sword of a character: they don’t make pilots like him anymore, so the Navy both needs to keep him around for those skills but also impart new ones on him for the new age.

It's not hard to draw parallels between Maverick’s journey here and Cruise’s journey as an action star. Some have called him the last true movie star and seeing how much he throws himself into the roles, it’s hard to disagree. “Maverick” is a clear showpiece for the kind of action star Cruise is, but also for the kind of dramatic actor we often forget he is as well. Again, the film is packed so tightly with genuine emotion, and Cruise matches all of that with a superb performance. It could be easy to label this a “guy cry” movie along the likes of “Fast 6” or “Marley and Me”, but the film easily deserves far more credit than that distinction suggests.

For all of the bombast and sweaty, glistening young men of the original film, its surprising how respectful of a film “Maverick” ends up being. The way it incorporates Val Kilmer’s (“Heat,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”) return as “Iceman” is an incredibly heavy, emotional moment that also feels like a reverent tribute to Kilmer himself. Even Connely’s role, one that could’ve easily been boiled down to a pretty face for Cruise to smile at and kiss, has a lot of emotion and care behind it, building yet another character who’s easy to care about and get invested in.

Outside of the tear-jerking though, when it comes time to fly, the film positively electrifies. Kosinski is no stranger to big budget action flicks, but its hard to compare “Maverick” to anything else out there. The scale and wizardry on display for the aerial sequences is mind boggling, with cinematographer Claudio Miranda (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Life of Pi”) composing shots that border on works of art. It’s the kind of film that deserves the biggest screen achievable, and in an age of cheap green screen and LED backdrops, it offers a level of realism that’s unmatched and jaw dropping. As has been stated in numerous interviews and behind the scenes material, yes, the actors are flying the planes and hitting those G-forces. And wow does it make a world of difference.

However, there are a few things that “Maverick” stumbles with, but not much. It does fall prey to the “multiple ending” syndrome of most recent action films where, just when it seems like things are wrapping up, it pulls another twenty minutes of film out of thin air. Also, much has been made of the film’s lack of a specific enemy target, and while it’s a smart move from Paramount to avoid irking any particular countries in the international market, it also feels a bit cheap in that regard as well.

“Top Gun: Maverick” easily flies past the original film. It’s simply no contest. But even without the original to compare to, this is a film of fantastic craftsmanship and effort on nearly every level. The emotion matches the action which matches the beauty of the cinematography which matches the skill of the performances. Even for those who dislike the original film, its virtually impossible not to recommend this fantastic flight into the clouds of cinematic nirvana. 4.5/5

The Bob's Burgers Movie - Review

 

If you have a successful television series that’s been on for long enough with a consistent enough viewership, eventually someone will come knocking for a film adaptation of the show. The approach can vary wildly: for every “The Simpsons Movie,” where you get basically an extended episode with larger stakes, there’s a “21 Jump Street,” where you get a massively different take on the source material for that big budget audience.

Which of those is better isn’t the case; both can be great, and its all about which fit the show being brough to the silver screen better. So, it’ll likely surprise no one that “The Bob’s Burgers Movie,” the film adaptation of the Fox animated comedy which just finished it’s twelfth season, is closer to that of “The Simpsons Movie” than something more experimental. However, that’s hardly a bad thing.

The film opens with the Belcher family all struggling with Summertime blues: Bob and Linda, voiced by H. Jon Benjamin (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “Archer”) and John Roberts (“Gravity Falls,” “Fire Island”) respectively, are worried about an extension in their bank loan for the restaurant, Tina, voiced by Dan Mintz (“Indebted,” “The Awesomes”), is worried about her crush on Jimmy Pesto Jr., Gene, voiced by Eugene Mirman (“Delocated,” “Flight of the Conchords”), wants to reform his band, and Louise, voiced by Kristen Schaal (“Gravity Falls,” “The Last Man on Earth”), is struggling with proving her bravery to her classmates.

As is typical for big screen adventures like this, things are quickly blown out of proportion, but nothing ever ventures too far outside of the typical wheelhouse of the show. Things are clearly bigger in scale and budget than before, but its all wrapped up nice and neatly by the time the film ends so that those who don’t watch the film and just roll right into the next season won’t have missed anything.

