• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

Reviews

Review: Hocus Pocus 2

Hocus Pocus 2 (2022)

review | Hocus Pocus 2

A step up from the original, the sequel is still mainly a nostalgic sugar rush that could have been thought through a little better

by Dennis Burger
October 6, 2022

Whether or not Hocus Pocus 2 is a good movie is hardly even a coherent question. Of course it isn’t a good movie. The real question is whether or not you’ll like it, and I think the answer to that is simple. 

Are you an elder Millennial who developed a Pavlovian affection for the original through repeated exposure on The Disney Channel in the late 1990s, and you now want to try to beat a love for it into the heads of your children? Or are you in the grips of Stockholm Syndrome after being forced to become familiar with the 1993 cult classic just to understand half the memes in Memeville? If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance you’ll get something out of this Disney+ original, which at times blurs the lines between sequel, reboot, and remake. 

It’s a better movie than the original—better acted, more artfully shot, with a more coherent script and more competent direction at the hands of Anne Fletcher (Step Up, 27 Dresses) but such praise is relative. This is still a glorified after-school special with a false edge, filled with out-of-touch musical numbers and lazy references to modern culture that will lose what chuckle-worthiness they have before the inevitable Hocus Pocus 3 comes out in a few years. 

The premise of the plot is also flawed from the foundation up. It all hinges up on the fact that the Sanderson Sisters—played once again by Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker—can only be conjured during a full moon on Halloween, and by a virgin at that. The sequel makes it quite clear that the last time the witches rampaged through Salem was in 1993, and it’s now exactly 29 years later. 

In other words, the script goes out of its way to set this sequel in 2022. And yet there’s no full moon on Halloween this year—nowhere near it. There was one in 2020 but a big whole-town Halloween celebration wouldn’t have quite made sense that year. There’ll be another one in 2039, but that wouldn’t quite work for a story whose novelty hinges upon evil women from ye olde tymes being baffled by modern technology and customs. 

Could they have just dropped the full-moon requirement and glossed it over with some retroactive continuity? Sure, that would have been the easiest way to make sense of it all. But this movie doesn’t give a hoot whether it makes sense, nor whether you care if it makes sense. It’s here to give you a nostalgic sugar rush and create an alibi for you to foist your childhood pop-culture fetish on a new generation. (And trust me: As a Star Wars devotee, I feel your pain.) 

Given that, the movie’s Dolby Vision video presentation on Disney+ almost seems wasted. The enhanced resolution is a mixed blessing as on the one hand the 8K source imagery and 4K digital intermediate allow you to appreciate some of the surprisingly nice set designs and lighting. But on the other, that resolution makes some of the constraints of the relatively meager budget a bit too apparent, especially in the compositing of some of the digital effects. 

Still, there are some details I would expect HEVC to struggle with at any bitrate, streaming or not, such as a few swirly, sparkly, extremely specular magical effects that require higher frequencies to render, all laid atop rather dark backgrounds that lean harder on the lower-frequency corner of the discrete cosine transform table. Content that demands equal reliance on high and low frequencies simultaneously is always the toughest for any hybrid block-based codec to encode and decode, and I was frankly shocked by how well Disney+ handled it. I never saw it struggle.

The Dolby Digital+ Atmos mix is best described as “perfunctory,” and if for whatever reason you plan on watching this movie in your home cinema, just know that it’s mixed about 2.5 dB below reference levels, so go ahead and turn the volume up. 

Again, though, you’d probably be better off watching Disney+’s Dolby Vision remaster of the original instead if you need to scratch this itch. It may not be as good, but at least you’re already addicted to it—otherwise, why are you even reading this?

Dennis Burger is an avid Star Wars scholar, Tolkien fanatic, and Corvette enthusiast who somehow also manages to find time for technological passions including high-end audio, home automation, and video gaming. He lives in the armpit of Alabama with his wife Bethany and their four-legged child Bruno, a 75-pound American Staffordshire Terrier who thinks he’s a Pomeranian.

PICTURE | The Dolby Vision presentation on Disney+ allows you to appreciate some of the surprisingly nice set designs and lighting, but the enhanced resolution makes some of the constraints of the relatively meager budget a bit too apparent

SOUND | The Dolby Digital+ Atmos mix is best described as “perfunctory”—it’s also mixed about 2.5 dB below reference level

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Blonde

Blonde (2022)

review | Blonde

ALSO ON CINELUXE

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

This lurid take on Marilyn Monroe’s life sometimes hits the mark but just as often wallows in the muck

by Roger Kanno
October 5, 2022

Andrew Dominik’s Blonde received a standing ovation after its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival on September 14. And while it has a striking visual style and a mesmerizing performance by Ana de Armas starring as Marilyn Monroe, this sensationalized depiction of the iconic film star’s life will not suit everyone’s tastes. Available on Netflix since September 30, it is the first film produced by the streamer to be given an NC-17 rating. It can be difficult to watch with many scenes depicting Monroe’s troubled life as she struggles to deal with the less desirable aspects of fame and the predatory people who surround her.

At times, it feels as though the film is exploiting her legacy more than it’s honoring her memory. However, Blonde does elicit a sense of admiration and sympathy for Monroe, even though it can be both voyeuristic and exploitative. There are a lot of seedy and sensationalistic events depicted whose veracity could be questioned, but whether they are accurate or not is less important than recognizing the toll fame extracted from the intelligent but naïve Norma Jeane Mortensen in her transformation into the screen icon Marilyn Monroe. Bobby Cannavale and Adrien Brody provide excellent supporting performances as the Ex-Athlete and the Playwright, but it is de Armas’ inspired performance that is the center of this film.

Dominik’s bold vision utilizes surreal, dreamlike imagery; slow-motion; closeups; and several different aspect ratios ranging from 1:1 to 2.39:1. Most of the film is composed at 1.37, like many of Monroe’s early films, but I found the constantly changing ratios to be distracting. The film also alternates between color and black & white with perplexing frequency. The color shots, especially those towards the beginning featuring a very young Norma Jeane and her mother are slightly washed-out with a yellow-sepia tinged character. This conveys the stark and unfulfilling nature of her austere childhood, and although later color scenes feature slightly more color saturation, they still retain a grim, subdued appearance. 

Dolby Vision color grading is used more effectively in scenes incorporating actual footage from Monroe’s films, with vibrant colors that really pop in contrast to Norma Jeane’s real life away from the Hollywood glitz. When the “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” scene from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is projected in a theater during a gala screening, de Armas is digitally composited into the scene and the gorgeous bright fuchsia of her dress contrasted by the rich, dark blacks of the men’s tuxedos and the blood-red backdrop is visually stunning. This is juxtaposed with the more muted colors in the wider shots of the theater and the audience members as Monroe exclaims, “That thing up on the screen, it isn’t me.”

Black & white scenes also occasionally exhibit a slightly washed-out quality, but dreamlike sequences such as the recreation of the subway-grate scene from The Seven Year Itch looked absolutely gorgeous. There were deep, inky  black backgrounds that beautifully framed Monroe’s bright white dress moving in slow motion with mesmerizing detail in the curves of its flowing fabric and the perfectly and crisply defined pleats.  

