How is there no spider emoji Mailchimp?!

Dec 15, 2021

"It's not the years honey,
it's the mileage."

PINNED: this newsletter started as a way to highlight movies coming to theaters (see: the name). Then, "the bullshit" happened. And I started featuring movies in theaters, VOD or streaming (see: the +). Point is, if there's a movie worth checking out, you'll probably find it here.

I've been watching The Wheel of Time, the new Amazon series, the past few weeks. It's a big deal for me. I started reading the books the show is based on way back in 1996 - thanks to a recommendation from a (still) great friend. It's been a quarter century of anticipation. Lots of feels. But what I find most interesting is how I'm so glad it's a show series, instead of being a movie series.

Now, this might seem inevitable, as how the hell would you fit the fourteen (!!) 1,000 page books into movies? Some would say you couldn't. But if you had tried to turn the books into filmed content back when they were at the peak of popularity, they'd of course have become movies.

Take for example two massively popular book series - the first Harry Potter screen content was released in 2001 and went the movie route. Game of Thrones (technically A Song of Ice and Fire, but whatever) screen content was released in 2011, and went out as a show. Now, Thrones is a part of why shows have become as big a deal as they are, but it's interesting to think what would happen if Potter was released now. I mean, it'd have to be a show, right? More episodes at nearly the same quality level as a movie, and with that, you get more story nuance etc. And even then, that might not satisfy the most hardcore fans who want every scene on screen.

Now, I imagine we'll keep getting movie versions of books and other IP for a while, but for the biggest stuff, is a show version now inevitable? Amazon is already making a series set in the Lord of the Rings world. Why not movies? Cuz... duh? Marvel will keep making movies of course, but even they have shifted to shows in a big way.

There is a contrast to all this in what The Rock is doing with his big blockbusters like Red Notice, or even his co-star Ryan Reynolds, who led the successful Free Guy (which is now a franchise), neither of which are based on existing properties.

So it's not inevitable, but it just feels like if there's something that's going to be "big," it's going to be a show now; which is a massive reversal from not that long ago.

No real conclusions, just thoughts. If you have any, feel free to reply so we can discuss!

Extra Credit Movie(s): Two other options worth considering this week (and both are streaming), outside of the big show pieces.

Novice is from a first time director (Lauren Hadaway) about a young woman who tries so hard - in her athletic endeavors of crew, and school - to the point of obsession. It's kind of like Whiplash, but looks possibly just as (if not more?) intense and also has a queer love story angle. Solid reviews. saying the story works, just as much as the visual story and music that supports it.

Other one is Swan Song on Apple TV +, which stars Mahershala Ali as a man dying, but the near future setting science has allowed for an "exact" copy (including memories) to replace him after he's gone. Only catch is he can't tell his family he's dying. Sounds heady, but reviews say it's mostly a tear-jerker.

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME
Spiderman, er, Spider man? 🙅‍♀️ How about, Spider-man.  👎Damn it, um... Spider-Man?! 🏆

As the award emoji clearly indicates, the last iteration is technically the correct way to spell, hyphenate and capitalize Peter Parker's alter ego. But does it really matter? You would've understood what I meant no matter which form I used. They're just variations. This idea of similar, but slightly different versions of the same thing, fits in perfectly with the theme of No Way Home - synergy y'all, it's all about synergy.

Because while this is the third movie to star Tom Holland as Spider-Man (and sixth Marvel movie overall... ok, fine, seven if we're getting into the minutiae), there have been five other Spider-Man movies with two other actors donning the suit. They all live in our collective memory jumbled together, but in cinematic terms, they operate in their own universes.

Or do they...

If you haven't been paying attention, or even if you have, but shit's gotten too damn complicated, Marvel has been doin a little something with their cinematic universe recently - they're swapping in the "uni" for the "multi." That is to say, they're expanding their superhero filled "world," not with just aliens, or other planets, but different dimensions of that world. Think of it like this - remember when you made that one big life decision instead of making the other? What happened if you'd gone the other way? And what if many others did too? How would our world look?