Which is slightly disappointing, but its to be expected. This does mean that “The Bob’s Burgers Movie” can actually be the perfect entry point for those who’ve never seen the show before. Sure, it does feature a stacked cast of supporting characters from the shows over-ten-year run, but nothing is so complicated that the uninitiated can’t follow along. You don’t need to know the twelve years of history between the Belchers and lovable oaf Teddy, voiced by Larry Murphy (“Delocated,” “Home Movies”), to enjoy his oddball and endearing antics.

The voice cast is stellar, as is to be expected. When you have a group of already talented and experienced voice actors working with characters and dynamics they’ve been at for years, the end result will of course be high quality. What sets the Belchers apart from your typical animated sitcom family is that they actually seem to like spending time together. Watch any modern episode of “The Simpsons” or any episode of “Family Guy” and it can feel like watching a family made up of people who hate each other.

The Belchers are never like that, and it makes for warm fuzzy comfort viewing on the big or small screen. This truly loving family dynamic helps for the film’s emotional moments. While it doesn’t go for the jugular like a Pixar film might, there’s still a few moments that are truly heartwarming. It does feel ever so slightly unbalanced; it doesn’t take long for it to become apparent that one character is going to get the biggest emotional arc of the movie. But at the very least, the true family bond that’s at the center helps give the adventure far more weight than it might otherwise have.

Just like with the plot, the animation work here is clearly higher quality than on TV but nothing that’s a drastic departure either. Movements are fluid and fun, with bright colors and distinctive environments everywhere, the world highlighting the slightly muppet-y character designs of everyone. Where things are clearly upgraded are in the film’s handful of dance sequences, which is the perfect segue to the film’s best aspect.

“Bob’s Burgers” the show has always had a love of musicals and song, with numerous episodes being musicals and even featuring original songs outside of those. So, it only makes sense to have the film be a musical. This is where the animation really gets to shine, with exaggerated movements and dance numbers highlighting the expressiveness of “Burgers” distinct style. The sequence for the song “Lucky Ducks” is easily the highlight of the entire film.

By extension, the songs are also a highlight. Each one wraps the humor and character of those singing into some surprisingly fantastic music to deliver some tunes that dare you not to tap your toes. The aforementioned “Lucky Ducks” is an easy bet for next years Best Original Song Oscar. However, as fantastic as the songs are, they do represent one of the film’s issues: there are too few. At only a little over 100 minutes, the film features just four songs, one of which plays over the credits. That’s only three plot related songs and given that the creators also have another show where they write three to four songs per episode (the fantastic “Central Park”), it just feels like too few. Leave them wanting more, I guess?

“The Bob’s Burgers Movie” is the best-case scenario for any television-to-film adaptation. Series creator/film writer/director Loren Bouchard (“Home Movies,” “Central Park”), director Bernard Derriman (“The Great North,” “Central Park”), and writer Nora Smith (“Bob’s Burgers,” “Central Park”) have crafted a film that encapsulates the best the show has to offer, while also being the perfect entry point for newcomers, and raising the stakes just enough for a big budget film. It would be nice if they’d shaken things up a bit more or tossed in a few more songs, but its hard to be disappointed with a film that, like a tasty meal at a local join you love, gives you exactly what you wanted. 4/5

Emergency (2022) - Review

 

There is no greater rite of passage then that of a college party, and there’s arguably no greater film rite of passage then seeing a movie about trying to go to a college party. The genre is well worn by now, with more serious dramatics peppered throughout the mostly hard-R comedic fare. One that tries to balance both of those themes though is a rare feat indeed, and “Emergency” absolutely stakes it claim as one of the most interesting and ambitious college movies in recent years.

Based on a short film from the director, Carey Williams, and writer, KD Dávila, “Emergency” follows Sean, played by RJ Cyler (“Power Rangers (2017),” “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”) and Kunle, played by Donald Elise Watkins (“Black Box,” “The Underground Railroad”), as they make an attempt to become the first black men at their college to complete a “Legendary Tour” where they visit all seven major frat parties in one night. However, their plans are quickly derailed after they find an unconscious white girl in their living room. Fearing the police won’t believe their innocence if they call them, Sean, Kunle, and their roommate Carlos, played by Sebastian Chacon (“Penny Dreadful: City of Angels,” “Angelfish”), attempt to take the girl to the hospital quickly enough to still complete the tour. Meanwhile, the girl’s sister, Maddy, played by Sabrina Carpenter (“Tall Girl,” “Clouds”) is attempting to find her.

