'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' may be Tarantino's best

For the longest time I've been waiting for Quentin Tarantino to make a movie like this -- and I'm saying this as someone who loved his big popcorn movies Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds, and even came around to loving his more polarizing western The Hateful Eight. But this film, his most grounded since Jackie Brown might be hist most personal yet, which why it may age into being viewed as his best.

It's probably too early to make that definitive judgment, but if nothing else the movie is a culmination of all the skills he's honed since he first became a filmmaking superstar over 25 years ago. This film, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, comes at a point where his off-screen image has taken a lot of hits, but rather than go the safe route he's made one of his most ambitious and provocative movies to date.

Make no mistake this film will have a lot of detractors. With one notable exception (and it's not Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate) the female characters are nor as well developed, the foot fetish thing -- omnipresent in his other films is the most egregiously indulgent here -- and the film is for and about people who have a little wistful nostalgia for an era of Hollywood that was undeniably cool but problematic by modern standards to say the least.

And yet, despite any caveats about its excess, I loved it. It almost felt like Tarantino's attempt at an Altman-esque character study. His heroes are rich, three-dimensional and meaty movie star roles for Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, both of whom give some of the best performances of their career.

DiCaprio has perhaps never had a chance to be funnier on screen as Rick Dalton, a washed up, insecure actor who is struggling to figure out where he fits in the new Hollywood landscape. This fictional character lives next to the very real Sharon Tate (who serves as more of a symbol of purity and innocence here than a fully realized person) and dreams of gaining access to her hip ascending crowd (which includes wunderkind director Roman Polanski).

And Pitt, who slyly steals this movie, is DiCaprio's right hand man, shoulder to cry on, driver, repair man and stunt guy -- Cliff Booth -- who's the epitome of cool under pressure.

Every Pitt line delivery feels note perfect, he somehow has never looked more handsome, and in his older age he's discovering so many new notes to play as an actor I'm excited to see where his career goes from here.

Much of the movie is an episodic day(s) in the life of these two characters as they navigate a stunningly realized 1969 L.A. Clearly, one of Tarantino's great strengths is evoking a world, he's made a credible WWII film, a slavery era epic, a kung fu thriller -- and this is his most immersive film yet. You can practically smell the mountain air, and while some may quibble with the length of his driving sequences here, I think they effectively transport you to the dream-like atmosphere of historical fiction you're having wash over you.

With the exception of the copious feet placement, this is Tarantino's smoothest, least pushy screenplay to date.There's less arch posturing and more honest discovery. As much as I love the florid monologues he gives Christoph Waltz in bis movies, he gets just as much mileage out of two leads who are pretty inarticulate and internal.

Hovering like a shadow over everything is the specter of the Manson family, which is well-rendered and scary in this film without being overplayed. And the movie does an incredible job of creating tense eerie scenes paired alongside some big laughs, mostly at DiCaprio's expense.

I can see the film not playing well with people who aren't as enamored with this era of Hollywood (with its influx of spaghetti westerns) as I am and Tarantino is. For audiences expecting a faster paced romp, they may start to feel the film's running time, but I felt like this was one of his most assured features yet, and it when it reveals what it really is -- which is a third part of what could be called  Tarantino's romantic historically revisionist period -- it's somehow elegant and poignant despite some heinously gory violence.

I appreciate that Tarantino makes films for adults, that he shoots on film, that he appreciates all cinema not just what's considered classy or cool. I always get my money's worth at one of his films -- from the music to the cinematography to the performances (there are so many good ones here I almost forgot about Al Pacino!) -- that I can just sit back and have a ball.

Of course, there will be plenty of people turned off by Tarantino's obsessions -- this is yet another film that features a lot of unapologetic violence inflicted on women -- but I am someone who is admittedly on board with them. This is now the third movie (following Us and Booksmart) that will likely be in my top 10, possibly top 5 this year.

It's a movie I Iike more and more as I think about it, and boy am I glad not to have had any of it spoiled for me. It just may be my new number one.

Please don't let 'Rocky' return to the ring another time

Anyone who knows me knows I'm one of the biggest, unabashed Rocky fans on the planet. The original has a lot of significance for me and my wife (we even played tracks from the score at our wedding) so I am a defender of the character's significance and power.

