The Garfield Movie - Review: A Big Fat Hairy Deal

 

Somehow, the rotund orange tabby cat with a love of lasagna and a hatred of Mondays by the name of Garfield has managed to keep a stranglehold on the Sunday comics market for the better part of the last 45 years. After metric tons of merchandise, television specials, and two live-action films, the character finally has his first feature-length animated film released in theatres, the creatively titled “The Garfield Movie.” 

The film stars Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Parks and Recreation”) as Garfield, the titular lazy fat cat, who gets cat-napped alongside his dimwitted dog pal Odie, voiced by Harvey Guillén (“What We Do In The Shadows (2019),” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”). They’re dragged out of the house by the villainous cat Jinx, voiced by Hannah Waddingham (“Ted Lasso,” “Sex Education”), who seeks revenge against Garfield’s father Vic, voiced by Samuel L. Jackson (“Pulp Fiction,” “Django Unchained”). She forces the trio on a heist, which quickly goes awry, leading Garfield and his father to butt heads and cause chaos, all while Garfield’s owner Jon, voiced by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Menu”), awaits their return. 

It’s quite an adventurous tale for such a lethargic cat, and the script, written by Paul A. Kaplan (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), Mark Torgove (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), and David Reynolds (“The Emperor’s New Groove,” “Finding Nemo”), goes to great lengths to get the tabby out of the house. Unfortunately, the adventure itself ends up as a mostly bland tale that recycles much of the same plotting and character beats seen in numerous other animated family films. The film’s sense of humor and the gags throughout are still amusing and maintain the wry, broad sense of silliness that the comic strip is known for, but the overall plot feels stitched together from other, better, family films. 

The vocal performances are a complete mixed bag. While none are really doing any difficult work, mostly residing in the realm of “celebrities doing their own voices”, some fit the characters far worse than others. The big stickler is Pratt, and his performance is fine enough but at no point ever gives the impression that it’s Garfield you’re listening to. Meanwhile Jackson is fine enough, with Hoult stealing the show in his minor appearances. Waddingham is also just fine, and Guillén does a lot of very amusing yipping and barking as Garfield’s technically mute canine companion. 

Visually, it's a somewhat bland film. It looks technically nice, with lots of painted looking backgrounds and warm autumnal colors to showcase a generalized picture of midwestern US landscapes. But it's a very serviceable look, with nothing standing out stylistically or visually. The film’s visual identity, or lack thereof, actually ends up speaking to the larger issues with the movie as a whole. 

Despite having an experienced director at the helm in Mark Dindal (“The Little Mermaid,” “Aladdin”), the film lacks anything memorable about it, existing more as an animated babysitter for the kids and a contractual obligation. You simply need more than a recognizable face or an experienced director to make something memorable, as those elements can get butts in seats, but do not guarantee a good or enjoyable product. Luckily, the film itself does manage to be amusing and silly enough to be a fun waste of 90 minutes, but it lacks any legitimate reason to exist. It’s made even worse given the numerous amounts of product placement in the film, which eventually borders on inane. Family films like this will always have some kind of tie-in or product placement, but there the small moments of real brands and restaurants being shown and then some that feel like short ads meant to be airing on TV that accidentally got spliced into the final film.

“The Garfield Movie” continues the orange tabby’s tradition of starring in serviceable but lackluster family films, and it's at least better than the previous live action works. It’s pretty to look at but bland overall, in both story and overall visual style. Its voice cast is mostly good, and the sense of humor is fun, but it’s hard to imagine anyone remembering anything about this film a year from now, beyond the bizarre casting of its title role. 2.5/5

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review: A Fantastic and Furious Femme Fatale Fable

 

After thirty years since the release of “Beyond Thunderdome,” George Miller (“Three Thousand Years of Longing,” “Babe”), the original creator of the “Mad Max” franchise returned with the acclaimed and lauded “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which not only introduced a new Max and new style to the series, but also a new lead in Imperator Furiosa, a badass war-rig driver with a buzz cut and a metal arm played by Charlize Theron. Miller now returns to the character to tell the story of her life up to the events of “Fury Road” with a film simply titled “Furiosa.”