From its very concept, “Emergency” is a tricky tonal tightrope to walk. Its clear that the time Williams and Dávila spent working on it as a short film has helped with the expansion into a full narrative feature. There’s a lot of talking here, with explorations of the main characters’ fears of the police, racial profiling, and discrimination. It doesn’t feel overpowering though, as these themes are surrounded by some delightfully dark humor thanks to the very concept.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its own intensity though. Even as it still peppers in some black humor, there are moments of tension that easily rival the white-knuckle intensity of the latest Hollywood action films. Despite not being an action film, that tension comes from Williams and Dávila crafting a trio of leads that are all exceptionally charismatic and are all really easy to care about.

Cyler continues his streak of playing wisecracking comedic relief characters, but let’s emotion shine through in ways that he hasn’t shown since his debut with “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.” Watkins is near perfection, managing to perfectly portray his double-sided lifestyle and frustrations with his friends even before the stressful events of the night occur. He’s genuinely incredible to watch, with a kind of controlled delivery and talent of the best actors working today. Chacon is also great, and like Cyler, he starts as a character who seems like he’ll be a one note comedic foible and ends up blossoming into a wonderfully lovable member of the trio. Its virtually impossible not to care about these three boys by the end of the film.

What makes it all work is the simple fact that, beyond the concept and the intensity therein, it’s a legitimately really funny movie. Whether the humor is coming from the absurdity of everything, the character’s banter, or an actual joke, its one of the few films that makes a promise of drama and comedy and delivers both with equal enthusiasm. With that drama, it’s no understatement to say that, by the end of the film, you can see it in their eyes. This isn’t an adventure that’s likely to be forgotten by anyone involved anytime soon, and the ending might just not only be the film’s best moment, but also demonstrates how delicately the casual, comedic side of the film and the dramatic side and compliment each other to create something really special.

If there’s anything to knock the film for, it’s the irony that, Williams and Dávila build these parties up so much that by the film’s end, we’ve seen far too little of them. It’s not the point of the film and its fine without them, but it would’ve made for even more fun.

But take that with a grain of salt, because “Emergency” is still a delightfully darkly funny film that balances its main friendship, its drama and tension, and its sense of humor effortlessly. It feels weird to say with a film like this, but it really is a fun time that should become a staple of the genre for years to come. 4/5

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022) - Review

 

Here comes another Disney “classic” rebooted. An old, beloved Mouse House property shoved into a one-hundred-minute feature with explosions and bigger budgets and celebrity voice talent. After seeing works like “The Lion King” and “Beauty and the Beast” brought back, the next to be cranked out of Disney’s pipeline is “Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers. While it might be a typical Disney live-action/animated hybrid reboot on the surface, this is a film that is fighting tooth and nail to be considered anything but a cheap, high resolution cash cow.

Chip, voiced by John Mulaney (“Big Mouth,” “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”), and Dale, voiced by Andy Samburg (“Palm Springs,” “Brooklyn Nine-Nine”), are decades long best friends and also washed-up actors. Like arguably the best non-Disney Disney film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”, “Rescue Rangers” is set in a world where animated characters and humans coexist. This is a twisted world full of properties like “Batman versus E.T.”, where Main Street hides deviousness under its surface, and cartoon characters go missing every other week.

Of course, this means it's up to the titular duo to figure out some way to work together and crack the case. While it’s certainly spiced up with some creative twists, the main “goal” of the antagonist is so delightfully weird that it won’t be spoiled here, the overall plot is a fairly basic noir-adjacent film tale. There are double crosses, clues, secrets, it's all standard fare for the genre, but it's helped thanks to the generally silly and happy go lucky tone of the entire adventure.

