“Women Talking” is a strange film. I can’t see why it was nominated for Best Picture unless it’s some kind of “token” all-woman movie to thrown into the mix. And while it’s a fine film, it left me wanting more — in fact, after the film, I sat in the parking lot at the theater and ordered the book behind the film.
And it’s about women talking — literally, that’s the entire movie. Some might find that tedious, but I found it interesting. These highly religious women, part of a colony, must decide on a group response to a series of horrific sexual assaults on the women of the community. Should they stay and suffer through more assaults, fight back, or leave the colony, striking out on their own? It makes for an interesting discussion. Rooney Mara is a wonder here as Ona, one of the younger women debating with seven others on how to respond. And because the women are illiterate, they invite a man, their colony schoolteacher, August (Ben Whishaw), into their company, but only to record the proceedings for future generations.
It’s difficult to be harsh with a movie that’s exploring such tragic subject matter, so I’ll just say that I wanted more information on their colony and it’s place in the outside world. In fact, it takes a while before the audience learns whether the film is set in modern times or two hundred years ago. An interesting film, certainly, but not Best Picture material. Although, hey, giving it a nomination got me to see it, so there’s that, right? There’s something to be said about raising a film’s profile. 6 out of 10.
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “Avatar: The Way of Water” Back and better than ever, Avatar 2 is a beautiful and worthy follow up to the first film. The story is engaging, and they figured out a clever way to bring back some of the more interesting characters from the first film. As always, the sweeping vistas and breathtaking images pull you back into the world of Avatar. 8 out of 10.
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “Triangle of Sadness.”
Nominated for Best Picture, there are so many things in this movie that I wanted to like but just could not. Self-sabotage isn’t a pretty thing to watch, but often, just when this film is about to make a point, the director chooses to HAMMER YOU OVER THE HEAD with his point instead of making it in a subtle fashion.
“Triangle” is not shy when trying to make a point. Hate rich people? Oh, you’re going to love this movies. Hate “influencers” and capitalists and people who take vacations on yachts? Do I have a movie for you! The plot revolves around Carl, a male model, and his girlfriend, Yaya, an “influencer.” I would say it’s about their relationship and making it work, which is a point belabored at length in the first thirty minutes of the film, but I’m not so sure. At times, it just feels like they’re the pretty, easy to look at couple that lets the filmmaker set up the hijinks to come later. “Watch these pretty people—I’m going to put them through hell because they’re rich and white.”
Great, go for it. They go on a vacation on a yacht and things go badly. That’s all I’ll say about the plot, which is very thin and only serves as the barest skeleton for the real meat of this film - social commentary. Step right up, folks, and listen to these zingers!!! “Rich people bad.” “Communism good.” “Capitalism bad.” Fashion lines treat their customers with disdain. There are things to like here but the film is not one of the top 10 films of the year. I liked the skewering of “influencers” and their endless narcissistic need for attention. At one point, a man takes a woman’s jewelry off—you’ll get it when you see it. And the flip at the end with Carl is a fun point to make, but it feels like it takes too long and it’s too on the nose. Somehow this movie has too little to say and takes too long saying it. Also I would be remiss in not mentioning the death of the lead actress, Charlbi Dean, who tragically passed away before the film was released. She was excellent in her role and we have been robbed of an actress with a long career ahead of her. She will be missed.
It meanders and preaches and can’t seem to get to the point. And then, when it does, it subverts it in an interesting way that had me sit up and pay attention. Wait, what? Are they trying to say something in the end about power and how it corrupts everyone, even when a poor person happens to find themselves in an advantageous situation? I understand “rich people bad,” but it also feels like they’re saying “poor people bad,” too? Is that possible? You’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it. And, again, they have one of the endings that is left up to interpretation. It’s supposed to feel mysterious but just feels like a cheat. 4 out of 10, a real disappointment for me.
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “Plane.”