Which is precisely why I am troubled by new stories claiming Sylvester Stallone -- who is approaching his mid 70s mind you -- is looking to resurrect the character yet again, with a film centered on his character (after two critically acclaimed supporting turns in Creed movies).

This comes after he dramatically retired the role both on and off-screen with the release of Creed II. It was a moving, magnanimous gesture -- with Stallone's aging fighter literally telling Michael B. Jordan's hero it was "his time." And his character was allowed that film's final grace note, a tear jerking reunion with his estranged son.

But Stallone never seems to leave well enough alone. He's like George Lucas endlessly tinkering with his Star Wars films. He can't seem to say goodbye to this character. His attachment makes sense. Regardless of what you think of Stallone as a man or as a performer, it's hard to deny the Cinderella story like success of the first Rocky film, which he not only starred in but wrote.

That film made him an icon. And although he's had successes with other movies and franchises, his greatest success both commercially and critically has always been the Rocky films. And their track record is largely good. With the exception of the abominable Rocky V, there's a cast to be made that all the other films are either great or at least wildly entertaining.

He attempted a send-off once before, back in 2006 with Rocky Balboa, a movie that managed to outperform expectations and give the character some renewed dignity. Ryan Coogler, whose passion for the franchise was heartfelt and personal, found new layers in Rocky for Creed, leading to Stallone's second Oscar nomination for playing the same role, no small feat for any performer.

Creed II did nothing to squander the good will, but that doesn't mean that this could all end badly.

While Stallone has been pretty tight lipped about the content (something to do with Rocky mentoring another upstart) but my fear is that this new film will call for Rocky to throw some punches again, which feels silly and unnecessary at this stage of his career.

There's a reason Last Blood, Stallone's supposed farewell to Rambo is greeted with giggles whenever the trailer plays. People see Stallone's age finally catching up with him, even if he doesn't.

Of course, I'd love for Last Blood to be a poignant, Unforgiven-style bookend the grisly, grounded First Blood, but I'm not holding my breath. Instead, it appears to be a cheap looking, totally un-self-aware vanity project, although as true fan I hope I'm wrong.

There also has been talk of a Rocky 'prequel' series, but I am not entirely sure how that would work and I'm not exactly excited to see someone else in the Stallone role.

My worry is this is all about ego -- Stallone has also been publicly griping about his lack of compensation over the years for the franchise -- and an unwillingness to really cede the spotlight to a new (and more diverse) generation of cinematic heroes.

I'd love to see Stallone continue to stretch and demonstrate the acting chops he's shown in films like Copland and Creed. He clearly is capable of doing powerful work and there's no harm in trying something new. His legacy with Rocky is secure, so he give his fans something else to cheer about.

#RIP: Remarkable Rutger Hauer set blueprint for complex villainy

Today, I was shocked to learn of the death -- at a surprisingly early 75 -- of Dutch character actor and occasional unconventional leading man, Rutger Hauer, who will probably forever be remembered for his haunting turn as the replicant (robot) Roy Batty in the seminal sci-fi classic Blade Runner, but he was and did so much more.

His career really took off in the 1970s when he became something of a muse for the iconoclastic director Paul Verhoeven. I must confess to not having seen many of their collaborations myself, they are hard to track down and unavailable on most streaming sites, but hopefully his passing will renew interest in those works.

I first became, and I suspect American audiences also became, first familiar with him from his villainous turn as the slippery terrorist Wulfgar in the underrated 1981 Sylvester Stallone thriller Nighthawks.

To say that he steals the movie from Stallone is an understatement. His cunning, charismatic but also stone cold killer really set the blueprint for a decades plus worth of genre villains (Alan Rickman's Die Hard performance owes a lot to Hauer, for instance). Before Hauer, a lot of movie baddies (especially in action films) were defined by either their brawn or their bluster.

Hauer provided neither. He had those incredibly blue piercing eyes, that soft purr of a voice and almost balletic physicality that disarmed you. And although most of his best films never found an audience until long after they left theaters -- he always made an impression on audiences.