That silly tone, as refreshing as it is, is where some people are likely going to be lost. You definitely have to be on The Lonely Island wavelength for this, and it’ll appeal the most to fans of director/band member Akiva Schaffer’s (“Hot Rod,” “PopStar: Never Stop Never Stopping”) previous works. How Disney let the man who directed “Dick in a Box” or “Motherlover” run wild with not only their IP, but that of virtually every other studio in the business is a caper likely more exciting than the one in the film itself. But he clearly takes the job seriously, and the film is shot like a real noir. It might seem like faint praise, but for a film that could have easily looked really cheap and just slapped onto Disney+, there are a lot of fun filmmaking touches here. From just well shot sequences and camera angles, to some heavy film grain and even a handful of shots clearly paying tribute to Michael Bay, it's a film that has clear effort put into it.

While it might not be fair to compare it to “Roger Rabbit” in terms of creativity, they both share one major similarity: their celebrations of animation as a medium. Where “Roger” was a big celebration of traditional animation, “Rescue Rangers” features claymation, hand drawn animation, CGI, puppetry, motion capture, and likely more that go unnoticed on a first viewing. It all looks great, blending together without sacrificing one style in favor of another.

There is one tiny nitpick though: about 99% of the hand drawn characters are actually two-dimensional animation. However, for Chip, the other Rangers, and the antagonist, they’re made using a cel-shaded CGI to make them look two-dimensional despite clearly being 3D. It doesn’t always work, and in some moments they just look weird. But, it's a tiny blemish on an otherwise insanely ambitious animated achievement. It’s just a delightful playground that never takes itself too seriously.

The fact that it doesn’t is a huge boon to the general sense of fun the adventure has. Writers Dan Gregor (“How I Met Your Mother,” “Dolittle”) and Doug Mand (“How I Met Your Mother,” “Dolittle”) don’t feel like they’re taking anyone to task. Rather, it's all good-natured ribbing and fun poking that the whole family can laugh at. While it does have a PG rating and is clearly trying to appeal to those kids raised on works like “The LEGO Movie,” “Rescue Rangers” might actually have its perfect audience in millennials. Not just those who grew up with the original show, but really anyone who’s a bit tired of the trend of Hot Topic “retro” cartoon t-shirts or the parade of “Only 90’s kids remember” memes on Facebook.

Mulaney and Samburg have some great chemistry, and the two are no strangers to voice acting work. There isn’t really a lot of emotional drama to work with here, given the silliness of the tone, but the pair play off each other excellently. They slot right into the kind of archetypes that the original characters filled, and they make for just a fun, lovable pair. The supporting cast is rounded out with some really great performances from the likes of Will Arnett (“Bojack Horseman,” “Arrested Development”), Kiki Layne (“If Beale Street Could Talk,” “The Old Guard”), J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash,” “Juno”), Seth Rogen (“Knocked Up,” “Sausage Party”), Eric Bana (“The Finest Hours,” “Star Trek (2009)”), and Keegan-Michael Key (“Keanu,” “Schimgadoon!”). These smaller roles are, like the background gags, arguably more fun than the main focus, mostly because it becomes a fun game of seeing who signed on to voice a character clearly making fun of themselves.

That’s honestly the best way to approach this new “Rescue Rangers.” It is not even remotely a reboot of the original material, instead playing as a surprisingly clever Hollywood satire that pokes fun at everything 90’s kids have grown to love and despise about modern Tinseltown in equal measure. It’s voiced really well and the various animation and character stylings all blend fantastically. The story might be a bit typical for anyone who’s seen a handful of buddy cop or noir movies, but the sense of silliness and the reverence for animation as a medium helps to salvage that. “Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers” is easily the weirdest blockbuster since something like “The LEGO Batman Movie” and as the credits roll: “How did Disney let them do this?” 4/5

On the Count of Three - Review

 

This review discusses subject matter related to mental health and suicide. If you or a loved one is in crisis, please reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or the Crisis Text Line (Text TALK to 741741) to talk to someone who can help.

The world can be an absolutely brutal place sometimes, and the directorial debut from Jerrod Carmichael (“The Carmichael Show,” “Rothaniel”) doesn’t argue against that. A brutal worldview can lead to some extremely dark comedy, and “On the Count of Three (2022)” is one of the bleakest, darkest comedies in recent memory. But it has that big, juicy, beating heart at the center of it all that makes it all work so, so well.