It’s that time of the year when I’m racing to see all of the major Academy Award nominations. It might seem dumb to some people, but I’m a huge fan of cinema (yes, “Avatar” is still cinema) and like to know what is being nominated and WHY. To keep your finger on the pulse of Hollywood is to keep up with trends, recognize patterns, and shake your head at the latest “IP” to come along that somehow requires five sequels even though no one really enjoyed the original. Do we need another “Fantastic Beasts” movie, or another “Scream?” I don’t know. Someone seems to think so, although with that last “Beasts” movie I think Warner might have a tough row to hoe to get people to pay $12 to see the next one.
ANYWAY (sorry, I’m rambling) I’m catching up on movies, but I decided to do the old Soderburgh plan: “one for them, and one for me.” I watched “Triangle of Sadness” because I had to—it’s been inexplicably nominated for Best Picture — so now I get to watch something fun and entertaining: “Plane.”
“Plane” feels like a throw-back movie from the 1990s, when they just made good movies and no one spent the entire film preaching to you about whatever they feel like you are lacking. Right now, I’m watching “Tar” and got bored and came over here to work on this review. When did movie watching stop being about entertainment and become about education? I don’t want to be educated—and if you’re educating me, make it entertaining. The first ten minutes of “Tar” was a sit-down interview between two people in front of an audience. Scintillating, right?
“Plane” isn’t like that. In the first ten minutes, we meet most of the main characters and set up the entire plot of the film, which stars one of my favorite working actors, Gerard Butler, who seems to go out of his way to only make entertaining, violent, and awesome popcorn fare. No “Triangle of Sadness” for him, no sir. “Plane” is great — Butler plays an airline pilot whose plane goes down on a lawless island off the coast of the Philippines. That’s it. That’s the whole plot, but it’s so well done and so perfectly paced that the film is over before you know it.
There are bad guys (interestingly, they didn’t do subtitles or translation, so you really have to tip your hat to the actors who conveyed their entire character through body language and tone of voice) and there are good guys and every single standard trope you’re expecting is turned on its head.
That being said, this isn’t a movie for the ages. Although I still go back and enjoy “Olympus has Fallen,” I’m not sure this one will hold up as well. Maybe if the plot had been just been “slightly” more complicated, it would have made the film better. As for now, it’s predictable but satisfying.
“Plane” is a breath of fresh air compared to Tar and “All Quiet” and “Triangle of Sadness,” all of which are so busy trying to say something that they forget to speak to the audience. You keep your college courses on Mahler and trench warfare. I’ll be over here, watching Gerard Butler kill a guy with a stick and cheer when a takes out a bad guy at the perfect moment. 7 out of 10.
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “All Quiet on the Western Front.”
War is hell. As with most war movies, including “1917” and “Saving Private Ryan,” this film is about the insanity—and inanity—of armed conflict, which chews up and spits out both the innocent and the warfighter with equal, casual cruelty. The randomness of it all, the “rah rah” chest thumping of the politicians that will never venture anywhere near the front lines, the heartbreaking waste of human life are portrayed beautifully in this film, based on the 1929 book by Erich Remarque.
The best parts of the war are those simple moments between the falling shells and ricocheting bullets: reading heartfelt letters from home. One man meets a female refugee and she give him her scarf and the men of the company pass it around to smell it—it sounds gross but it’s cruel in its hopefulness and innocence. All these men want to do—and all of the soldiers are men, fodder for the war—is return home and make a home and family. It’s a dream that they all share but few will see come true.
Of course, the hopeful scenes are far outnumbered by the somber ones: massive graves full of the dead, mangled bodies in the mud, gas attacks. Dead bodies hang from the trees, and our soldiers find a room of 60 young soldiers, gassed to death. They run into machine gun fire and collect a seemingly endless number of dog tags to be sent to some distant bureaucrat for counting and to notify the next of kin. It makes me think about what’s happening in Ukraine right now and I wonder if we’ll ever learn.