Audio is presented in Dolby Atmos and is quite good, with a wide stereo soundstage for music and effective use of all channels to provide a pleasing ambience. The surround and height channels are used occasionally for discrete Foley effects such as the screams of patients in the hallways of the state hospital where Norma Jeane visits her ailing mother. And when she and her mother flee a forest fire in her childhood, the crackling embers of the fire are all around them, but the overall effect, even with the atmospheric music, is not as enveloping and holographic as could be expected.

Writer and director Dominik’s liberal use of artistic license and unorthodox filmmaking techniques in telling the story of the legendary Marilyn Monroe is risky. As often as it works, there are equally as many times that it comes across as lurid and cringey. Blonde is sometimes beautiful to look at, with a heroic performance by de Armas, but its content is bleak and disturbing.

Roger Kanno began his life-long interest in home cinema almost three decades ago with a collection of LaserDiscs and a Dolby Surround Pro Logic system. Since then, he has seen a lot of movies in his home theater but has an equal fascination with high-end stereo music systems. Roger writes for both Sound & Vision and the SoundStage! Network.

PICTURE | Frequently alternating between color and black & white, the film mostly has a washed-out, subdued look, with Dolby Vision most effectively deployed in the scenes that use footage from Monroe’s actual movies

SOUND | The Atmos soundtrack is quite good, with a wide stereo soundstage for music and effective use of all channels to provide a pleasing ambience

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: 12 Monkeys

12 Monkeys (1995)

review | 12 Monkeys

Terry Gilliam’s most successful attempt to work within the system, this apocalyptic thriller proved to be prescient—but not just for the expected reasons

by Michael Gaughn
October 3, 2022

Having had an affirmative experience getting reacquainted with Brazil after the rout of Baron Munchausen, I wanted to do some more digging around to try to figure out if Terry Gilliam was something of a one-hit wonder. I’d watched The Fisher King again a few months ago and, while some of it remains powerful, too much of it feels out of scale with the material. It’s a good movie—far better than most—but can’t even begin to compare with Brazil. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has its moments but is basically a rambling mess that gets squeezed much too thin. The bottom line seems to be that Gilliam without a solid script is mainly an occasionally compelling diversion.

The Peoples’ script for 12 Monkeys is way too full of itself but gets most of the structural stuff right enough to let Gilliam build something pretty substantial atop it. But his greatest achievement here—which definitely isn’t derived from the script—is the tone, the ability to give a presence to the impalpable. 12 Monkeys feels like an elegy—one that manages to be both moving and troubling without being either depressing or sentimental. As soon as we know almost every character we see on the screen is soon going to die, a consistent tenor takes hold that makes everything feel both tenuous and more vivid. 

And Gilliam establishes that tone—it can’t really be called a mood—so strongly that even his lapses and indulgences can’t queer it. The Britishisms and silly gags he was able to make work, to some degree, in Fisher King feel alien here and push you damn close to the point of “O, come on.” But the film’s portrayal of the end is so credible that it carries you over the errors in judgment.

And a lot of the credit for that—and I can’t believe I’m writing this given that I’m talking about Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt—goes to the acting. Bruce Willis is always Bruce Willis, or something less than that, but Gilliam gets him to stretch well beyond his persona and, by adeptly molding the individual moments of his performance, succeeds in piecing together a nuanced and forceful whole. Pitt, in probably his only convincing role, takes what can be seen as just goofing and makes it feel like that absurdity, in sum, is the character. Although his Jeffrey Goines is something of a red herring, it was crucial to the film to show that there’s a menacing chaos at the heart of all his acting out.

Why didn’t Madeleine Stowe ever have a career? Her performance, which is the film’s fulcrum and is subtly modulated but in a way that becomes powerful, should have led to her having her pick of standout roles. It could have been a personal thing or an industry thing or just a dearth of good enough parts, but it’s a tremendous mystery, and a huge loss. She brings much needed weight to the the film through her believable pivot from intelligent and perceptive but hopelessly smug to utterly lost and desperate to believe. 

Seen as a madcap stylist, a Goldbergian concoctor of cinematic gadgets, Gilliam has never received his due as an actor’s director. But his films, going back to Time Bandits, have been graced by exceptional performances, even when the material didn’t seem substantial enough to hold that kind of weight. 12 Monkeys is driven by the acting, not the style. 

My comments about the HD presentation on Prime (as a portal for Starz) are made knowing a 4K remaster was done this year and a new home release could be imminent. Parts of the film are in surprisingly bad shape for something from as recent as 1995, with the quality sometimes varying tremendously from shot to shot, especially near the beginning. While much of the movie holds up well watched on a big screen, those sudden soft or super contrasty moments can be jarring. 

As we’ve seen repeatedly, 4K is no panacea—it can even be an older film’s worst enemy. Depending on the elements they had to work with for the remaster, a new release could be a benison or could be uneven as hell. I’d be especially concerned it would accentuate the flaws in the decent enough but definitely now creaky CGI. That said, I’m keen to check out the 4K, if or when it comes.

Allow me to ruminate for a moment on my way out the door.

The intuitiveness of the mass consciousness can be startling. The dire events portrayed in this film, until then just the shouts of lone voices, weren’t even thinkable on the mass level until around 1995. It’s as if we were beginning to prepare ourselves for everything that’s transpired over the past few years, and for the worse to come. 

And, as often happens, the surface content of a film—or wave of films—also has a self-reflexive cinematic complement. By getting you to feel the death of the race in a way that gets into your bones, 12 Monkeys gets you to sense the death of emotion in movies as well. It’s hard to pin down exactly but there was a distinct moment when the movies (all entertainment, actually) crossed a rubicon from being grounded in humanity to deriving from a kind of unfeeling viciousness, when creativity devolved into facile cleverness, when it all shifted from grounded in emotion to cruel, abstract exercises in the coldly cerebral. 

That moment seems to be right around the time of 12 Monkeys’ release, with the solidifying of the Coens and the rise of Fincher, Jonze, the Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes), Nolan, and others of their ilk. Their work resonates as long as you can view it with an arm’s-length detachment, don’t invest too much in it emotionally, and don’t bring your full being to bear. In other words, as long as you don’t allow yourself to feel. None of the above-mentioned could have summoned up any of the bittersweet sense of passing that pervades 12 Monkeys because none of them could have sensed it to begin with. 

12 Monkeys is the cry of the canary in the coal mine, the voice essential to survival we’ve since opted to drown out with the screeching din of an increasingly brutal culture. Given that we were just capable of hearing that warning at the time the movie came out, I have to wonder if it has any value as anything other than an evening’s amusement now.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | While 12 Monkeys holds up well seen on a big screen, there’s a surprising amount of inconsistency between shots at times

SOUND | Dating from the early days of DTS surround, it can all get very ping-pongy but the material lends itself to that kind of treatment, for the most part

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

review | Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Diving into late-period Woody Allen is always a gamble but this lively Johansson/Bardem/Cruz vehicle remains a pretty sure bet

by Michael Gaughn
September 26, 2022

It’s not exactly news that the quality of Woody Allen’s work became incredibly uneven once he emerged from his succession of mid-period classics like Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Stardust Memories. For every Purple Rose of Cairo or Zelig there was a Shadows and Fog; for every Husbands and Wives, an Alice. And it only got more erratic as time went on, having to slog through films like Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, and Whatever Works to be able to pluck a Blue Jasmine from the heap. 