Directed by Carmichael and written by Ari Katcher (“Ramy,” “The Carmichael Show”) and Ryan Welch (“Ramy”), the film follows Christopher Abbott (“Black Bear,” “Catch-22 (2019)”) as Val and Carmichael as Kevin, with Kevin breaking Val out of a psychiatric facility days after a suicide attempt so that the pair can have one last day together before committing suicide together. It’s a dark story that never pulls any punches or cutely dances around its central themes. It works so well because of the incredibly believable love and friendship between Kevin and Val. Their lifelong friendship is so palpable and heartrending because of that genuine feeling of comfort and love between them.

The support cast is also great, but none have a huge amount of screen time to work with. Tiffany Haddish (“Girls Trip,” “Tuca and Bertie”) plays Kevin’s girlfriend and makes the most of her one major scene, Henry Winkler (“Barry,” “Scream (1996)”) and J.B. Smoove (“Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “Real Husbands of Hollywood”) are both incredibly funny and also terrifying in equal, distinct measures, and Lavell Crawford (“Breaking Bad,” “The Ridiculous 6”) is fantastic for his brief, funny moments.

It’s impossible to discuss this film without talking about suicide, and such a heavy and potentially morbid subject is handled with the deftest of grace here. Carmichael doesn’t shy away from the material, self censoring or whispering taboo words. Instead, he presents it openly through these two beaten down men. It’s at times sickeningly funny to watch.

However, this simply won’t be to everyone’s tastes. It doesn’t transcend the uncomfortable feelings some might have while watching it, but those that do are given an emotionally honest, heartbreaking and funny portrait of friendship and the tragedies of life. Nothing here shys away from some extremely funny, patently absurdist moments. It’s a special bold kind of film that practically dares you to laugh at jokes and situations seemingly too horrific to joke about, simply because of the perspective of who’s doing the joking.

It’s the kind of stuff practically no indie studio would touch, much less the major ones. But it’s nevertheless incredibly engaging because of the very specific perspective and humor on display. It’s not every day you see a film that features an extended gag about hanging oneself within the first ten minutes. It can be extremely messy as well, there's material here that other films would spend their entire runtimes on that serves as merely a subplot. However, it's messy in an honest, human sort of way that adds to the vibes of the entire experience.

Thanks to the low budget and lack of any traditionally flashy film elements, this is the kind of film that feels less like a cinematic experience and more like just watching two friends. It feels like you're right alongside them, experiencing it all as it happens. There’s just a vibe to the atmosphere of it all, like a friend is recounting their day to you, adding in a ton of weird little details and asides. It’s like you’re viewing the film through a camcorder without actually doing so.

Genuinely, “On The Count of Three (2022)” feels like the weird, low budget kind of cinema we haven’t gotten in a while. It’s easy to see it compared to the likes of “Clerks” based purely on how shoestring it all feels, like everyone just decided to wake up one day and make a movie. Carmichael delivers a fantastic directorial debut as well as a top tier performance, easily matched by Abbott’s bizarre, heartbreaking work. It’s not for everyone, but it's clearly an honest film through and through, made from a place of love. 4/5

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Review

 

Another day, another MCU big budget blockbuster to come along and make people go to the movies again. But something about this one feels different. There’s something, dare I say, spooky in the air. That’s right, it's the return of legendary horror and Marvel director Sam Raimi (“The Evil Dead,” “Spider-Man 2”) and it seems that the second solo outing for Marvel’s master of the mystic arts might just let Raimi combine his past works into one super heroic horror feature.

To give the smallest of details so as not to spoil anything, “Multiverse of Madness” has Doctor Strange, played once again by Benedict Cumberbatch (“The Imitation Game,” “The Power of the Dog”), encountering and trying to protect a young girl with mysterious abilities named America Chavez, played by relative newcomer Xochitl Gomez (“The Baby-Sitters Club”), as threats from across the multiverse try to come after her. Throw in the Scarlet Witch herself Wanda Maximoff, played by Elizabeth Olsen (“I Saw the Light,” “Sorry for Your Loss”), and the good Doctor’s best friend Wong, played by Benedict Wong (“Marco Polo,” “The Personal History of David Copperfield”), and you’ve got a game cast for the closest thing Marvel’s made to a horror movie in decades.