Some of the juxtapositions are perfect, especially the cutting between soldiers fighting hand-to-hand in the mud while the politicians and career soldiers enjoy fine meals and wine in quiet manors far from the front lines. Doctors work to save the injured, and a friend of our main character tries to surrender to soldiers with flamethrowers to no avail.
Much of the cinematography was simply sublime, reminding me of “1917” but lacking that film’s rushing sense of dread created by “single shot” aspect of the film, which through trickery and technology made it appear as if the entire film consisted of one continuous shot. In the end, war is hell, and the victors in their cruel, retaliatory punishment, continue the cycle and ensure another war soon in the future.
Earlier movies based on this story were made in 1930 and 1979, with the later version starring Richard Thomas, pre-”Bilbo” Ian Holm, and Ernest Borgnine. The summary for that film tells you everything you need to know about the story: “A young soldier faces profound disillusionment in the soul-destroying horror or World War I.“ I might have added something about the warrenlike trenches, half filled with rain and blood and bodies, but maybe they didn’t want to scare off their entire audience.
That being said, I’ve seen all of this before. War is cruel, and anyone who doesn’t believe that hasn’t ever spoken to a veteran or walked through a military graveyard. But this film really brings it home. Should be mandatory viewing for anyone enamored with war. I think the film would have been more affective if it were 30 minutes shorter, but other than that, I had few complaints. 8 out of 10.
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “The Batman.” Wow. Great story, beautiful visuals, and some of the most haunting and melodic scoring I've heard in a long time. You know those folks that say "why can't they make good comic book movies? One's where you care about the good guys and hate the bad guys and it all seems to actually matter and it's not just some dumb exercise in grandstanding morons punching each other for two hours?" Show them this movie. It's haunting and thoughtful and moving. There's the absolute bare minimum of "modern day" tropes and groupthink -- instead, you get a vigilante detective trying to solve an escalating series of gruesome and public murders. Everyone is great in this: Kravitz, Paul Dano, Peter Sarsgaard, a completely unrecognizable Colin Ferrell and Turturro. Serkis as Alfred is haunted by his failure to protect Bruce Wayne's parents, while Jeffrey Wright's Lt. Gordon is apparently the only cop in town who's not on the payroll of some crime lord or syndicate. But my standout was Pattinson, formerly Mr. Shiny Vampire, who brings something new and vulnerable and a little unhinged to the Caped Crusader. Everything here feels fresh and new: a grungy but logical bat cave, a saucy and completely realistic batmobile, the way the Batman uses fear and his ability to be anywhere as tools in an attempt to keep a lid on the bubbling, simmering cesspool that is Gotham City. 9 out of 10, in my Top 5 for 2022.
Here’s my Quick and Dirty Review of Ready Player One
The movie was good, 6 out of 10 stars. Not great, not amazing, but good. Much of the "real life" parts felt phoned in, and there was so much going on in the digital parts that I'm thinking a lot of the detail is lost in the all the noise. Lots of fun and full of pop culture references, but it made me miss the book, which was better by far. It's a fun ride and dazzling--make sure you see it on the big screen. The bad guy comes off as a little goofy, and the challenges aren't as difficult as in the book, so not sure how book readers will feel about it. Almost feels like a whole different animal.
Of course, it did my heart good to see all the BTTF references--heck, the main character drives a souped up Delorean. Plus the soundtrack's by Alan Silvestri, who also did BTTF and Avengers. I told my wife Samantha she has to go see it with me so I can gauge how it plays with folks who didn't read the book and aren't completely obsessed with '80s pop culture. Best part? The Shining... 7 out of 10, mostly for the BTTF references. Darn you for not leaning more into the Rush like in the book!!!!
Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “Tomorrowland.”
I went into this movie expecting to hate it. Based on what I'd heard, I was planning for a clunker with bad effects. I'm happy to say I was pleasantly surprised. The visuals are amazing, and the plot is hopeful and interesting, centered mostly around a negative "self-fulfilling prophecy" playing out in our reality. Without getting into spoilers, there's a good reason for our current obsessions with negativity and dystopia and apocalyptic zombie movies. We're being told the world is going to hell, and we're buying into it.
