Came across 'Incoming' one day as the perfect movie to watch that wouldn't upset my husband too much if I watched it without him. Now, I should say, I am in my mid-30s -- so not exactly this movie's target demographic. This movie was clearly written and created by millennials inspired by the stoner adventure movies of the 80s, teen dramedys of the 90s, and with a healthy appreciation and adoration for "new" cult classics like Superbad for a new generation of coming of age/awkward high school weirdos. For those reasons, I have to legally say that this movie didn't hold a candle to those classics, but that it was fine.

If you're not a literal teenager who might have giggled at all the potty humor and the cameos by tiktok stars, you were probably in it for the references and cameos to other related work like The Mick, Always Sunny, and a well-cast Bobby Cannavale. This is where my review turned from 'meh' to bittersweet.

I have loved seeing Bobby Cannavale just have fun with his career for the past decade -- taking a diverse array of roles and really shining in each of them. Playing 'Mr. Studebaker' -- a youngish high school teacher who compensates for his mess of an adult life by intentionally evoking the adoration of his students was well within his wheelhouse. This character could have given all the icks -- sleazily stooping to the maturity level of his students and missing the mark (a role he played in Old Dads). Instead Cannavale adds an understated but poignant depth to the character, turning in his childlike antics that make him a god to his students look like subtle cries for help amongst a downward spiral. He simultaneously acknowledges how far he's sunk in his life, while recognizing and fully acknowledging the inappropriateness of his actions in a way that isn't just for a few shallow physical comedy gags, but is instead sort of sad in a way that resonates with those that understand the risk of losing everything.

A movie for a generation who needs a Superbad and it shows, but with a complexity and dimension of its adult and authority figures that has me wanting to know more about their lives than the flashes of T&A that we get for the rest of the movie. I'm mad that we couldn't explore more of that plot, but pleasantly surprised that 'Incoming' offered me a taste

Excellent winter movie

What's the worst twist you ever saw in a movie? I just finished 1995's Nature of the Beast and that is easily the worst twist ending I've ever seen.

Such a good film, reminds me alot like the area i live in. The depths ive seen people go to for drugs, how addiction has changed someone i once knew to someone unrecognisable.

Ive never been one for hard drugs, although alcohol has turned my life upside-down many times.

Its hard to review a film that is so closely connected to alot of different aspects of people and their lives and those around them.

This is every theatrically released Metacritic Must-See film from D.W. Griffin's Intolerance (1916) to Halina Reijn's Babygirl (2024). The Metacritic Canon. A selection of over 1,200 films.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nd1OL68CKCno4uEAEjpXYkjinnhwRJpnr3BqUth57tg/edit?usp=drivesdk

These contain old films, new films, cult classics, a few animated films, and everything in between.

This took days to do. Might do a list on the Must-Play games next (assuming I'm feeling like wasting my life).

Thoughts on the list overall?

A naive man comes out into the world after spending 35 years in a nuclear fallout shelter.

Am I the only one who feels like Simea was simply used as a hook in the film and as a cash grab for merch? Hear me out.

I am not here to diss a child and don't want to see anything like that in the comments below. I'm here to talk about the writers who decided to put a child character in a SEQUEL and simply not elaborate or give her any relevancy.

1. HOOK: In the beginning of the film, we are introduced to Simea, a lovely and energetic little girl. After this introduction, we see very little of her/hear from her again until Moana leaves. I feel like Simea was used as a hook for the movie.

1.a: I know Simea gives her the starfish for her pendant, but I feel like that's just the writers grasping at straws and trying to keep her relevant *someway*. It just feels cheap.
1.b: Why doesn't Simea sneak onto the boat? This could totally change the entire direction of the plot and properly commence the beginning of act 2.

2. THE STRUCTURE: I don't see many people talking about this one. Did anyone else just notice the lack of a three act structure? The beginning felt incredibly slow, and then we just get launched back into the same setting (ocean) as the first film. After they take off, it just feels like the plot is constantly bouncing back and forth. Surely this is because the series was cut into a movie, but again, this is just a critique.

3. THE ENDING: The ending could have been the beginning of this film.

What do others think? Did you like the structure of this film, cause I could Not stay focused.

Honorable mention to the Ferrari 250 GT California in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Also, the vehicle doesn't have to have wheels, be terrestrial, or even transport humans.

I gotta say it was pretty good from a stunts and action movie perspective. Bill Skarsgard does a good job as Boy, H. John Benjamin is a great narrator that is there for just the right amount of time in the movie, and Yanyan Ruihan does a great job as the Shaman, plus his English gets better everytime i see him. Jessica Roth really impressed me too. I feel like her and Yanyan were the only actors to have previous stunt experience during the film. I'm not saying that Bill didn't have incredible work during the choreography but I feel like this was more a stuntman film made for action fans and Sharlto Copely God bless his soul  was here to help sell the dream. I wish more people talked about it. I mean obviously a sequel would be a mistake but as a stand alone it should be inducted into the Cult movie Classic hall of fame. Some people use B movie as an insult but I see it as someone breaking the norm just enough to get it on film to us. " remember,  the first thing they try to away from you is hope." I feel like that was then telling us action movies aren't dead yet.

He's in my top and I'm currently going through Tony's work.

I haven't seen much of Audiard's work, but this one just didn't land for me. It had a great premise and interesting themes to explore, but the focus is all over the place. I'll drop my extended thoughts below, but what were your takeaways on this one.

My thoughts on Emilia Perez:
https://abhinavyerramreddy.substack.com/p/emilia-perez-divisive-does-not-mean?r=38m95e

https://preview.redd.it/7lo0ms68zb4e1.jpg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3262228b6ac7029a3fd1deb815cfeefba30ac5aa

I'll start by saying: NYPD Blue.

Hollyweird is gross and evil now. They're being caught for They're truly evil deeds and no more movies bcuz they're all so evil.

This is a bit more specific to ask but who is an actor who is Oscar quality as far as acting but is also limited in their range?

The best example I think of is Daniel Day Lewis. Phenomenal actor. His roles in Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood are amazing. The way he played Daniel Plainview is in my top 5 acting.

But he's also very limited in range either by choice or ability. I could never see him in a comedic role in a film. Maybe he takes himself too seriously. Maybe he just can't do comedy. But as far as I know, his filmography doesn't include any comedies. Not even a romantic one could I see him in.

Simultaneously, I could never see him as the star in an action film. Obviously in his youth, but even in his current age I couldn't see him pull a Liam Neeson a la Taken.

Who do you think?

I had this thought whilst watching, A Quiet Place on Amazon this evening. I feel it's a big plot hole.