Not having seen Vicky Cristina Barcelona in a while and not sure what my impression was of it at the time, I was surprised by how strong it is—much more so than expected. More uneven than it needs to be, it’s still consistently engaging. It’s probably Allen’s loosest, most fluid and energetic film. And it still serves as viewer bait for Scarlett Johansson fans, dating from the era when she was allowed to do legitimate roles, before she succumbed to just being a prepackaged marketing commodity. 

VCB is Allen’s second-best late-period work after Blue Jasmine. (This will seem incredible to some but I’d put Café Society at No. 3.) Allen was so confident in his skill as a filmmaker by this point that he could just resonate with his material, knowing he’d find some deft and distinctive way to express it. Even at the early peak of his powers he was utterly incapable of making a film like this one, which makes his mid-period triumphs feel constipated by comparison. (To be fair, though, films like Vicky Cristina and Blue Jasmine just don’t have the repeat appeal of those earlier efforts.)

Allen takes a novelistic—or at least short-storyish—approach to the film—something he’s also done in movies like Manhattan and Café Society. But with Vicky Cristina he was so sure of himself that he could be far more improvisational without fear it would unravel in the editing, taking the literary and playing it off the cinematic and somehow getting them to coexist without having it feel like a forced marriage. 

The dabs and strokes and feints of the opening, where he sets the action in motion by making a series of suggestions—snatches of dialogue, telling images, evocative sounds, avoiding traditional linearity because he knows films always move forward so a story will arise no matter what—is bravura but completely on point and without being showy. As the film proceeds and Allen further plays around with these ideas, it’s as if the cinematic knows the literary is just there to lay the foundation for moments that are purely about an image, a movement, a sound, a dissolve, a cut, sometimes highlighting just one element, sometimes mixing and matching the emphases. The point, I suspect, is to keep any one character from being dominant and instead keep the focus on the shifting relationships between the characters and on the tentativeness of fleeting emotions. 

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is what Sweet and Lowdown should have been but Allen hadn’t yet broken far enough free of his mid-period technique to pull something like that off. It’s a serious mistake—one often committed—to try to attribute what’s best about Allen’s work to his cinematographer of the moment—here, Javier Aguirresarobe, whose images are undeniably both striking and restrained without indulging in romantic clichés—in other words, apt. Instead of taking the obvious approach, VCB makes place—the location, the geographic-cum-cultural-cum-psychological locus—the spring of the romance, and the mise en scène and montage are just extensions—expressions—of it. No further emphasis is needed. 

But this all arose from the efforts of both Allen and Aguirresarobe, not because Allen gave his DP free rein. Yes, he’s worked with masters like Willis, DiPalma, Nykvist, and (unfortunately) Storaro, but you’d have to be blind not to see that, no matter how strong the cinematographer’s style or big his personality, Allen has always been able to put it in the service of his material and that there’s a consistent look and feel to his movies no matter who’s manning the camera.

The material here is so fertile that it’s not seriously hampered by the mixed bag of the acting. Strongest is Javier Bardem. I’ve never been a fan, but Allen gives him a lot of room to run with his character, and Bardem takes advantage of every inch of it. Rebecca Hall’s mannered kvetching, and resemblance to a Modigliani, can get annoying, especially early on, but isn’t a dealbreaker and actually helps bolster the film’s payoff. Penelope Cruz comes across as a tad overwrought, sometimes hitting the mark, often flailing to define her character. Johansson is more a presence than an actor, of course, a walking encyclopedia of knowing looks who knows how to smolder her way through a scene but rarely helps to elevate the ensemble. 

But, again, VCB is less about individuals than the treacherously unstable ground of relationships, territory Allen captures incisively, and with surprisingly little sentiment. He doesn’t get enough credit for being the first American filmmaker to figure out how to show sex on screen in a natural, convincing, non-gratuitous way. His renderings of carnal encounters are so effortless we don’t realize how brilliant they are, even with more than a century of awkward, overweening, giggly, grotesque counterexamples to draw on.

Because of the whole evanescence of emotion thing, this film really didn’t need a traditional plot, and things get messy and awkward whenever one decides to rear its head. Needing something resembling an ending, Allen introduces some small-arms fire into the proceedings—but he’s always sucked at gunplay. The shotgun dispatching of Johansson in Match Point is one of the most inept, implausible, and unconvincing murders in all of cinema. Here, Cruz firing off rounds in the general direction of Bardem and Hall is a huge false note, a contrivance that sticks out as egregiously as it does because so much of what precedes it is so well done. Somehow, this misstep doesn’t damage the overall impact of the film, partly because Allen redeems himself a few moments later with a lingering silent closeup of Hall who—again, subtly—looks convincingly like a changed person.

I can’t abide lazy, unimaginative reviewers who write the same review over and over, just plugging in some new nouns each time (without varying the adjectives) as if every movie is just like every other and reviewing them is a robotic form of Mad Libs. That said, there’s not a lot new to say about Amazon’s presentation of relatively recent films, which tends to range from acceptable to occasionally extraordinary. This one falls somewhere in the middle, not harming Aguirresarobe’s work but not fully honoring it either. That will take a 4K transfer—but because this is an Allen film and there’s no justice in this world, I’m not holding my breath. 

The warmth of almost every frame is almost there. The subtly muted tones—a look digital has yet to achieve—are pleasing but not as beguiling as they should be. On the other hand, the soft-focus tracking shot of massive sparklers going off in front of a church—the kind of thing streaming consistently bungled just a couple of years ago—is surprisingly solid and clean. 

The phrase “a Woody Allen movie for people who don’t like Woody Allen movies” has always made me cringe—for a lot of reasons, but mainly because the two films most often mentioned in association with it—Midnight in Paris and Match Point—are among his worst. I guess it could be applied fruitfully, though, to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which definitely stands on its own. But to not have the context of the best of the rest of Allen’s body of work and to not know how it both syncs up with and veers away from all that is to be deprived of one of the richest parts of the experience. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Not quite capturing the film’s overall warmth or subtly muted tones, Amazon’s presentation doesn’t harm Javier Aguirresarobe’s work but doesn’t fully honor it either

SOUND | It’s a Woody Allen movie, for chrissakes. You can clearly hear people talking and the music cues sound fine—in stereo.

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Star Wars: Andor

Star Wars: Andor (2022)

review | Star Wars: Andor

Light on action and the slowest of slow burns, this Star Wars series still satisfies by delivering a master class in tension and suspense

by Dennis Burger
September 22, 2022

Despite its name, Star Wars: Andor is not Star Wars. And that’s totally appropriate since the movie in which the title character debuted—Rogue One: A Star Wars Story—bore only the most superficial, what-had-happened-was connection to the mythology of the galaxy far, far away to begin with. 