I can understand some of the negative criticism. There are too many CGI robots, enough to make action scenes feel boring. A weird tonal shift happens early on, amping up the violence and throwing viewers for a loop. And many of the action scenes feel hurried and overworked. The ten-minute house invasion section was so rushed, a dozen nifty inventions are thrown at the viewer so quickly, they can't be appreciated. Plot holes and "wait, what?" moments abound, as they do in most big films nowadays. I hate being asked to not only suspend my disbelief but ignore things like physics. When a huge metal ball explodes over your head, you run away. When the film shows it crashing onto a platform where your character was standing, the viewer thinks: "oh, my, is she dead?" Of course not. She's fine, and it's not explained. People fall in water and are dry in the next moment. Humans are vaporized by mean robots and nobody cares or notices. It feels like a great fourth draft of a script that needed a little more polishing.
Unfortunately, the movie feels 20% too preachy, hitting us over the head with dangers like global warming and obesity and famine. But it takes a hopeful view, assuming that, if we work together, we can solve these problems and others. It's a hopeful message, something akin to the 1950s and 60s when the world was recovering from a devastating world war and anything seemed possible and we were landing people on the moon and making strides on social issues like civil rights and the prevention of global conflicts. Clooney and the other actors are good, although the lead actress seemed a little overwhelmed, and you can't base a huge movie like this on essentially four characters. They needed more people and more character arcs to make it have an impact.
But, in the end, this hopeful film asks us to believe that progress is a good thing, but only if that progress is in the service of good. This movie trades in a different message: hope, and hopefulness, and using our combined smarts to figure out solutions to problems. That's not something you hear a lot any more, and it was refreshing to see, especially in a big Hollywood blockbuster. It harkens back to that old Einstein saying, which is highlighted in once scene: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." And that's not a bad thing.
This was a lot of fun and a great twist on the whole concept of an Airbnb stay gone wrong. Tess (Georgina Campbell) shows up at her Detroit Airbnb late on a rainy night and discovers there’s someone else already there, a creepy dude named Keith (yes that’s Bill Skarsgård from “It”) who supposedly booked it through another service. While they try to make the best of it, things quickly devolve into a surprising and scary tale of . Look out for the fun and crazy tonal shift when AJ (Justin Long), a sitcom actor living his best Riki Tiki Tavi life is suddenly singing and driving down the coast of California before they too get some unsettling news. It’s an abrupt shift and things just get weirder and weirder from there. Go into this a fresh as possible and you’ll be pleasantly surprised. 8 out of 10.
Okay, here's my "film review" for The Banshees of Inisherin: Don't watch this movie. I'm not saying that in a "reverse psychology way" or some clever attempt to get you to watch this. I mean don't watch this movie. It's not one of the TOP 10 MOVIES OF 2022, despite what people are saying. Yes, it's shot beautifully and yes the actors are great and the location is great. No, don't see this movie because it's so freaking depressing, I had to go watch Schindler's List TWICE to cheer me up. Wow.
You know how people say "there's two hours I'll never get back" when they waste time watching a movie with no redeeming value? This is worse. Here's the plot: "In old timey Ireland, mean and depressing people do mean and depressing things to each other before things take a turn into horrible, please-erase-this-from-my-brain land." This movie isn't a waste of time--it's actively depressing, not something we need more of in our time. Things are depressing enough already without ACTIVELY seeking out things that will bring you down. For example, a friend of mine is always trying to get me to watch the Walking Dead series, and I tell him he's fecking crazy: "why would I want to see people being mean to each other on purpose for an endless number of hours without any redemption arc?" I mean, why are we all obsessed with these movies that preach how horrible life is? What am I supposed to take away from these stories? We're all worthless and nothing matters? Life is depressing? I can find that on Tik Tok.