Played now by Anya Taylor-Joy (“The Menu,” “The Queen’s Gambit”) in her teen years and beyond and by Alyla Browne (“Three Thousand Years of Longing”) as a young child, the film is a sprawling, borderline Shakespearean tale of Furiosa’s life after she was taken from her paradisal home known as The Green Place by Dr. Dementus, played by Chris Hemsworth (“Thor,” “The Cabin in the Woods”), and his biker gang. She seeks revenge on him for stealing her away and killing her mother, while rising through the ranks of the War Boys and warriors of Immortan Joe, played by Lachy Hulme (“The Matrix Reloaded,” “Offspring”), working alongside his own Praetorian Jack, played by Tom Burke (“Mank,” “Strike”).

More than ever before, thanks to the length of the film’s scope and its runtime, Miller dives headfirst into the wasteland with more detail and lore than ever before. With his co-writer Nico Lathouris (“Mad Max: Fury Road”), the pair further expand the wasteland to show locations only heard about before and also new aspects of their culture. The film’s unreliable narrator is someone referred to as a History Man, played by George Shevtsov (“Three Thousand Years of Longing,” “Stormworld”), a man literally tattooed with numerous words, turns of phrase, and definitions, literally called upon at some points to define complicated words or give synonyms for what Dementus is saying.

As Miller continues to mine the depths of his world, so does he connect himself with actors ready to throw themselves to the floor for these characters. Taylor-Joy is a genuine revelation, giving what is borderline the best performance of her career. So much of the film is based on her body language, movements, and intense gaze. Even when going long stretches without speaking, she commands the attention of the camera and world itself to tell this story.

Hemsworth, meanwhile, goes for broke to an almost comedic degree. His Dementus is a fascinating villain, maintaining a level of charisma and apathy that makes it a wonder to watch his downfall. As he continues to spiral downwards, it becomes a marvelous display of hubris as Dementus falls from grace despite his continued best efforts. The supporting cast is also packed full of great performances straddling the line between insanity and seriousness. Angus Sampson (“Heartbreak High (2022),” “Insidious”) as Dementus’s Organic Mechanic, John Howard (“The Girl from Tomorrow,” “All Saints”) as Joe’s advisor known as The People Eater, and Charlee Fraser (“Anyone But You”) in an impactfully small chunk of time as Furiosa’s mother, Mary.

The fact that Miller takes these smaller roles so seriously despite their insane names, physicalities, and demeanors is a testament to his approach with this film and what makes it so different from “Fury Road” before it. Whereas “Fury Road” was a shot of adrenaline that never lets up, with harsh searing colors and camerawork, “Furiosa” spends a shocking amount of time going slower, with a focus on building up the titular heroine’s characterizations. The previous Shakespearean comparison is no accident; it's an extremely apt comparison rather. As the

History Man narrates, we realize we’re being told a story, and given that no one ever really thinks they’re insane in their own story, we get a tale of a wasteland that’s still crazy, but in a more reserved way. Imagine having someone explain one of the most bizarre experiences they’ve ever had to you in the calmest manner possible, and you’ve got a good idea of the level “Furiosa” is operating on.

Even if it isn’t flying by at two-hundred-mph or shot with the bright yellow haze that sears your eyeballs, what’s here is still a massive technical and visual achievement. From numerous sequences involving complicated stunt works or massive vehicular destruction to the way various locations are dressed and designed, Miller’s wasteland continues to be a feast for the senses, shot with glee by cinematographer Simon Duggan (“Warcraft,” “The Great Gatsby (2013)”), and even if there are fewer of them, the action sequences that do exist are still thrilling to behold, thumping along to a chunky electric score from Tom Holkenborg (“Deadpool,” “Mad Max: Fury Road”).

Slightly disappointing though, for all the fantastic stunt work and practical production designs, there are a few glaring moments of visual weirdness that seem out of place given the budget and level of care given to the rest of the film. For example, while there’s some really impressive work with meshing Taylor-Joy and Browne’s faces for young Furiosa and creating the Bullet Farm leader’s face entirely out of CGI, there are also moments of glaring obviousness. Shots of the War Boys standing atop a Rig with clearly green screened backgrounds behind them, as well as various CGI vehicles and crashes that look less than convincing. It wouldn’t be such a discredit if not for the impressive practical work on every front, leading to a jarring clash when these less than stellar elements do appear.