Here’s the difference, though. Rogue One was a cobbled together, oh-so-edgy pile of inconsequential grimdark fluff pretending to be a grownup and gritty Star Wars movie. In fact, it was reportedly barely even a coherent narrative until screenwriter Tony Gilroy was brought in to turn the footage into something resembling a movie in postproduction. 

With Andor, though, Gilroy has been working on the show since 2019, before the first frame was shot. And so, while it isn’t quite Star Wars, the series is a fascinating political drama that combines the best elements of the writer’s work on the Bourne film series (minus the action), Michael Clayton (minus the lawyers), and the neo-noir thriller Nightcrawler, which Gilroy produced for his brother Dan, who wrote and directed the film and contributes some writing to Andor.

The only real cinematic inspiration I’ve seen referenced for Andor, though, is Stanley Kramer’s 1960 adaptation of Inherit the Wind. I don’t think you’d pick up on that just from watching the show since it doesn’t seem to be narrative inspiration nor really even thematic inspiration. But as with that film, this series is, so far, a masterclass in tension and suspense. It’s the slowest of slow burns I’ve seen onscreen in ages. And yet, due to its pacing and its legitimate human drama, it doesn’t feel laborious. Each of the three episodes released thus far runs from 38 to 43 minutes and curiously manages to feel like a really satisfying and brisk two hours apiece. Watching the show is a fascinating experiment in the weird liquidity of time and our perception thereof. There isn’t a single scene in the whole affair that isn’t simultaneously gripping and deliberately measured, restrained, anticipatory.

I don’t want to gloss over something out-the-norm in that last observation, though. Unlike previous shows that carried the Star Wars branding, Andor’s first three episodes were released by Disney+ simultaneously. And in retrospect, there’s a good reason for that. The show was originally conceived as a five-season run, each season of which would jump forward a year in Cassian Andor’s life leading up to the events of Rogue One. At some point, Gilroy decided that was all just too much, and compacted each season into a mini arc. Hence, as best I understand it, the three episodes so far represent a condensation of what was originally conceived as Season One in Gilroy’s 1,500-page bible for the series, and the 12 episodes of this first of two seasons will get us about halfway through that tome. 

The consequence of that is that even if Andor goes completely off the rails as Book of Boba Fett did, or starts off with a bang and settles into predictable middlingness as Obi-Wan Kenobi did, we already have a fully fleshed-out arc with a beginning, middle, and end here, and it’s honestly the best onscreen Star Wars we’ve gotten since the last few seasons of The Clone Wars, despite hardly being Star Wars at all. 

You can probably skip this one if you’re into the franchise for its space battles, blaster fights, lightsabers, and space wizards. I love all of that stuff but there’s none of it to be found here (except for one action set-piece in Episode Three where shots are fired, but that ends up being almost more of an environmental ballet than an O.K. Corral homage). 

You can probably also skip the show if you’re looking for home theater demo material. Andor is a very bruised-looking work, high on contrast and largely devoid of dynamic range. Its Dolby Vision encoding mostly serves to keep details from being lost in the shadows. It’s gorgeous but never eye-popping. There’s more texture here than detail, more tonal richness than gamut-stressing intensity. And while the Dolby Atmos mix is simultaneously expansive and enveloping when called for, it’s predominantly a talky affair. Most of the channels aside from the center are filled with falling rain and the haunting, moody, brilliant-but-subdued score by Nicholas Britell (The Big Short). 

It’s odd. I went into Andor feeling almost obliged to watch it, given how little interest I have in the film that inspired it and the character at its heart but how much devotion I have to this franchise nonetheless. Now I find myself eagerly awaiting the next episode in a way that exceeds my anticipation for the next season of The Mandalorian. But with this one, I’m not watching it because it’s Star Wars. I’m watching it because, at least so far, it’s simply damned good cinema in an episodic-TV package.

Dennis Burger is an avid Star Wars scholar, Tolkien fanatic, and Corvette enthusiast who somehow also manages to find time for technological passions including high-end audio, home automation, and video gaming. He lives in the armpit of Alabama with his wife Bethany and their four-legged child Bruno, a 75-pound American Staffordshire Terrier who thinks he’s a Pomeranian.

PICTURE | The Dolby Vision presentation mostly serves to keep details from being lost in the shadows. It’s gorgeous but never eye-popping. 

SOUND | While the Atmos mix is simultaneously expansive and enveloping when called for, it’s predominantly a talky affair

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Thor: Love and Thunder

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

review | Thor: Love and Thunder

Lots of humor, some character development, and Christian Bale as a new villain help keep this latest installment in the Thor saga engaging

by John Sciacca
September 12, 2022

With Thor: Love and Thunder, Thor (Chris Helmsworth) now has the most standalone films of any hero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with four. Thor definitely took on a more humorous bent in the previous standalone film, Thor: Ragnarok, directed by Taika Waititi, who returns here as both writer and director, and to continue voicing Korg, the Kronan rock-man introduced in Ragnarok. With Ragnarok, Waititi interjected some humor to lighten the mood and bring more of Hemsworth’s personality to the role, and one of the criticisms of Love and Thunder is that the humor has gone too far, nearly becoming an outright slapstick comedy.

While the comedy is definitely still here and pretty pervasive, I feel like it just continues the evolution of Thor and calling it slapstick is overly harsh. While some things like the repeated gag of the giant screaming goats and the odd love triangle between Thor, his old weapon Mjölnir, and his new weapon Stormbreaker, might wear thin on some, they weren’t enough to ruin the film for me. The best touchstone would be how you felt about the humor in Ragnarok or how Thor related to Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) in Avengers: Endgame. If you enjoyed that, you’ll likely enjoy Love and Thunder.

To me, Thor’s comedy style is best summed up in these lines from a Love and Thunder deleted scene:

Star-Lord: “Remember when you told us that this was going to be a safe vacation? I said, ‘Are you certain?’ You said, ‘Oh, yeah. 100%.”
Thor: “Out of 1,000%.”

I loved the interplay between Thor and Star-Lord and wish there would have been more time to explore that relationship, and I thought it was great Matt Damon and Luke Hemsworth returned to reprise their rolls of Actor Loki and Thor from Ragnarok. 

One thing I did find an odd choice was the repeated use and references to the band Guns N’ Roses. It’s almost like Waititi was listening the GNR’s greatest hits on repeat while writing the movie and just fanboyed out. Four different GNR hits play over pivotal points and then again over the end credits, and another character says they have changed their name to Axl, “a singer from a popular band [he] heard on Earth,” along with having GNR posters in his room. Frankly, it’s a bizarre amount of product placement for a rock band in a superhero movie. 

The last time we saw Thor in Endgame, he was depressed over his failure with Thanos. He had been drinking and over-eating, and became what is referred to as “Fat Thor” by the fandom. At the film’s end, he turned rulership of New Asgard over to King Valykrie (Tessa Thompson) so he could head off and become part of the Guardians of the Galaxy crew and find himself again.