In the '80s he flirting with mainstream movie stardom, in against type vehicles like the fantasy (a fan favorite for a lot of gen-Xers) and most compellingly as a horrifyingly mysterious monster in The Hitcher. That performance in that film, menacing and also bizarrely appealing, also is ripe for rediscovery. The 1986 film was a critical and commercial disaster when it first came out, but viewed today it has all the surreal terror of a classic David Lynch film. I've always felt this film was wildly under-appreciated.
Ladyhawke

The same goes for his goofy late 80s action film -- Blind Fury, in which, yes, he inexplicably plays a blind samurai. It's a silly, but totally fun little action romp, which demonstrated Hauer's flair for deadpan comedy. This one will always provide me fond memories, since I got to introduce a screening of it at my local Alamo Drafthouse.

In later years, despite his Blade Runner bonafides, he would by-and-large appear in B-movies or bit parts that we're up to his talents. Although, there was one last tour de force in the 2011 grindhouse action comedy Hobo with a Shotgun.

The movie is outrageously tasteless, gory, mean-spirited, silly and fun -- and Hauer plays his role with Shakespearean commitment and gravitas, making the whole enterprise that much more compelling. In a way, moreso than even Blade Runner, its the role that best illustrates the unorthodox arc of his career in America.

He almost never headlined a hit film and yet when he did they were hard to forget. They don't make many like him because he was in a class by himself. And even if I must admit that his career seemed to have slowed down considerably in recent years, I'm sad that there won't be one more career capper left for us to see.

His potential future work is lost to us now, like tears in the rain.

Love him or leave him: Ranking Quentin Tarantino's filmography

Like a lot of movie buffs, I am very excited for director Quentin Tarantino's upcoming (supposedly penultimate film) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Despite strong early reviews, likely killer box office, and consistent buzz about his alleged impending early retirement, there's still no doubt that Tarantino reputation has diminished in recent years.

Whether it's ignorant comments he's made in the press or bad on-set behavior revealed by his past collaborators, he's basically on the brink of being 'canceled' as far as a lot of people are concerned.

I've always found that Tarantino is not so much an acquired taste as a love it or hate it proposition. If you embrace the fact that his cinema is all about (for better or worse) his indulging his own fantasies and fascinations, you might love it. He seems incapable of making a boring movie and when he does make one (he's clearly deliberate about his work -- hence his self aggrandizing "the 9th film of.." promo in front of his latest) it's clear that he's shooting for the fences every time.

I can safely say I have enjoyed every film he's made, and enjoying his films means tolerating quite a lot of nonsense. There's his increasingly pronounced foot fetish, his almost childlike preoccupation with peppering his scripts with the n-word, the pop culture reference laden dialogue in all his movies and the tendency to air more on the side of ripping off his favorite films rather than paying homage to them (I for one never bought his claim that Kill Bill was in no way informed by Truffaut's The Bride Wore Black).

And yet, I find his work -- as overlong and self congratulatory as it can be -- pretty intoxicating. I always feel like the best corollary is Kanye West's music (until recently) which was always a game-changer in spite of its creator's deficiencies as human being. It was that Kanye was the best lyricist or performer, he wasn't, but he was (and I guess is) uniquely skilled at marching to the beat of his own drum and reveling in his own inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies.

Tarantino is no different. For instance, take his treatment of women in his movies. He's certainly as guilty as any male filmmaker of objectifying them and abusing them on screen -- but he has also crafted some of the unassailably badass, three-dimensional heroines of the past twenty-some years.

So far, the early buzz is that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is one of his best -- and I guess we'll see in a few days. But in the meantime, here's my ranking of his films from my least favorite to my favorite. Keep in mind, this isn't so much about the film quality as it in my personal joy watching them.

9) The Hateful Eight - This remains one of his most polarizing films. It's his Yeezus. It's his second riff on the western but it's a more brooding, talky affair than Django Unchained was. I didn't love it at first but it's one of those movies that can grow on you amid repeat viewings. Never a great visual stylist, this snowbound potboiler may be his most atmospheric movie and its finale may be one of the best DePalma sequences not made by Brian DePalma. All his obsessions are here -- particularly his fixation on race -- for better or worse.