There will be a range of awareness of the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), so I won't go into crazy detail, but I'll add that No Way Home not only continues that trend, but kind of accelerates it. And for reasons I'll leave unsaid (but avoid the trailer too if you're that sensitive), Tom Holland's Peter Parker would like to erase a certain memory from his world's collective consciousness. Cue fellow super friend, er, acquaintance, in Benedict Cumberbatch's Dr. Strange. Strange can wield magic which Parker hopes can solve his problems. To the shock of no one, things get mucked up, and it only makes things worse - where "worse" is splitting space and time, bringing nearly all the villains from the previous Spider-Man series into the Holland one to fuck shit up (see: Doc Oc, Electro, Green Goblin, Sandman - more? yes, more). Does that mean the other Spider-Man's come back too? Well, tbh, I don't know, but even if I did, I wouldn't spoil that for you. That's what Twitter is for. So if you're keen on avoiding, I'd go early, and get tickets now, cuz this is likely going to be the biggest movie of the year - by far. That might be annoying to some because it's "yet another superhero movie," but if that's you, take solace in the fact that in some other universe, superhero movies are maligned and hated to the point of their DVC's (digital video cartridge - remember, different dimension) being spat upon.

But, for what it's worth, in this world, Spider-Man is still hot shit and is continuing to get really good reviews, with critics saying that three-peat director Jon Watts keeps the focus on the human factors even as things get bonkers chaotic.

Vibe: light hearted and action filled as usual, but with some extra (emotional) weight put on for the holidays

Out   Thursday
Watch  Theaters
The Trailer | 2 hrs 28 mins | PG-13 | 🍅: 95%

NIGHTMARE ALLEY
Can eyeballs be hungry? (no) I mean, who's to say, really? (doctors, scientists, common sense.. shall I go on?) Because while they don't actually eat, they do consume (ugh). Colors, architecture, emotions, anything they can capture. (<-- this is why we have problems).

Guillermo Del Toro, a skilled director in many ways, is rightly known for making movies that are very pleasant to look at it. And what better genre for plating ocular appetizers than noir (wow, just wow)? Beyond letting great actors - say, Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette & more - chew up scenery (really hammering the eating analogies, huh?), there's the mood setting lighting, allegory  and the detailed props which convey a sense of place. Just watch the trailer for Nightmare Alley and you can see Del Toro has really dug into all these. In fact, that may be all you come away with. The trailer doesn't let on too much about the movie's plot, but it's almost implicit in the genre. While Bradley Cooper is the protagonist, in contrast to most movies, that doesn't mean he's a good guy. In fact, good "guys" (read: women too) are going to be sparse here. But that's part of why you watch, to see people struggle and get their comeuppance. It is not a happy genre.

But what you can see in the movie's preview is that the story starts at a carnival, which might seem contrite, until I note that the film is actually based on a book from the noir heyday of the 1940's. The novel was the basis for a previous movie, made in 1947, which is now considered a classic. But it's unlikely you've seen it unless you're a hardcore film nerd. And while you should feel free to go back and watch, critics say this modern take nearly matches the 74 year old film in conveying Cooper's tragic journey. One that is likely to keep you, and your eyes, satiated, as long as you're in the right mood.

Vibe: the word "gumshoe" wouldn't be used in jest

Out   Friday
Watch  Theaters
The Trailer | 2 hrs 30 mins | R | 🍅: 84%

(called out from top, left to right)

A lot of, ahem, interesting (read: weird) trailers this week.

A Nic Cage movie starring as Nic Cage in a movie about people loving Nic Cage. It looks kinda, awesome?

Michelle Yeoh in like a cross between the new Spider-Man and Being John Malkovich.

Another Harry Potter movie without, um, Harry Potter (not that weird, pretty boring in fact).

An echidna that likes to punch things. Wait, what the hell is an echidna?

An Adam Sandler produced comedy about Saints coach Sean Payton's, (played by Kevin James?!) year off from football after he was suspended for "bountygate."

Another Guy Ritchie where Aubrey Plaza looks like the best part (but when isn't she?).

What's In Theaters +

Discussion about this post