While Marvel has made the mid- and end-credits scenes an expectation among fans, Love and Thunder includes, I believe, the first pre-title scene in MCU history. Here we are introduced to Gorr (Christian Bale), a mortal being who has lost faith in the gods after his daughter, Love (India Rose Hemsworth), dies. Gorr takes possession of the god-killing Necrosword and with it he becomes the God Butcher, swearing to kill off all gods across the galaxy.

Thor has turned his dad bod back into a god bod, and he is still with the Guardians of the Galaxy (though far too briefly) before returning to New Asgard to help protect it against Gorr. There he’s reunited with his true love, Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who we last saw briefly in Endgame, and who is now battling stage-four cancer. Foster has also developed a special relationship with Mjölnir, the hammer wielded by Thor until it was shattered by his sister, Hela, in Ragnarok. 

While Bale/Gorr started off reminding me of a War boy from Mad Max: Fury Road, his practical makeup (apparently taking three and a half to four hours a day) and actual shaved head make for a creepy and compelling villain, and his intensity definitely elevates the stakes and counterbalances some of the humor. 

Shot at a 4.5K resolution, the home transfer is taken from a 4K digital intermediate, and images looked sharp and clean. While the Kaleidescape download features a constant 2.39:1 aspect ratio that will be preferred by front-projection owners, the Disney+ stream offers the ability to watch in IMAX Enhanced, which features some scenes in 1.90:1. While these aspect-ratio switches aren’t as engaging as in Top Gun: Maverick, the expanded ratio did make the scenes in Omnipotence City a bit more engaging. 

In the opening, there is a stark contrast between the actors in the foreground and the deep sandy landscape behind them that has terrific depth. You can really appreciate the texture and detail in Bale’s makeup, letting you see the fine lines and pores in his head in closeups. You can also appreciate the design and opulence of Omnipotence City, where the gods live, and the incredible depth and scale of many shots there.

There are many instances where HDR helps to improve the picture quality. Whether it’s small effects like the crackling of electricity sparkling on Stormbreaker or Mjölnir or called down from the heavens, bright white lights gleaming in a dark sky, the flames burning in New Asgard, the glint of gold off of chest armor, or the rainbow-colored Bifrost Thor summons. There are also some vivid colors throughout, like the deeply saturated red of Thor’s cape, or the gleaming metallic blue of his armor, or some wonderful golden sunsets, and the blues and pinks of space clouds. 

But the film’s true HDR tour de force is near the end when the group arrives at the Shadow Realm. Here nearly all color is drained, and images take on an incredibly contrasty black & white effect, with deep inky blacks against vibrant whites and occasionally bright flashes of color. These scenes look fantastic and are truly reference-quality. 

One of the big reasons I opted for the Kaleidescape download over a Disney+ stream was for the Dolby TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. While not as aggressive a mix as you might hope for a big-budget superhero film, it’s still pretty engaging, with loads of surround activity and plenty of overhead fill that helps to establish the sonic space. There are scenes where you’ll hear the hum of Mjölnir flying around the room, winds and sands swirling around, the boom and echo of voices in large halls, the creeping movements of the shadow monsters, thunder rolling across the skies, or Zeus’s (Russell Crowe) lightning bolt whizzing past and exploding.

There’s plenty of deep and authoritative bass, and here the Kaleidescape download far surpassed the Disney+ experience in weight, impact, and punch, delivering truly tactile low end. You really feel the bass kick in with the first big Guns N’ Roses track and then to further accentuate the big battles, hammer/sword strikes, and explosions.

Of course, stick around for a mid-credits scene that points towards Thor’s next adventure, as well as an end-credits scene that gives some closure for a couple of main characters. 

If you go into Thor: Love and Thunder predisposed to hating it and wanting to pick apart all the jokes and humor, you’ll probably find plenty of fodder. But go in expecting to have a good time, to be wowed by some beautiful and stunning visuals, and to enjoy some dynamically deep bass, then you probably will.

Probably the most experienced writer on custom installation in the industry, John Sciacca is co-owner of Custom Theater & Audio in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, & is known for his writing for such publications as Residential Systems and Sound & Vision. Follow him on Twitter at @SciaccaTweets and at johnsciacca.com.

PICTURE | The kind of clean, sharp images you’ve come expect from a 4K transfer, with HDR providing an able assist with highlights and vibrant colors, and in a striking black & white scene near the end 

SOUND | The Atmos mix isn’t as aggressive you’d expect from a superhero film but is still engaging, with lots of surround activity, overhead fill, and deep bass

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Video Game Review: Marvel’s Spider-Man

Marvel's Spider-Man

video game review | Marvel’s Spider-Man

This video game manifestation of Spidey not only makes for an intensely cinematic experience but packs an emotional wallop that tops the various movies 

by Dennis Burger
November 7, 2019

It may seem odd to shine a spotlight on a game that was released more than a year ago, but while Marvel’s Spider-Man was released for PlayStation 4 back in September 2018, I found myself in the middle of a long hiatus from console gaming to focus on some more strategic PC games that had been piling up in my Steam library. What drew me back was an unused PlayStation Network gift card my dad had given me for my birthday, as well as the relatively new release of the Spider-Man: Game of the Year Edition, which hit store shelves this autumn.

For those who aren’t deeply embedded in video-gaming culture, “Game of the Year Edition” is common vernacular for a soft relaunch of a popular game that generally includes all the little add-ons that have been released since, bundled with the original title, for one lower price. In the case of Spider-Man, that includes three mini sequels, collectively dubbed Spider-Man: The City that Never Sleeps, which sold for $9.99 a pop in the months following the main release. Spider-Man: Game of the Year Edition collects the original game and its followups on one disc (or in one download) for $35.

You may also be wondering why we’re covering a video game on a site that typically focuses on luxury home cinema. There’s a good reason for that, which has nothing to do with my long delay in finally picking it up and playing it. Marvel’s Spider-Man is one of the most cinematic games I’ve played in ages, both in its gameplay and its AV presentation. But not in the most intuitive of ways.

At its heart, Spider-Man is what’s known as an open-world game, the world in this case being a slightly scaled-down and very Marvel-specific version of Manhattan circa 2014 (when development of the game began). This playground in and of itself is a technological wonder, not only in its relatively faithful recreation of Times Square, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Station, etc., but also in the way it captures the feeling of moving through the city from district to district, squinting at the sunlight gleaming off buildings in the daytime and the stunning array of neon, halogen, and LED lights piercing what little darkness exists in the shadows at night. The way the game uses its deep shadows and intense highlights to convey the Manhattanhenge effect is among the best applications of HDR I’ve seen to date. 

All of this could be written off as mere eye candy, but it’s more than that. The game’s developers, Insomniac Games, spent so much time working on the web-swinging mechanic—making sure webs would only attach to buildings or flagpoles or what have you rather than clinging to empty air as in past Spidey games and also making sure the parabolic physics of such swinging felt genuine—that if there weren’t some verisimilitude to the look of the city itself, the illusion of Tarzaning through its vertical landscapes would be broken.  