8) Reservoir Dogs - A remarkably accomplished breakthrough movie stocked with some of the most charismatic character actors of the time giving some of their best performances (especially Michael Madsen). Sure, the pop culture references can feel forced and a little bit of white guys casually tossing off the n-word with other white guys goes a long way, but what works best in this movie is its gallows humor and impressively rendered non-linear structure. It's a small movie, probably more plot driven than some of his later work, but it's easy to see why it hit big.

7) Death Proof - Arguably Tarantino's least financially successful effort was one half of the very-underrated Grindhouse (along with Robert Rodriguez's hilarious Planet Terror). Tarantino proves he could make a very effective John Carpenter-esque horror film, with Kurt Russell getting the comeback role of his career as the seductive and scary Stuntman Mike. The prolonged conversations about iconic '70s car chase movies will try your patience and as likable as she is, leading lady Zoe Bell doesn't necessarily have the acting chops to carry it, but it's pretty much a blast form start to finish.

6) Kill Bill Vol. 1 - I know that technically Kill Bill was supposed to be one long epic film (thanks, Harvey Weinstein) and I'd love to someday see the full project as it was originally intended but for now I see it as two very different movies. The first one is just an amazing action movie -- certainly the largest scaled piece he'd made at that point, after a long six year hiatus from the big screen. He turned Uma Thurman into an iconic action star (clad in Bruce Lee's signature black and yellow jumpsuit) while staging some dynamic fight scenes, as well as featuring a gorgeously rendered animated segment too. It's not the most substantive movie, but as an action romp it's undeniable/

5) Pulp Fiction - This will probably the film that will always be Tarantino's greatest legacy if for no other reason its commercial and critical impact really changed movies forever. Even the Marvel movies' dialogue owes a debt to the meandering banter on display in this episodic crime movie. It's full of unforgettable moments and performances, chief among them Samuel L. Jackson's soulful turn as a hitman who finds religion. Some of it looks crude in comparison to his polished later work (his own cameo sticks out like a sore thumb) but it's a funky and fun ride 25 years (!) later.

4) Kill Bill Vol. 2 - This is more substantive, sophisticated of the two Kill Bill movies. It goes to some darker places -- Uma getting buried alive, the fate of Daryl Hannah's character -- and it also features some of Tarantino's most richly rewarding dialogue (think David Carradine's monologue about Superman). It's a slower boil that makes the entire adventure feel more grounded and compelling. This also pointed to the more commercially viable potential of his subsequent films.

3) Inglourious Basterds - This could be Tarantino's most technically accomplished film -- and it should have won him his first Best Director and Best Picture Oscars. A whacked-out war movie that has amazing details and cinematic flourishes packed in almost every frame. He turned Christoph Waltz into an overnight movie star and solidified Brad Pitt's status as one. This movie proved that Tarantino speak could be effective in any language and his first experiment with historical revisionism is an unqualified triumph. He's right, this might just be his masterpiece.

2) Jackie Brown - Strangely, his most mature and grounded film was his second -- a movie that flopped upon its initial release but has only grown in stature since. Assembly perhaps the best cast of any of his films and providing Pam Grier with the role of her career, this film is more than a simple blaxploitation tribute. It's a sincere meditation on middle age and survival, with Robert Forster's lonely bail bondsman the film's secret heart. The is the film that runs counter to a lot of the Tarantino tendencies that people hate. It's a likable movie with a lot of genuine affection in it. I hope if he really is planning to make just one more film, that it's like this one.

1) Django Unchained - I've heard all the quibbles about this film -- that it's overlong, that Jamie Foxx isn't the real lead, etc. -- but this is simply the most fun I had at a Tarantino movie. His love for the spaghetti western genre (which I also adore) is all over this blistering film which is packed with savage performances (both DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson were robbed of Oscars), wonderful humor, breakneck action and some surprisingly nuanced observations about the absurdities of racism and slavery. I will never forget has satisfied I was by this movie going experience and for me it remains my favorite albeit it problematic movie.

Bold new direction for Bond comes with great risks, rewards

After the news broke that in the next Bond film Daniel Craig's replacement as 007 would be revealed, and that person will be a black person (relatively unknown British actress Lashana Lynch), I wrote a piece for The Daily Beast about it.

My thesis was that the news would definitely divide fans of the franchise, with purists being especially irked by this radical change to an iconic character's traditional appearance and background.