The end result of the film’s various disparate elements is something quite bizarre and unique. It’s a serious film filled with insanity, that never fails to take everything to heart. It’s a work located mostly in deserts and dilapidated locals, but that often looks beautiful in its technical and production design aspects, and it’s lead by two career best performances from two actors who’ve already given plenty of fantastic performances in the past. It lacks that immediate, genre defining momentum that “Fury Road” delivered, not surprising given that film’s lighting in a bottle nature. It’s a fascinatingly different take on a world Miller has had the reins on for his entire career, and it’s worth a watch for that aspect alone. 4.5/5

IF (2024) - Review: A Messy, Uneven, Big Hearted Family Flick

 

It takes a lot for a studio to bankroll an original family film with zero ties to any kind of book, game, television series, or other merchandisable immediacy, especially for a budget of $110 million. But when you have the goodwill of the public and have made said studio over $600 million with two films who’s combined budget was a little under $80 million, you can snag yourself a blank check feature, much like John Krasinski (“A Quiet Place,” “The Office”) has with his latest film, “IF.”

Starting a few years after the loss of her mother, the film follows twelve-year-old Bea, played by Cailey Fleming (“The Walking Dead”), back in New York staying with her grandmother Margaret, played by Fiona Shaw (“Enola Holmes,” “Killing Eve”), whilst her father, played by Krasinski, is in the hospital. While there, she finds her upstairs neighbor Cal, played by Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool,” “Free Guy”), with an apartment full of imaginary friends, known as IFs, such as Blossom, voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (“Fleabag,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”), and Blue, voiced by Steve Carell (“The Office,” “Despicable Me”). Since she can see them, they enlist in her help to pair them with new kids since their old ones have grown up and forgotten them.

There’s definitely whimsy to behold here, and a lot of that comes down to the titular IFs themselves. Packed to the gills with varying styles and aesthetics, each one makes a visual impact, brought to life with a colorful and charming voice from a celebrity cast that could alone fill an entire theatre. Krasinski does smartly play them down though, letting the voices just be voices and not winks for the parents. Louis Gossett Jr. (“An Officer and a Gentleman,” “Roots”) voices Louis, an elderly teddy bear who runs the IFs retirement home, and his voice lends a lot of warmth to the proceedings, becoming a calming bright spot for the film overall.

Waller-Bridge and Carell do a good job with their IFs, but they mostly plod along with the same kind of candor you’d expect from most celebrity voiced animated characters. The voices do fit the parts, but they never excel in a particular way. Reynolds, meanwhile, plays mostly against type for the first time in a while. Calvin is more subdued and downplayed than pretty much every other character he’s played for the last decade, and it's a welcome strength. Fleming is okay, doing the best with a script that’s mostly asking her to stand around, look wide-eyed at the IFs, and ask questions so the film can explain its premise(s).

The elephant, or IF, in the room for the film is that script and the wild tonal shifts it takes throughout. Shortly after meeting the IFs, Bea is reduced to asking a lot of questions and looking astonished. It stifles her character and gives the movie a stalling pace. It’s as if Krasinski won’t let us continue without really really making sure we understand what’s going on. The film also swings wildly between being full of whimsy and remarkably sad and melancholy. This isn’t a problem since it does commit to these differing tones, but it is an interesting choice, nonetheless.

Visually, there is a lot to like here, and cinematographer Janusz Kamiński’s (“Saving Private Ryan,” “West Side Story (2021)”) work pairs beautifully with a score from Michael Giacchino (“Up,” “Inside Out”). The visual effects and practical sets blend together seamlessly, and the IFs themselves really do look fantastic. Kamiński’s camerawork maintains a level of professionalism and playfulness, making sure we get the best possible views of this adventure without feeling stale or stiff.

“IF” is a very odd and conflicting film. It’s a family movie aimed at kids that might be too mature for them. It’s a movie that wants to make you feel the whimsy but is better at conjuring it when it's not trying to conjure it. It’s also funny and fun, but remarkably sad as well. In some ways, it's a head scratcher; will this be a movie kids pick to watch on a car ride or sleepover over other picks like “Toy Story” or “Despicable Me”? It isn’t that it's too complex for younger audiences or that it isn’t actually a movie for them. It just ends up being a lot for a young mind to handle.