It isn’t just graphics and physics that drive the experience, though. The sound also elevates the AV presentation of the game, with a rich real-time uncompressed 7.1 soundscape and cinematic score that whips and whirs around you as you swing through the city or walk its streets, or even poke around in the science lab where Peter Parker works when the red-and-blue pajamas come off. (By the way, not that this really affects the gameplay, but you’re far from limited to the default two-toned onesie, as one of the game’s most compelling Easter-egg hunts is an ongoing search for the badges and components that allow you to craft or unlock all manner of other Spidey-suits.)

Of course, whooshing around from skyscraper to skyscraper or tinkering with circuit boards in the lab isn’t all there is to do here. There’s an overarching story—based not on any of the previous versions of the Spider-Man mythos but rather a new amalgamation that draws elements from the best that movies and cartoons and comics have to offer—and you’re drawn to new story beats by way of police-scanner alerts or cellphone calls from allies and loved ones. 

It’s a more emotionally engaging story than that of any Spider-Man film to date, in part due to its complex ethical and moral themes but also due to its length. If you don’t stop to thwart muggers or terrorists or take perfectly framed photos of Manhattan’s numerous landmarks, you could probably burn through the main storyline in 20 or 25 hours. 

That’s certainly enough time to become attached to characters and invested in relationships but it would also be completely contrary to the point of the game. The beauty of Marvel’s Spider-Man is the freedom it gives you to explore this world and its original storyline at your own pace. 

As I approached the end of the main quest, my wife and I sat on our sofa—me an active participant in this interactive storytelling-and-exploration experience; her a very willing passive viewer—and openly wept at the poignant and impactful emotional resolution of it all. It’s that engaging. 

Of course, having the Game of the Year Edition meant I still had three more intertwining stories to explore, more petty crimes to deal with between the Church of the Intercession and Battery Park, and more time to rummage around in its sewers and abandoned subways. And while feeling a little tacked on at first, this trilogy of mini sequels eventually evolves into yet another web of intrigue that picks up on threads only hinted at in the main storyline. It may lack some of the personal emotional resonance of the main game but it does amp the moral complexity up to new levels. 

Whether you merely play through the primary questline of Marvel’s Spider-Man or pick every achievement and side quest clean, as I’ve done, you owe it to yourself to play it on the best AV system in the house. And yes, that even includes an Atmos system. 

I know I’ve grumped in the past about not being the biggest fan of object-based surround sound with movies but the 7.1 soundtrack of Spider-Man upmixed into Atmos opens the landscape of Manhattan up in tangible ways. Hearing the roll of thunder and crack of lightning over and around you simply brings this sprawling environment to life. 

If you do play the game through a reference-quality sound system, make sure to dip into the audio settings and make one essential tweak. Change the default sound mode from Home Theater, which is really intended more for soundbars and smaller sound systems, to Maximum, which is mixed for “premium home theater systems or studio playback.” 

Little touches like that prove at least some game developers realize the home cinema potential of their efforts, even if the AV industry continues to treat video games like mere children’s entertainment. 

Dennis Burger is an avid Star Wars scholar, Tolkien fanatic, and Corvette enthusiast who somehow also manages to find time for technological passions including high-end audio, home automation, and video gaming. He lives in the armpit of Alabama with his wife Bethany and their four-legged child Bruno, a 75-pound American Staffordshire Terrier who thinks he’s a Pomeranian.

PICTURE |  One of the most cinematic games to date, with the intense HDR highlights helping to enhance the effect of web-slinging your way through Manhattan

SOUND | The rich real-time uncompressed 7.1 soundscape and cinematic score whips and whirs around you as you make your way through the city

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Second Thoughts: The Apartment

Second Thoughts | The Apartment (1960)

Second Thoughts | The Apartment

The 4K release of Billy Wilder’s 1960 comedy/drama proves to be both a revelation and a bit of a mystery

by Michael Gaughn
September 5, 2022

After watching Billy Wilder’s The Apartment on Amazon Prime back in May, I wrote:

The Apartment looks . . . great. And this is in lowly 1080p. Apparently a 4K digital intermediate was created just this year, and I’m keen to revisit the film if it gets a high-res re-release. But, for now, this version gets just about everything right.

A higher-res version has recently appeared, which I checked out a few days ago on Kaleidescape—and it turned out to be another one of those elaborate puzzles, like The Godfather and Citizen Kane (and Chinatown and Psycho . . .), that shows just how adventurous it can be bringing older films into the 4K realm.

Let me first make it clear that, if you’re anything ranging from a casual to rabid fan of this movie (I sit somewhere on the more tepid end of that scale), you should make a beeline to this release. What it gets right it gets right so well that it overshadows any problems.

But there are problems, all subtle, in a sense, and likely to bother some people more than others. It kind of comes down to, do you watch it in 1080p off a streaming service where the experience is consistent but just good enough or do you go 4K and run the risk of occasionally being pulled out of the film?

This is a straight 4K transfer and yet it feels like an HDR grade was applied. The whites are frequently pumped up, resulting in scenes, like the first one in Jack Lemmon’s apartment, that feel very video-like, almost like what you’d expect from some early TV show like Playhouse 90.

I’ve calibrated—and recalibrated—my system to rid it of any artificial enhancements and to ensure that film looks like film. And just to make sure my perceptions weren’t distorted, I went back and spotchecked HDR titles like Shadow of a Doubt and Citizen Kane and the recent UHD release of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, all of which looked as I remembered—like film.

The wide shot of the office floor two minutes into The Apartment was pleasant, encouraging, and the first shot of Lemmon at his desk was startling, whetting my appetite for a whole film that looked that good. And there are long stretches where, even if everything doesn’t look exceptional, the transfer can in no way be said to be bad. But those overly emphatic highlights pop up randomly like gophers throughout, usually in scenes with bright accents, like the tinsel and lights on the Christmas tree in Lemmon’s apartment. 

This has become a cliché, but some of the wide shots have so much depth you feel like you could reach into them, an effect that seems to come from a combination of sharpness and dynamic range, but something I’ve, until now, only seen happen with HDR titles, not UHD—which is why I’ve got to wonder what’s up here.

The whites are so hot in some places that parts of the image get blown out. The Kleenex that gets away from Lemmon as he stands outside the Majestic Theater becomes a featureless blob, a drifting ectoplasm, and Shirley McClaine’s face gets so blown out during parts of her Christmas Eve scene with Fred McMurray that it looks like she’s doing kabuki. (There’s evidence in the Amazon transfer that these same shots could get blown out, but they’re far better balanced there.)

That the transfer is derived from various elements is more evident here than in lower-res releases, which is what you would expect. The blacks, for instance, are pretty consistent up until the first scene in the Chinese restaurant where the image becomes flatter and grayish, almost brownish. While the first scene in Lemmon’s apartment has that early-TV look, it’s also sharp with a decent tonal range. But the Christmas Eve scene with McMurray and MacLaine in the same space is contrasty, grainy, and not so much soft as gritty. At other times, blacks can look smudgy, in a way that’s not at all filmlike.  

But, again—quibbles, gripes, nits, not dealbreakers. Seeing this in the original 2.35:1 is so crucial to conveying not just the massiveness of the office space but also the stage-like blocking in Lemmon’s apartment that it becomes almost impossible to conceive ever again watching this movie cropped. And one advantage of the 4K was that I could finally confirm that that’s Ella Fitzgerald’s The First Lady of Song sitting in the pole position in Lemmon’s record rack.