Of course, this piece was met with lots of vitriol, more or less confirming my suspicions that this move will be bitterly debated to say the least.

While the Marvel and Star Wars franchises have (to the groans of many conservatives) made nods to gender and racial diversity, the Bond franchise has more or less been a stubborn outlier, with its hero consistently being a white male for the 57 years of big screen adventures in its canon.

Now, the character, created by author Ian Fleming was a white man. There's no denying that. But there is no rule that says producer can't or shouldn't take creative license with that. Nick Fury was a white man in the comic books, for example, until he wasn't.

There is also not anything inherently white or male about the Bond character. A woman can be just as tough and promiscuous as all the previous 007s, albeit in a unique way.

I am saying all this as someone who loves the Bond franchise and who has particularly enjoyed Daniel Craig's 13-year run in the role. I am a diehard 007 fan, even the worst Bond movies have qualities that I appreciate, and I trust the producers to make this transition feel natural and exciting.

Of course, there are legitimate questions about how a female 'Bond' will work. Will she inherent the Bond moniker? Will she have her own character branded name? Will Craig's character ride off into the sunset or die in the line of duty.

Personally, I think these mysteries only raise the stakes and my anticipation for the still untitled 25th Bond film, which is expected to hit theaters next April.

All of this puts tremendous pressure on Lynch, perhaps more than there has ever been for a performer playing 007. Sure, Daniel Craig was not a universally praised choice either when he first got the part, but he was still a white man -- so audiences gave him the benefit of the doubt.

There will simply be some audiences too bigoted to support a billion dollar franchise with a black woman as the face of it. My only hope is that this change will bring in enough new viewers and fans (particularly young women and people of color) to overcome that ignorance.

'The Farewell' is an elegant film that will give you all the feels

The premise of The Farewell, a new  critically acclaimed comedy-drama directed by Lulu Wang, is so simple and yet it unfolds in such a beautiful, all encompassing way, that I was really blown away by it.

I'm not ashamed to admit that this movie brought me to tears.

The plot revolves around a traditional Chinese family (featuring Awkwafina as the lead, hailing from New York) who are conflicted about letting their matriarch (a dazzling Zhao Shuzen) know she has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Shuzen plays 'Nai Nai' with such wit, charm and pathos that you come to fall in love with her (in a just world her performance and Awkwafina's will be remembered come Oscar time) and it makes the secret being hid from her character that much more devastating.

Despite the stakes of the film, it never lapses into sentimentality or manipulation. It is a very funny movie and even when the movie breaks your heart (in particular during a gut wrenching wedding toast) Wang manages to work in a laugh amid the tears.

Awkafina holds the whole thing together with a performance that should assure her status as a major actress. In Ocean's Eight she clearly didn't have enough to do and in Crazy Rich Asians she was a comedic firecracker.

She has some funny moments here too, but here, as the most American member of the family she has the difficult role of not only being the audience surrogate but also the character most burdened by the secret medical news that drives the plot.

And although the film is steeped in Chinese culture -- the lie is justified as a matter of respect and dignity -- there is something universal about this story. You'll want to give your parents and other loved ones a call after seeing this one.

It's an odd release for this time of year -- it feels like it would be more at home in the fall, during awards season. Instead it's this bright light in what has mostly been a dreary summer movie season.

I certainly won't forget it anytime soon. And it definitely made me think more about cherishing the people I love, which is no small feat for any movie.

'The Art of Self-Defense' is a likely cult black comedy classic

Jesse Eisenberg has carved out a career played hyperactive nervous nellies who speak as if they are on a timer that's about to go off. And in The Art of Self Defense one could argue that he delivers the definitive version of that character.

He plays a nerdy accountant named Casey (he is routinely mocked for having a feminine name) who is bullied both at work and outside of it. An unusual set of circumstances leads to his investing in karate to both protect himself but also change his personality and lifestyle.

At the dojo he becomes the prized student of the Sensei, played indelibly by character actor Alessandro Nivola.

If the Academy Awards was ever cool enough to consistently reward great comedic turns, Nivola should be in the running for Best Supporting Actor. He has one of the best deadpan deliveries I've ever seen, and he nearly steals this movie.