Krasinski clearly has a lot of ambition here, and it works on most levels, especially visually. Yet the script kneecaps its protagonist once its most interesting element comes into play, and it struggles with wanting to spark joy and magic versus when it actually does. Reynolds is a surprisingly subdued highlight, and it’ll definitely make most smile and tear up. But those going in expecting a lighthearted family romp should be warned: this one is gonna get a bit heavy and messy. 3.5/5

I Saw The TV Glow - Review: Trip The Television Light Fantastic

As a follow up to their directorial feature, the viral creepypasta inspired “We’re All Going to the World’s Fair,” writer/director Jane Schoenbrun has delivered a pink neon tinted vision of a nostalgic 90s time, draped in dreary imagery and a dayglo sort of soundtrack to craft a film unlike anything out this year or in many years before. An exploration of identity and repression that can only come from a singular, uncompromised voice, this is “I Saw the TV Glow.” This is a film that should be experienced with as few details as possible.

Set in 1998 and the years that follow, the film follows teenager Owen, played by Justice Smith (“Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves”) and Ian Foreman () as a younger version, as he befriends older teen Maddy, played by Brigette Lundy-Paine (“Atypical,” “Bill and Ted Face the Music”), and the pair bond over their shared obsession with a young adult “monster of the week” mystery show called “The Pink Opaque.” However, as life gets drearier and they get older, the pair begin to question if it was actually a fictional show after all. 

Despite the clear and distinct style and voice, this is the sort of smaller scale drama tale that entirely revolves around the strength of its actors. Luckily, not only do Lundy-Paine and Smith have phenomenal chemistry together, but their individual performances are stellar as well. Smith maintains a delicate balance between meek and pathetic, making us feel for his character without becoming a punching bag and still maintaining credibility as our narrator. Meanwhile Lundy-Paine completely runs away with the film. Maddy herself is not just a constantly engrossing and fascinating character, but Lundy-Paine's layered performance elevates her to an obsessive degree. It’s a haunting display of loneliness and fear, but not without a deep caring for Owen and fearlessness rooted at her center. 

Owen and Maddy’s adventure is draped with a color palette that manages to feature some of the darkest blues, pinks, and whites you’ve ever seen. Each scene feels like a living diorama of the 90s and early 2000s, dipped into a vat of viscous vaporwave vibes. There’s something so painfully and deeply real about their adventure, and yet at times it feels like everyone around them is a mannequin, purposefully set up to adhere to their story. This isn’t a bug though, rather a feature of the overarching narrative. 

Set to a fantastic score from Alex G (“We’re All Going to the World’s Fair”) and an eclectic soundtrack featuring Phoebe Bridgers, Sloppy Jane, and King Woman, “TV Glow” features not just a visual vibe all its own, but also an auditory and editing vibe that matches perfectly. Some moments that initially come across as mistakes or glitches quickly reveal themselves to be further enhancements to the dreamlike aesthetics of this tale, and they’re staged and layered overtop of Eric K. Yue’s (“The Giant (209),” “A Thousand and One”) cinematography to great effect. 

What takes this tale to the next level is its intense levels of subtextual storytelling and layering. As things become more complicated and mysterious for Maddy and Owen, the visual motifs and hints begin to crop up more and more. Are these just coincidences? Subtle hints at a potential reality shift? Red herrings put in for us, the audience, to purposefully read further into? These details feed further into a tale of self-repression and inner self, crafting an exquisite portrait of a pair of protagonists taking two remarkably different approaches to the same emotion. 

This is the sort of film where every single aspect of the filmmaking process is working together to evoke the same emotion and create the same tone. For example, while its visual effects budget is not nearly the same as a blockbuster or similar film, it uses that lower budgeted look to evoke a sinister, unsettling feeling with its effects moments. It all collides together into a singular work that unsettles but still manages to evoke a possible moment of hope, communicated perfectly by a single image of chalk writing on a street, “There is still time.” 

It says a lot that, even amongst other specific and unique works, “I Saw the TV Glow” works on a different level of even those due to the deeply emotional subtext working underneath a perfect micro chasm of 90s vaporwave feelings and visuals, commanded by two exceptional lead performances.  Schoenbrun has crafted a singular vision that will be discussed and dissected and beloved for years and years to come to degrees possibly as obsessive as its two main characters. 5/5

Unfrosted - Review: Seinfeld's Cereal Satire is Stale and Soggy

 

Jerry Seinfeld ruled the world at one time. Whether you know him from his stand-up career, his work on the eponymous sitcom named after himself, or his 2000s millennial cult animated film “Bee Movie,” at some point in your life you’ve likely heard his name. And yet, despite his career, he’s never been more than a cameo in a live-action film before, nor has he directed a film before. Which is why “Unfrosted” is such a big deal: it’s Seinfeld’s directorial debut, a film he’s also starring in, produced, and written alongside Spike Feresten (“Bee Movie,” “Seinfeld”), Andy Robin (“Bee Movie,” “Seinfeld”), and Barry Marder (“Bee Movie,” “Night Stand”). And it absolutely stinks. 