Watching a movie in 4K on a well-calibrated reference-quality display can be a lot like putting it under a microscope. Recent films tend to fare well because they’re mostly digital releases and the flaws, aside from a tendency toward a certain clinical sterility, tend to be in their execution, not their presentation. Older films—classic and otherwise—are at the mercy of the guys at the knobs, who may or may have the sophistication to know how a film from a certain era should look or to know how to compensate for the inevitable flaws in negatives and prints. And there’s always the risk of being exposed to someone caught up in the current zeal to make everything look shiny and new, which without exception results in travesty. 

The Apartment hasn’t been brutalized or sullied, just curiously handled. This release is less an assault than a mystery. And you can’t call the harm done inconsequential, but you can call it excusable. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Double Indemnity

Double Indemnity (1944)

review | Double Indemnity

The film that birthed a genre and put a serious dent in the Hays Code, this Wilder/Chandler masterpiece still holds up—but could use a major restoration

by Michael Gaughn
August 30, 2022

The definition of film noir is really simple and unambiguous—and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Noir is always about a schnook—a guy who’s full of himself and thinks he has the world by the tail only to find out, the hard way, that the world has got him firmly by the balls instead. There are no exceptions to this rule. People like to muddy the waters by conflating noir with stuff like crime dramas, psychological thrillers, horror films, and—Lord help us—goth, but if it doesn’t adhere to the above stated formula, it’s just not noir.

And noir, indisputably, began with Double Indemnity. And while Indemnity is as much the effort of Billy Wilder and, by supplying the source text, James M. Cain, it is best seen as an expression of the spirit of Wilder’s collaborator on the screenplay, Raymond Chandler. What’s best about Indemnity is all about Chandler and his preoccupations and his worldview. So it follows that Chandler, with an able assist from Wilder and Cain, created noir. I don’t see any good reason to believe otherwise.

Indemnity still works, at this late date, because the film is as lean and focused and witty and ingeniously crafted as Chandler’s printed prose. It’s a sordid drama, full of truly unappealing characters doing unspeakable things, but everyone expresses themselves with such verve and the wryly sardonic undercurrents are so constant and strong that you leave the experience feeling giddy instead of soiled. 

It’s audacious from beginning to end but never gloats or otherwise shows off, instead taking that carefully honed script—which some consider, not without cause, the best ever written—and using it as not just a guide or a foundation but a bible. Wilder would almost match Indemnity six years later with Sunset Boulevard, but the latter just doesn’t have the redeeming grace Chandler brought to Indemnity. And Wilder’s career would be, from that point on, nothing but a slow slide down from the pinnacle of those two dramas—which really aren’t dramas, in the traditional sense, at all. 

Wilder was able to break almost all the rules here—similar to the unthinkable transgressions Preston Sturges got away with the year before in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek. The two leads—Fred McMurray and Barbara Stanwyck—are fiendishly duplicitous from the second they set eyes on each other, Stanwyck’s husband is a growling, boozing bear, her step daughter is pinch-faced and shrill, the step daughter’s boyfriend just a gigolo. Even the bit players—like the toad of a woman who bitches about having to reach up to the top shelf for baby food—are consistently unpleasant. The only character to display any integrity and meaningful intelligence is Edward G. Robinson as the scowling, grousing claims manager Keyes. An unabashed proto nerd, Keyes is clearly Chandler’s favorite character and in many ways like Chandler himself—far more so than Chandler’s idealized alter ego Marlowe. 

It’s no accident McMurray and Stanwyck just aren’t that pleasant to look at, he, with his prominent brow ridge and vaguely simian muzzle, looming over the not just petite but tiny Stanwyck, she, with that intentionally silly blonde wig and a look on her face like somebody’s holding a heavily soiled diaper under her nose, exuding all the sexual charisma of live bait. It would be pretentious to call the effect Brechtian, but the upshot is the same—to keep us from identifying with the leads and instead see them clearly for who they are—two endlessly devious schemers ultimately just too dumb to rise above their fates.

That’s not to say there aren’t false notes—Richard Gaines as the pompous insurance company president feels like he wandered in from an early talkie, and Porter Hall just can’t seem to shake his screwball comedy roots, doing a couple of takes that would have been perfect in Sullivan’s Travels but feel like they dropped from the moon here. 

It’s impossible to say enough good things about John Seitz’s cinematography. Not only does he perfectly express the gist and the nuances of Wilder/Chandler’s screenplay but he summons up an entire genre whole within a single film, creating all the iconography—rooms sliced by the light through Venetian blinds, shadows that are less shadows than doppelgängers, the constant imminence and threat of night, and so on—without ever once lapsing into mannerism, channeling German Expressionism while making it natural, inevitable instead of showy like it would be in a Hitchcock—or Tim Burton—film. There’s a shot two minutes in, as Neff’s car pulls up in front of the Pacific Building, with streetlights piercing fog and a web of interurban cables crisscrossing the frame, that’s so redolent of Stieglitz that you want to cry. But it’s not lingered on, instead kept up just long enough to establish a mood before the film breathlessly moves on. But that shot subtly sets the tone for everything to come and continues to resonate clear through to the final fadeout, and beyond.

Whatever transfer Amazon is leaning on isn’t great but good enough, apparently derived from a somewhat damaged print so that there’s some tonal fluctuation to the image throughout but nothing too distracting, and clean enough that you can appreciate Seitz’s cinematography—the same tepid recommendation I had to give the presentation of his work in Morgan’s Creek. Would I like to see a 4K restoration? Sure. Something that matches the resolution of the original would of course be a step up and judiciously tempering the flaws in the print is nothing anyone could argue with. But I’m not interested if it ends up looking sanitized, digitized, “improved.” If the result ultimately doesn’t feel like it came from 1944, why bother?

Anointing “greatest films” has always been something of a squeaky wheel phenomenon—driven more by hype and box office and fads than quality—a situation that’s only gotten worse as more and more holdouts succumb, like pod people, to Rotten Tomatoes’ statistically driven groupthink. Individual discernment and taste are on the verge of being pummeled into submission and dumped by the wayside, victims of the human weakness for cheap guarantees and the marketing-driven zeal for consensus. Double Indemnity isn’t mega-budget, isn’t littered with stars, doesn’t have any big action scenes, can only claim one poorly executed matte shot for a special effect, and thankfully didn’t spawn any sequels, let alone franchises. It exists about as far from the land of the blockbuster as it’s possible to be. It’s just a solid piece of filmmaking, as strong an effort as Hollywood has ever made or likely ever will make, a work that’s unlikely to ever date because it rests above social trends, changing fashions, and political agendas. It’s an escape without being escapist, artful without being arty, brutally honest without being preachy—something to be savored, not gulped or munched. By any meaningful standard, it’s one of the great American films. Maybe the greatest.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Whatever transfer Amazon is leaning on isn’t great but good enough, apparently derived from a somewhat damaged print so that there’s some tonal fluctuation to the image throughout but nothing too distracting, and clean enough that you can appreciate John Seitz’s genre-defining cinematography

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Top Gun: Maverick

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

review | Top Gun: Maverick

Living up to all the hype and expectations, Cruise et al. deliver a guaranteed crowd-pleaser that’s true to both the memory and impact of the original

by John Sciacca
August 26, 2022

I can’t remember a movie in recent times I’ve been as excited to see as Top Gun: Maverick. Maybe it was because it was delayed for what seemed like forever during the pandemic. Maybe it was because Tom Cruise went on and on about how they used specially fitted Sony Venice 6K IMAX-certified cameras to film the actors inside the cockpits of actual fighter jets to truly capture what it was like to fly and pull high-G maneuvers. Maybe it was because the original Top Gun came out in 1986 when I was a junior in high school and it just hit me right in the feels. Then when it was finally released this past summer and critics and fans started losing their minds over how good it was—scoring a 96% critics’ rating and 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes—I was even more excited to see it. 