This is ironic, since at the premiere of the film (which I was lucky enough to attend) Nivola says he got the part just three days before filming began. Although the writer-director Riley Stearns insisted he was first choice, Nivola believed he'd replaced someone who'd dropped out.

Alessandro Nivola

Anyway, the film has a very funny arc -- Eisenberg becomes obsessed with karate and it does lead to him being a much more confident and combative person but then as he is drawn further into Nivola's world the comedy in this film gets blacker and more violent in ways that will either shock audiences or delight them.

I am in the latter category. The Fist Foot Way, for my money, is the definitive comedy about karate -- but The Art of Self-Defense is less about the fighting and more about the mind. Both lead characters are victims of toxic masculinity on either end of the spectrum.

Eisenberg is driven to do 'bad things' out of some sense that he must do them to prove his manhood. Nivola does terrible things and justifies them because of his sense of manhood.

Now, the movie doesn't really delve to deep into these issues -- it's a comedy at the end of the day. But there's a nice, smart undercurrent running through the movie even if the characters are oblivious to it. And it has one of the more jarring, satisfying endings I've seen in a movie in quite some time.

I have no idea what its commercial prospects are -- the violence is visceral, but it has the makings of a beloved cult classic.

Remembering Rip Torn and his effortless gravitas

Rip Torn had one of those unmistakable voices -- booming, imposing but also genial --he effortlessly leant gravitas to any material he appeared in, yes, even Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story.

Torn died today at 88 and he'll likely not have any huge tributes since he's the kind of stalwart character actor that Hollywood tends to take for granted until it's too late.

Yes, Torn did score one Oscar nomination in his career (for a supporting turn in 1983's Cross Creek) and he won a well deserved Emmy for his greatest role, as Garry Shandling's producer Artie on The Larry Sanders Show. But he still remains relatively unheralded.

I remembered him best from Larry Sanders, where his aggressively avuncular character was the perfect ying to Shandling's neurotic yang.

But probably my first introduction to him was in a wonderful performance opposite Albert Brooks in his criminally underrated (aren't all his movies?) comedy about purgatory called Defending Your Life. He plays Brooks' representative in a kind of trial to determine whether Brooks' soul can go to heaven or return back to earth to try to get it right the next time.

As wild as the premise is, Torn plays the role with such confidence and heart that he makes it all seem very plausible, even banal. It's no surprise that he would go on to play Will Smith andTommy Lee Jones' mentor/boss in the original Men in Black movies, only he could convincingly push Tommy Lee Jones around.

But there's more to appreciate in Torn's filmography. There's his turn in The Man Who Fell to Earth for instance, where he is probably the most normal character in the movie -- or Wonder Boys, where he plays a pompous author alongside Michael Douglas.

It appears that Torn was quite the rabble rouser in real life. He was allegedly originally cast to play the Jack Nicholson part in Easy Rider until he had a falling out with Dennis Hopper which involved  the director/star brandishing a knife and threatening him.

And if you really want to take a deep dive into Rip Torn craziness check out the very real physical fight he got into with author and wannabe filmmaker Norman Mailer, captured on camera and included in the obscure film Maidstone.

Basically, it's fair to say that Torn lived a hard life. And there aren't many actors lie that around anymore perhaps because of the era of tabloid saturation in which we live. They don't make them like Harry Dean Stanton or  Robert Loggia or Rip Torn anymore. And I think that's a shame.

'Far From Home' presents a brave new post-Iron Man world

Spider-Man: Far From Home didn't need to be this good. Any Marvel movie at this point mints money and its coming off the most successful film in the franchise's history -- Avengers: Endgame. But the creators of this film took just enough care to make yet another film starring the webslinger (there have been seven sand-alone's since 2002) interesting.

This  no small feat since last year's Oscar winning Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse felt like the definitive version of the character's story.

This film purposely takes place in the shadow of went down in Endgame, where SPOILER ALERT, audiences said goodbye to several beloved characters including Robert Downey, Jr's Iron Man. Now, it's Peter Parker/Spider-Man's (Tom Holland) opportunity to step into the void to be a "leader" sort to speak of the Avengers. It's a role he aggressively doesn't want ant the movie effectively conveys that natural tension between Parker's desire to live a normal life versus saving the world.