Okay, I'm wrapping up this review with the following: you know how you felt after watching "Irreversible" or "Raw" or "Battlefield: Earth?" Here's what I said: "Wow, I wish I had never seen that because now I have these images in my mind I can't get rid of." That's what this movie is. If you want to ruin someone's day, recommend this movie and gush over the cinematography and the acting and how beautiful the landscapes are. Just don't be surprised if they call you up later and tell you off for recommending this depressing waste of film.
Nope, unwatchable. I got thirty minutes into this frenetic exercise in yelling, shouting, and people being horrible to each other, topped off by a too-loud music track that drowned out half of what Adam Sandler was saying. Maybe with better production values this would have been an okay film, but the dialogue must have been recorded on set and not ADR/looped in after, as is done in most modern films, because characters were talking over each other, making it nearly impossible to hear what the characters were saying. The directors also refused to use establishing shots or any character back-and-forths, so it was impossible to tell who was talking to whom. Things got better when I turned on the closed captions, but the stressful story didn't improve--it was just Sandler yelling at people or texting angrily. That's not a story. Finally I just started skipping ahead in ten-minute segments, hoping the story would improve. Spoiler--it doesn't. Oh, and that zooming in/zooming out of stuff was just gross. It happens at the start and again at the very end. You know what I'm talking about. The most interesting part? The first five minutes at the gem mine. One upside--this will be my new "barometer" movie. I'll use it to warn me off of movie lists--you know the ones--that start with something clever like "Ten Modern Film Masterpieces." When they list crapfests like this movie or "The Shape of Water" and "The Master" and snoozers like "Moonlight" and "Drive," then I'll know to move on. Yikes.
The film is an incredible technical achievement--it's one of those films where you spend half the film wondering how they pulled it off. The cinematography, coupled with the seamless editing between "scenes" makes this feel like one long take, with only a few recognizable breaks. If I had to nitpik anything, it would be that the story itself felt thin, but I've read that the producers were going for something simple and timeless. A complicated story would have made production even more of a nightmare--as it was, I can't believe they pulled this off. The pacing never lets up and never lets you catch your breath. I think Sam Mendes is probably a shoe-in for Best Director, even though I liked "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" better. Best Film Editing is also probably a lock--except it didn't get nominated, when films like Joker and Jo Jo Rabbit did. Confused? Me too! And the score was haunting and memorable. Catch this on the big screen if you can!
A well-done film, capped by an excellent, transcendent performance by Renée Zellweger. It's amazing how she disappears into the role--five minutes in, you're not seeing anyone but Judy Garland. The hair, the dresses, the tiny extra bit of nose, it all makes you forget the woman from "Bridget Jones' Diary." Renee tops it off by doing her own singing. A tour-de-force and a shoe-in for 2019's Best Actress, in my opinion. We'll see, right? Oh, and the woman playing the young Judy Garland was excellent as well.
A very good film. Not a great film, not best of the year, not best of the decade. Tells a very small story well, but I kept waiting for things to head in a different direction. While the acting and cinematography were outstanding, this just didn't feel like it was on the same level for me as other 2019 films like "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" or "Joker," which was crammed from beginning to end with excellent acting. I'd say this movie was good, interesting, and the least amount of fun I've had watching a film since "Marriage Story." Still need to watch "1917" to round out my 2019 nominated films--maybe that one will be a real pick-me-up too!!