And I’ll be honest, I had every intention of seeing Maverick at a commercial theater—apparently the way Tom Cruise, Jerry Bruckheimer, and God intended—but after my lackluster experience seeing The Batman in a theater here in Myrtle Beach, with subpar black levels and anemic audio, I decided I’d just hold off until the home release where I could enjoy it in the full 7.3.6 Trinnov Audio-processed 4K HDR splendor of my home theater. And, boy, was it worth the wait! Seeing Cruise’s cocky Maverick swagger up on screen again was just fun. 

Maverick is like a master class in how to make a blockbuster sequel. The casting and acting are great, the cinematography is fantastic, the plot is simple but compelling, and the action is fast-paced and (mostly) believable. It also totally understands exactly how to employ fan service. Remember, it’s been 36 years since Maverick (Cruise) jumped in his F-14 and shot down all those MiGs, and Ice Man (Val Kilmer) said he could be his wingman any day. Maverick employs so many cool callbacks, beats, and nods to the original film, you can’t help but revel in the nostalgia of it and smile at the warm fuzzies. But at the same time, you don’t have to be a fan of the original to enjoy Maverick. It serves up just enough backstory and exposition on Cruise’s character for you to understand who he is, even if you don’t already know.

The film picks up 30 years after the first, but the opening will immediately take you back to the original film, with the same text, music, and even Kenny Loggins taking you to the “Danger Zone.” Maverick is still in the Navy but due to his, err, maverick ways, has only managed to achieve the rank of Captain. His career has been somewhat protected by his friend—now Admiral—Ice Man, and he is now a Navy test pilot for experimental planes, but due to his unique real-world dogfighting experience, he is ordered back to TOPGUN to select and train a group of former graduates to execute the attack on this nuclear facility. Among the students is Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), son of Maverick’s former RIO (Radio Intercept Officer) “Goose” (Anthony Edwards). Jon Hamm plays Maverick’s new skeptical “boss” Admiral “Cyclone” Simpson, using his Mad Men sneer and contempt to perfection, and Ed Harris gives a brief but quintessential Ed Harris performance as Rear Admiral “Hammer” Cain. Maverick’s love interest this time around is Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly), who was name-dropped in a throwaway line during the first film but who helps to round out Maverick’s character. 

Maverick also does a terrific job of staying in its lane and knowing what it is. It doesn’t try and get overly complicated or introduce side and sub plots. Someone else compared the film to a Star Wars movie that was just about the Death Star trench run, watching the Rebels assemble a team to make the strike, then watching them train over and over to make the strike, then making the strike, and then escaping. Turn Luke Skywalker into Maverick, turn X-wing fighters into F/A-18s, turn the Death Star into a hostile enemy nation trying to bring a nuclear enrichment plant on line, turn proton torpedoes into laser-guided bombs, and turn the ill-designed exhaust port into a, well, I think they even call it a “port.” 

Shot on 6K and taken from a 4K digital intermediate, Maverick looks fantastic throughout. One thing you’ll either love or hate is that the image switches pretty regularly between 2.39:1 widescreen and 1.90:1 IMAX aspect ratios. Now, if you own a widescreen front-projection system, you’ll likely not love this choice. But if you have a traditional 16:9 aspect-ratio TV, what you’ll notice is that the screen fills vertically—gets larger—during the IMAX scenes which are nearly all when they are flying. Usually I’m not a fan of these changing ratios but the IMAX footage just looks so good and the footage is so exciting, it really does pull you into the action. 

With far more access and cooperation from the US Navy—and paying the Navy $11,374 per flight hour for actual F/A-18’s and Naval aviators—along with the aforementioned suite of in-cockpit IMAX-certified cameras, Maverick features some of the best aerial filming ever. When an actor is performing some intense maneuver, you see the strain and effort on his face and body because they’re actually in the seat feeling the effects of those G forces. And this adds immeasurably to the realism and intensity of the moment and the scenes. You really get a sense of whipping through a canyon doing a low-level bombing run at 600 knots, and it’s exhilarating. 

Images are sharp, clean, and clear, and while I wouldn’t say that the 2.39:1 images had that hyper-detailed overly crisp “digital” look, they instead looked like the best of what a great film transfer can deliver, without any of the grain but still providing plenty of fine detail like the gold braid in Maverick’s uniform hat or the pattern in Ice Man’s ascot/scarf. The IMAX footage is often closeups, and you can see every line, whisker, and pore in the actors’ faces. The HDR grade delivers natural-looking images, and bright, punchy colors in the pilots’ helmets, the blue lighting in the aircraft carrier’s combat information center, the flashes of sunlight, or the gleam of sweat on faces. 

The Dolby TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on the Kaleidescape download sounds fantastic, with the thunder and roar of F/A-18 engines as they fire up producing bass that hits you in the chest. There are loads of overhead flyovers, with the sound of wind racing and ripping past on all sides or planes flying past and out into the back or sides of the room. Even in the non-flying scenes, there are the backgrounds sounds of jets flying around the air base off in the distance or using the overhead speakers for Mav’s voice talking to a ground station. There were a few moments where understanding dialogue was a bit challenging, when pilots are flying/dogfighting with jet engines shrieking, music playing, and they are speaking under the literal stress of flight behind oxygen masks. 

Top Gun: Maverick plays terrifically in a luxury home theater. It looks and sounds great, is a near-guaranteed crowd pleaser for your next get-together, and has great replay value. In fact, I already can’t wait to watch it again, and it will likely have heavy rotation in your theater’s demo showoff reel! It is available now from Kaleidescape and other digital retailers—a full two-months before its November 1 disc release—making this a total no-brainer to recommend.

Probably the most experienced writer on custom installation in the industry, John Sciacca is co-owner of Custom Theater & Audio in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, & is known for his writing for such publications as Residential Systems and Sound & Vision. Follow him on Twitter at @SciaccaTweets and at johnsciacca.com.

PICTURE | Images look like the best of what a great film transfer can deliver, providing plenty of fine detail

SOUND | The TrueHD Atmos soundtrack sounds fantastic, with the thunder and roar of F/A-18 engines as they fire up producing bass that hits you in the chest

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Scroll to top