Here’s the first thing that needs reconciling: there are two types of multiverses throughout “Madness.” There are the glossy, “What if”-styled sections that are clearly the dream of Marvel Studios executives and then there are the Sam Raimi sections. Raimi and writer Michael Waldron (“Loki,” “Heels”) work hard to make sure these two aren’t at odds with one another, and it’s not as if it's two different films trying to co-exist at once. It’s just two different takes on the material happening throughout. It wouldn’t be surprising to learn that all of Raimi’s wishes for this film had to be met in some way by wishes from the executives, and while that’s clearly the case, Raimi is also a skilled enough director to make it work as best as it can, blending it all into a somewhat cohesive story and even delivering those exec mandated moments in an almost monkey’s paw kind of way.

Those expecting a typical MCU adventure, with big laughs and cameos won’t necessarily be disappointed, but there’s a distinctly darker touch to the entire film courtesy of Raimi. Shots and scenes echo his work on films like “The Evil Dead” and “Army of Darkness” and the embracing nature of it all is a clear hallmark from his time with “Spider-Man.” Raimi knows that it all only works when it's done sincerely, and he does his damnedest to make sure that the film is, at the very least, sincere.

It’s a movie about fears and happiness, in many different ways. Not only is that outright stated as such throughout, but it's clear from the visual storytelling as well. Raimi’s best films aren’t just his most horrifying ones; they’re the ones that are clearly aware of what can and can’t scare its characters and how to manifest that. It’s no small stretch to say that this is the closest Marvel has gotten to a horror movie in all of the MCU, and even if it doesn’t completely go there, its not hard to see some kiddie fans who were terrified of Thanos a few years back crying into their parent’s shoulders at numerous moments.

That’s not to say it isn’t fun, quite the contrary. When the executives lean back and Raimi is allowed to be him, and it's clear when he is, things get big, weird, and horrific in a remarkably goofy way. The same first person camera techniques and use of prosthetic horror makeup that made Raimi an icon decades ago is back here in big budget big swings and it's a delight to see a director so clearly in charge of his vision let free to play. One particular fight sequence doesn’t have any real “logic” behind it, instead going for something that looks insanely cool more than it makes 100% sense. Call it less of "a film by Sam Raimi" and instead "a funhouse by Sam Raimi."

Cumberbatch is turning in some strong work here, once again taking on a parental role to a young outcast hero, and he fits the bill well. This is a softer Strange, but not a weak Strange, and even as the action and multiple verses collide, Cumberbatch still keeps the emotional core centered and his arc in focus. Gomez is a delight; it's always a tall order when a popular comics hero is brought into live action for the first time, but she absolutely nails the character, fitting snugly into the world of the MCU and its cosmic shenanigans.

Olsen has the most emotional material to work with here, and while Scarlet Witch’s portrayal may prove controversial, no one can argue that she isn’t turning in some phenomenal work. It’s one of the strongest performances the MCU has seen in quite a long time and continues her excellent work from “WandaVision” onward. Wong, just as before, is fantastic when the movie remembers to use him and he’s a highlight whenever he gets to strut his stuff and show why he deserves to be the Sorcerer Supreme.

Visually, Raimi’s fingerprints are all over this picture, and he and cinematographer John Mathieson (“Gladiator,” “The Phantom of the Opera (2004)”) work well together. Every camera swing, dutch angle, weird cut, and staggered shot screams Raimi’s fantastical stylings, making it very obvious why Marvel plastered his name across every poster and TV spot they possibly could. It even makes the best use of CGI in a Marvel film in a while. While there are some clear spots of weak green screen, there’s also a large number of practical sets and locations that lend this universe hopping adventure the right kind of tactile feeling it needs to really work. Danny Elfman (“Men In Black,” “The Nightmare Before Christmas”) even strides in to deliver the MCU’s most interesting score to date, capitalizing on some of his weirdest and strongest musical techniques to really deliver the most Danny Elfman-Danny Elfman score in quite a while.

“Multiverse of Madness” is not going to work for everyone. It’s the kind of film where, as opposed to catching up on other Marvel adventures, it almost requires more knowledge of Raimi’s career to really know what you’re getting into. It’s a delightful adventure that’s also terrifying and wonderfully weird, sacrificing some cohesion for just radical coolness. It’s a Raimi film through and through. When you give Raimi a creepy book, some corpses, and an evil doppelganger of the main character, things are gonna get real weird, real fast, for better or worse, and absolutely mostly for the better. 3.5/5