I loved the book and love Ewan Mcgregor and Rebecca Ferguson, but I have to say this film was a disappointment. The filmmakers tried to serve two masters: fans of the original "The Shining" and fans of Stephen King's works, and I have to say they failed on both parts. I know they were treading a thin line, so I give them credit for trying. But the massive, wholesale changes from the book will alienate the novel's fans, and folks who loved the movie might be confused about many of the things that are happening on-screen due to skipped explanations and attempts to "fix" the first movie, which didn't really need fixing. It was just a different take on the book, which I loved. And I loved the movie. Things can exist in different worlds and still be good. Loving the book, I understood most of what was happening, but found the lack of backstories and character development frustrating. Interesting characters were introduced and then never seen again, important characters from the book that you kept expecting to pop up again. The production values were excellent, to be sure, and it was a dream to revisit The Overlook, even if last year's "Ready Player One" stole their thunder by replicated the old hotel first. Rebecca Ferguson is a powerhouse in this--how is it that she doesn't have her own franchise of films yet? McGregor is great, as usual, but both of their characters felt watered down in comparison to the book. I liked the recreations of scenes from the first film, especially getting a kick out of certain office. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but yes, you are not crazy. It's a item-for-item recreation, down to the plant shelves and the open briefcase and the American flag. Well done. 6 out of 10.
Beautiful, well-made, harrowing. My second racing movie in as many days ("The Art of Racing in the Rain") delves into Ford's attempts to compete on the international racing circuit by "buying" in and hiring only the best. Of course, in standard corporate fashion, they can't just let the people do their jobs, but must constantly "manage" and meddle to "protect their investment." The film does a great job of depicting the trials and tribulations leading up to the 1966 racing season, and Matt Damon and Christian Bale are in top form here, making a strong film out what could be, with other actors, a standard racing picture. Bale's acting is enhanced by his rail-thin physique. It's truly amazing that he lost over 70 pounds to do this picture, coming off of "Vice," where he gained considerable weight to play Dick Cheney. When asked how he lost the weight, he said he "just stopped eating." You have to admire his commitment. 8 out of 10.
I liked it. I'm not sure what people want out of an action movie other than surprising plot elements, interesting characters to root for, exploding hospitals, high tech used in new ways, and twists piled upon turns. As with the other "Has Fallen" films, this one kept me engaged the whole time. Besides, it's great to see Gerard Butler out there kicking people's butts. And while not as good as the excellent first installment, the ending of this one was actually touching and paid tribute to the characters, especially the bad guy. If you're looking for an action movie, you could do a lot worse.
Eh, not great. Watched this right after watching Despicable 1 and 2 and you can really see the difference in the screenplay--most of the jokes didn't land and things didn't make sense. My ten-year old was asking me questions I couldn't answer about the characters and motivations. I think someone watched the first two, said "hey let's make a Minions-only movie" and then tried to figure out why they were popular. I can tell you why they're popular--they talk funny and they get into funny situations. Can you make a whole movie out of that? I'd argue no. The animation was great and there is some inventive stuff in here, but I found my attention wandering. If felt like things were just "happening" to the minions, through no actions of their own, and the movie felt like an exercise in trying to spot connections to the "good" movies in the franchise. It's like going to Disney World and only searching for Hidden Mickeys on all the rides instead of having the rides themselves be good. Also, it's written for (and possibly by) six year olds, especially the ending that reminds you OVER AND OVER about the minions' connection to Gru. Not subtle, not funny. The last words describe their new boss as dastardly and "despicable," and my daughter said sarcastically "OH THAT'S GRU? WE HAD NO IDEA." Funnier than anything in the movie.
Okay, I went into this with lowered expectations. You know, I was thinking "okay here's another sappy dog movie designed to make me cry." Turns out they did a great job of making the dog feel real and intelligent, to the point where you're wishing he could talk and express himself better. Well worth a watch, this is one of the better films of 2019. Some of the parts were overwritten, and some of the dog's complicated language and remembrances took me temporarily out of the movie, but it was all worth it. Can a dog be a race car driver? Nope, something that frustrated Enzo to no end. Can he WANT to be a race car driver, and apply what he's learned to his dog life? Sure. Give this one a watch--you'll either love it or you are dead inside. Of course, if it had been about a cat, I might not have liked it so much...
Great action movie, keeps you guessing all the way through. Ever wished Jackie Chan was in a "serious" movie where he was using his skills to take down a terrorist plot? Your wish is granted.