That normal life gets a charming amount of screen-time in this movie, so much so that you don't necessarily miss the pyrotechnics of Holland in the signature costume. His budding romance with M.J. (played very well here by Zendaya) is very cute and almost feels real, and it's a treat to see his rotund sidekick Ned (a hilarious Jacob Batalan) back by his side.

There's also Nick Fury (a doughier Samuel L. Jackson, finally getting to consistently inject more of his own special charisma to this character), Happy Hogan (a game Jon Favreau) and Aunt May (the always luminous Marisa Tomei) rounding out the cast.

But the most interesting performance in this movie may come from one of Hollywood's most eccentric leading men -- Jake Gyllenhaal. He's like an alternative world Tony Stark, with a hint of his Nightcrawler obsessive-compulsive creepiness.

His character, who comes to be called Mysterio, has a very intriguing arc and his storyline which includes a pretty subtle knock against the very real problem of alternative facts and fake news.

Following Michael Keaton's bravura turn in Spider-Man: Homecoming, this is the second Spider-Man movie in a row to have a really dynamic villain with a clear and relatable motivation. Let's hope this trend continues in upcoming Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther films.

The movie is also very funny throughout (although sadly, it is the first Marvel movie without the late Stan Lee) and its first -- surprisingly plot-advancing -- post-credit scene which features a pretty spot on parody of Alex Jones with a nod to the original Tobey Maguire era Spidey films.

All in all, this was not a genre re-defining enterprise like last year's Black Panther, but it is strong proof that these movies have a lot more to say and do in a post-Iron Man Marvel universe.

'Midsommar' is a challenging new entry in era of prestige horror

Writer and director Ari Aster isn't here to make friends. His first film Hereditary wowed critics but divided audiences by delivering more of a thinking man's horror movie, largely devoid of traditional genre scares but still deeply unsettling. It made enough of an impact, that his new film Midsommar feels like a real event.

Rather than make a move towards the mainstream with his second feature, he's managed to double down on the elements that made Hereditary great, while making an arguably more ambitious and certainly funnier film.

Midsommar is not a movie that can be processed totally in one viewing. For instance, I am not sure that every element of it entirely works -- but like Us earlier this year, the questions it provokes are fascinating ones not frustrating ones, and like Jordan Peele, Aster doesn't know the meaning of a sophomore slump.

The set-up of Midsommar is spectacular and echoes Hereditary. It also features a woman (played to realistic perfection by newcomer Florence Pugh) who has also experienced an unspeakable trauma, one that will haunt her and the audience for much of its running time.

Unlike in Hereditary, it's not quite as clear how that tragedy fully meshes with the main thrust of the narrative, but basically she is saddled with a fairly despicable boyfriend (Jack Reynor) who wants to end the relationship but is now stuck in it. He and some buddies were planning a getaway to observe some strange pagan rituals in Sweden and she tags along as something of a fifth wheel.

So far so good. Like Hereditary, the film is slow moving but it's never boring. The screenplay is funny in a very grounded way -- Will Poulter in particular shines as an uncouth member of the gang -- and the cinematography is so sumptuous and engrossing I never minded its the glacial pace.

Not since The Wicker Man (the original) have I seen a film that so effectively conveys horror in broad daylight. It's not jump scare horror or gore (although there are some truly nauseating visuals), just an ominous, mounting dread. Part of the fun/terror of this movie is the anticipation of the inevitable moment when everything goes wrong.

And Aster has a Hitchcock/Polanski-like ability to make casual expository scenes drip with menace and remain visually engaging, even if the mayhem doesn't kick in until much later.

And this is not a movie that is interested in pushing your regular horror movie buttons -- so if you hear people griping that it's not particularly scary it misses the point. It's more haunting than scary. It's more disturbing than it is spooky.

Again, it's a challenging movie -- one where the logic of what takes place doesn't always immediately compute. It also has one of those great ambiguous endings that will likely be debated for years. Unfortunately, it appears to be getting greeted with the same blah reaction from the public Hereditary received. It's on pace for a respectable opening but the average audience score is a C+, suggesting yet again that highbrow horror just isn't for everyone.

Still, I for one hope that Ari Aster keeps letting his freak flag fly and continues to make wild and crazy movies like this one.