The film follows an absolutely massive comedic ensemble centered around the idea of satirizing the 1960s race between Post and Kellogg’s to create the first “breakfast pastry” product that would eventually become the Pop-Tart. Seinfeld stars as Bob Cabana, one of the Kellogg’s employees who created the treat, alongside Melissa McCarthy (“Gilmore Girls,” “Bridesmaids”) as Donna Stankowski, a NASA scientist and member of the team, Jim Gaffigan (“Troop Zero,” “Peter Pan & Wendy”) as Edsel Kellogg III, the head of Kellogg’s, Amy Schumer (“Trainwreck,” “Life & Beth”) as Marjorie Post, the head of Post, Max Greenfield (“New Girl,” “The Neighborhood”) as Rick Ludwin, her underling and right hand man, and Hugh Grant (“About a Boy," "Paddington 2") as Thurl Ravenscroft, the actor who originated the mascot role of Tony the Tiger. The rest of the ensemble consists of the likes of Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Death at a Funeral”), Christian Slater (“Heathers,” “Mr. Robot”), Bill Burr (“F is for Family,” “The King of Staten Island”), James Marsden (“Jury Duty,” “Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)”), Jack McBrayer (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “30 Rock”), Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911,” “Santa Clarita Diet”), Bobby Moynihan (“Ducktales (2017),” “We Bare Bears”), and Andy Daly (“Review,” “Eastbound and Down”). 

Despite being written by four career comedy writers and starring a cast full of very funny people, “Unfrosted” very quickly saps all of the comedy out of the film, like a dry cereal sucking up all the milk in a bowl. Each joke in the film seems to be either a reference to some food/toy/concept from the 60s. At one point, Walter Cronkite is seen playing with a Wheel-O. That’s the whole joke of that scene; “look, a famous old person is playing with a kid's toy that’s now old.” That’s most of the film’s comedy. It boils down to referencing an old thing and a kid’s thing in one sentence; at one point, Moynihan, who’s literally playing Chef Boyardee says “Uh oh” and then pauses for a few moments before saying “SpaghettiOs.” That’s the level of comedy at play. 

Which makes it even more bizarre when the film leans more into its high concept elements. From a “cereal funeral” complete with pouring cereal and milk into a grave as the coffin absorbs the milk, to Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their “Mad Men” roles in all but name, it rides a truly bizarre line that both feels lazy and overly complicated. There’s a literal “breakfast cereal mascot” recreation of the January 6th raid on the capital, right down to donning Tony the Tiger with giant horns. It’s an incredibly high concept idea executed as plainly as possible. 

Heck, the basic premise envisions this corporate rivalry and race to create the treat as if it's the space race, with high tech equipment and scientists working on a kid’s breakfast pastry. It’s clearly trying to be a more satirical take on the “corporate” biopic we’ve recently seen with the likes of “Air,” “Tetris,” and “Blackberry”, but it fetishizes the products instead of poking any fun at them. And yes, the revelry Seinfeld has on display for the likes of Frosted Flakes and Corn Pops does indeed rise to fetishistic levels. Seeing Seinfeld walk with Superman in a commercial or feature his love of certain cartoons on his sitcom can be silly or charming. Seeing him devote a 90-minute film to the creation of, as his character Cabana puts it “happy childhoods for millions of American kids” through the creation of the Pop-Tart can feel borderline weird and creepy. 

Most of the film’s problems really come back to Seinfeld. His determinate vision for this production is clear but is where most of its worst humor lies. Likewise, he’s filled the film with plenty of funny actors who can do a good amount with a lackluster script. But his background in stand-up means that he is the worst performer there. He can’t deliver this kind of material in a reliable way, leading to some weird line deliveries and feeling as if he’s got a gun to his head for the entire film. Not a good sign when you’re using that to describe your lead creative mind behind the project. 

Its technical merits at least feel fine. The film is shot by Bill Pope (“The Matrix,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”) and his career worth of skills help bring the film to life with some above average camerawork, even helping to flesh out the retro-futuristic production design. It can’t save it from still feeling flat, overly clean, and cheap, but it at least prevents every aspect of the film from feeling boring. Even with all of the weirdness on display, it all just feels too flat, too cold, too boring to make any kind of impact, even as a bad film. 