You know how people complain that they "don't make nice, simple movies" anymore? Check this one out. Confidently directed by Clooney, this gorgeous film follows a group of WWII soldiers with one very complicated task: rescue and recover as many great works of art as they can from the Nazis. Sounds like an easy job, right? Nope. With the Germans losing the war, they started retreating back into their native land--and took everything they had pillaged with them. Or burned it. Clooney, Damon and Blanchett are great -- I got a distinct "wartime Ocean's 11" vibe from them -- but the real standouts are Bill Murray and John Goodman, investing their characters with heart. It's not the greatest movie ever made, and not even the best WWII movie ever made (that's Schindler's List, a movie I saw once and never need to see again), but it's the kind of the un-ironic, un-cynical movie Hollywood doesn't make any more.
Wow. Not sure what people are thinking, calling this a modern classic? Nope. If you want that, see "Nightcrawler." Hell, "Baby Driver" is a better "getaway driver" movie and at least brings something inventive to the table. I watched this with much anticipation, having heard it was a great movie. Not really. Let's watch the two main characters stare at each other for long, soundless scenes, populate the film with ZERO interesting characters, and then top it of by having a main character with the emotional range of a toothpick (see what I did there). It's too bad - Gosling's a great actor (but not in this) and I loved the director's "Neon Demon." Oh well, you can't win them all...
A great film for Beatles fans, and fun to see people discovering their songs for the first time, but the love story seemed too contrived and unearned. I'm not sure 20 years in the friend-zone can ever be overcome. Can it? And while I loved the "alternate-ness" of this reality, the film itself left me with too many unanswered questions about how this alternate reality came about. I wanted to know "why" no one remembers the Beatles or any of the other things that are missing in this reality. Haven't cigarettes been around forever? And Coca Cola started in the late 1800s--does that mean the power outage somehow affected things that happened decades ago? Centuries? Sorry, I'm th kind of viewer who wants answers. To me, there's no worse cop-out than when a writer or filmmaker leaves an ending "open to interpretation" or expects the viewer to "come up with his own answers." That's not how storytelling is supposed to work--when I write a book, I have an ending in mind. If I didn't, and left it ambiguous, my readers would howl and downvote me on Amazon. So pick and ending and support it with your arguments. Anyway, sorry about the rant. I wanted to like this film, but I kept waiting for the real Beatles to show up and claim their work. I wanted answers, but the way the filmmakers left things open-ended seemed less satisfying for me. Watch it for the music and Himesh Patel's amazing, heartfelt performance, and ignore the trite, unearned love story angle and Kate McKinnon's thirty-ninth over the top performance.
Easily one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. All explosions, no down time, no characters to root for, dumb jokes, pointless character decisions that don't make any sense, all grounded in a trite "we messed up the planet and it's our fault" message. MIGHT have been okay if it had been the culmination of a ten-movie arc, where we got to know these characters and monsters before they all show up in a battle royale at the end. As it is, it's impossible to feel anything for any of the monsters or characters. Those important to the story survive ridiculous odds or injuries--at one point, Eleven literally gets hit in the back by a falling concrete pillar and just shakes it off. This movie reminded me of the worst parts of "Justice League" - you can't just throw together a bunch of action sequences and expect people to care. On the upside, the monster sounds were great and the designs were awesome--if only the camera stood still long enough for us to get a good look at the creatures.
What can I say? It was fine. Some stunning visuals can't make up for a barely-workable plot that you can feel slipping and sliding over the plot holes that rise up from the depths at every turn. Jason Momoa throws himself into the silliness with daring aplomb, but this movie has a serious Star Wars Prequel trilogy feel: everything happens in front of a green screen and you can just tell that the actors had little or nothing to work with. I was surprised by Amber Heard and Willem Defoe, who both brought actual acting chops to the silly lines they were asked to deliver. If you're interested in spending two-and-a-half hours watching thousands of CGI things fight thousands of other CGI things, be my guest. I, for one, would have prefered a little more actual story instead of the standard "rightful king returns to take his throne" storyline which has been done to death. Oh, and saying this is the "best of the DC universe" is faint praise and inaccurate--Wonder Woman, despite all of its flaws, is still the best the DCEU has managed to deliver.