“Unfrosted” is a soggy mess, and despite the material it fails to even register as an interesting mess. Seinfeld gives a bad performance, with the rest of the cast acting circles around him even with the lackluster script. It’s just not a funny movie, eliciting more confused looks and eyebrow raises than even light giggles, and its reverence for the 60s and breakfast food just feels off. Even with some good technical elements, it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Seinfeld himself feeling more than confused and nonplussed for this satirical cereal bowl of nothing. 1.5/5

The Fall Guy - Review: An Explosion of Charm and Stunt-tastic Action

 

If ever there was a profession tailored made for the Hollywood cliche of brushing yourself off and getting back up, it is that of the stunt man, the profession made of people willing to throw themselves into/at hell to make a much more famous person look that much cooler. Lifelong stunt-man-turned-director David Leitch (“John Wick,” “Atomic Blonde”) has crafted what could easily be called the greatest tribute to the profession one could ever make with the bonkers and breezy “The Fall Guy.”

Starring Ryan Gosling (“The Nice Guy,” “La La Land”) as retired stunt man Colt Seavers who’s called back into the fray to work on the directorial debut of his ex-girlfriend Jody Moreno, played by Emily Blunt (“A Quiet Place,” “Edge of Tomorrow”). However, there’s more sinister things afoot, as he’s recruited by the film’s producer Gail Meyer, played by Hannah Waddingham (“Ted Lasso,” “Krypton”), to track down its missing lead, action star Tom Ryder, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass,” “Bullet Train”), with Winston Duke (“Black Panther,” “Us”), Stephanie Hsu (“Everything Everywhere All at Once,” “Joy Ride”), and Teresa Palmer (“Hacksaw Ridge,” “A Discovery of Witches”) rounding out the cast.

It’s a very silly and breezy flick, with the film constantly breaking the fourth wall without becoming obnoxious. The moments range from larger ones, such as messing with repeated takes and split screens, to smaller ones simply commenting on the nature of the film at large. They’re all executed fantastically, with a zip and whimsy that’s been missing in virtually any blockbuster action movie for the last five or so years.

Part of that is due to the script from Drew Pearce (“Iron Man 3,” “Hotel Artemis”), which is just complicated enough to be interesting, without becoming a parody of itself, and the rest is due to the phenomenal comedic abilities of Gosling as well as his chemistry with Blunt. The pair light the screen up and they have such natural banter that falling for their story isn’t a question of if, rather it’s a question of when.

The film’s supporting cast also excels, with everyone committing to the wavelength of the film’s somewhat silly, somewhat serious tone. Duke and Gosling are instant best friends, and a fight scene featuring the two of them about two-thirds of the way through the film is a bolt of pure charisma. Waddingham and Johnson make for a perfectly hammy pair at every turn, but Hsu and Palmer, while still a lot of fun, feel underutilized considering how they easily match the rest of the cast’s charms.

Throughout “The Fall Guy” there are so many fingerprints of 90s and early 2000s blockbusters that make the film feel like something of a throwback to a bygone era. In this age of overly franchised CGI heavy shlock (ironic since this film is a reboot/remake of an 80s television series), it’s refreshing to see a film so action heavy and still features real people, stunts, locations, and effects. It’s obviously a film made to pay tribute to those stunt workers, but it manages to do so and still provide a metric ton of fun and entertainment.

Leitch and Pearce are never afraid to let their actors be their charismatic selves either. There are so many moments of charming banter the helps to flesh out and sell this cast as a group of real people easy to fall for. At times it is so charismatic, even at its slightly over two hours runtime, its easy to see a world where the film itself is longer with no issues.

Even without the impressive stunts and action, charismatic cast, and witty script, the biggest thing working in the film’s favor is its genuine love of the “below the line” workers on a film set. While there are jokes about getting coffee and other menial tasks, it's also a movie about the people who don’t get top billing and celebrating them. While it might be focused on stunt performers, it's easy to see a love of every single person who bands together to help get a movie made.

“The Fall Guy” may not be a masterpiece, but it’s a fantastic work of action blockbuster filmmaking packed with plenty of great stunts and sequences. Beyond that though, it has a big beating heart at its center, carried by Gosling, Blunt, and the rest of the cast across the finish line with swagger, charm, and a big goofy grin. It’s the kind of movie that makes you love the movies because it also loves the movies. 4/5