Just watched "Mortal Engines" and it's a singularly beautiful movie with some of the clunkiest dialogue I've ever heard on screen. The production design should have won Oscars: the rolling cities, the beautiful floating islands, and the huge tracks carved into the landscape gave it a feeling that's a cross between "Brazil" and "Lord of the Rings" and "Avatar." And while the movie started out with such potential, the acting and dialogue make the viewer laugh out loud--and not in a good way. Every character moment is over-telegraphed, and every line of dialogue feels like a "first draft," without any polish or subtlety. If only they'd taken another $100,000 from the special effects budget and paid a couple of good screenwriters to take two or three more passes through the script to fix the dialogue. But see this movie for the sweeping effects and gorgeous production design--just try to ignore the grating moments of "character development."
An excellent film with a moving, bravura performance from Peter Dinklage as the haunted "Fantasy Island" actor Herve Villechaize. Surprising, heart-wrenching, and moving. The film centers around a journalist's interview of the actor, which grows from a simple bio fluff piece and develops into something much deeper: a confession.
Trippy ending, I'll give them that. Wonder where they'll go from here. It was nice to finally get some answers, and I liked the part about all the construction workers going crazy. But, when all is said and done, the story leaves me feeling sad. No matter what OA does, she'll never be rid of HAP or apparently really get a chance to connect with Homer and her friends. It's not a happy ending or a sad ending, just an ending. She's trapped in an endless cycle of loss and rediscovery, tethered to her tormentor. And even death isn't a release. For everything we've seen, OA calls herself an angel. What if she's really in hell, spending an eternity locked in a hopeless battle with a man she hates?
So far it's...fine. A weird clash of tones: one minute they're making silly jokes and the next it's all "whoa, here comes the scary apocalypse!" My wife and I have to keep pausing it to discuss the ins and outs of the plot, which takes interesting turns here and there but can't decide if it's scary or funny. I guess the best way to describe it is a "light-hearted take on the apocalypse." We'll keep watching, hoping it gets better. Random thoughts: I can't figure out why Crowley walks so funny? I guess the "Queen" songs are from the book. I liked the Garden of Eve and hate the Frances McDormand narration. I understand she's God, but everything is a joke to her, which just seems cruel to all the little people on the planet. The bone-dry humor might come through better if it were being read by someone with a more commanding voice, I'm thinking. Crowley says that went over like "a lead balloon" in the Garden of Eden long before lead or balloons have been invented. "Two demons lurk at the edge of the graveyard. They're pacing themselves, and can lurk for the rest of the night, if necessary, with still enough sullen menace left for a final burst of lurking around dawn." Okay, this is a good example. It sounds scary but then has a funny joke at the end. The tonal shift is jarring and unexpected and happens all the time in this show and (presumably) the book as well. So are we laughing or scared or both? Not sure. It's like Seinfeld with an occasional bloody murder. So there are three babies? What happened to the third one? All we know is that he "probably wins prizes for his tropical fish." The President Bush impersonator was dead perfect. I liked the nun suggesting evil names. David Tennant as Mary Poppins was just ick. And wow was that devil dog CGI horrible?
A few answers...and more questions. At least they're starting to get to the bottom of the house and how it's connected. I liked a few of the reveals but whatever the h*ll Dr. Percy is doing with those flowers is beyond me. Random thoughts: mercury sulfide is a great hallucinogen, apparently. Poor Zendaya has to deal with a friend who got bit by a spider AND a creepy haunted house. Where can I buy one of the eyeball USBs? Homer's even more of a moron in this dimension. I like the traveler lady--maybe she's got more boxes? So Scott ended up somewhere else in the house? How did HAP get him back to the lab? And we finally got some answers about why the detective guy was sought out in the first place...
