Essentially what would happen if Disney made a Mad Max movie. All three movies are at least very distinct from one another but this is not Mad Max, it doesn't feel like Mad Max. It has the same weird characters/costumes and the same dystopian world but nothing about gas of car chases (except one in the third act). It's Mel Gibson playing Max on paper, but this character isn't Max by any stretch of the imagination. No continuity whatsoever with the character or story.
I was really enjoying the first act and the cage fight was awesome. Second act turns into Peter Pan, that was awful and it really made me lose interest. The third act finally picks up with car chases and I had some fun but yeah, the second act made me disinterested in the story.
Tina Turner (god rest her soul) was probably the most interesting character in the movie. It's not really that she's a good actress, but rather that everyone around her is mediocre. And her music does not fit with this movie or franchise whatsoever.
Disappointed, again. Now that i'm finished with the three drafts, I can finally watch the final form; Fury Road.
I'm a huge fan of SF and AI based plots - I was really looking forward to seeing this but it was a frustrating disappointment. It has terrible horrible shamefully bad writing. Not a single original idea about AI and in fact they don't really deal with AI apart from robots basically being exactly like humans but nicer. No original futuristic sci-fi ideas either with a lot of the futuristic stuff not making any sense. For example the AIs speak to each other in English, no super fast data pours between them. They can't even speak remotely over cellular or whatever... they use walkie talkies lol. They had an old women robot that limped around though the robots do not age?!? I could have forgiven all of this in the 80s or from an adaptation of an Isaac Asinov novel but we're in 2023 and we've all watched the Matrix etc... Also it had very little action and the action sequences it did have were bad and boring with yellow lazer tracers zapping around in the near dark or fog. Visually it was ok and the score was decent but the poor writing completely ruined it for me. Half way through, I couldn't wait for it to end. You can't be a serious Sci-fi fan and think this is any good, it's just not possible... yes that's you good reviewers.
A really boring, surface level exploration of one of the more interesting musical figures of the 20th century. It makes the classic biopic mistake of retelling the subject’s life through bullet points instead of providing a unique artistic perspective or insight. The writing is so flat and just doesn’t seem to get at the heart of anything that could be memorable, which is strange because there’s potentially so much to work with. I’d welcome a movie that gave us a look into Bernstein’s artistic process/contributions or outspoken, opinionated mind, but so much of this feels like a calculated vanity project for Bradley Cooper. Carey Mulligan is the only one who completely disappears into her role in a way that feels authentic, because the other performers are a little too eager to ham it up for Academy Awards voters. You can tell Cooper did a lot of research for his role, but there’s something about his performance that feels phony and too studied. Thankfully he does a better job in the director’s chair, because in terms of visuals, editing and staging this is an improvement over A Star is Born. The score is often pompous and overblown (not counting the conducting scenes, of course), but I’ll give him a pass on that one because we’re dealing with a classical composer here. He even occasionally flirts with subjective abstractions (e.g. the scenes that refer back to the silent film era), however in the grander scheme of things those moments feel isolated and disconnected from the rest of the film. It’s strange how you can always feel his adventurous spirit behind the camera, but the movie as a whole never stops feeling like hollow Oscar bait. Compared to a movie like Tár there’s a strong argument to be made how writing fiction can loosen the creative restraint for a writer. Because of that I honestly don’t get why there’s still such a strong emphasis on the biopic in awards circles, and no movie from 2023 exemplifies that better than Maestro.
4/10
Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
The message of the movie was really unclear, it felt like the filmmakers didn't stop and ask themselves "what do we want the viewers to feel in this scene or this other scene", so the narrative that was created in this 102 minutes lead to nothing.
I didn't care about the characters or the events because I was given no reason to, there was little given as background to the story (which is fine, great storytellers don't need voiceovers or walls of text telling you what are you watching) or the characters and their motivations, so I was really indifferent to these characters and what happened to them.
I didn't know if the movie wanted to say something about child soldiers, or wanted to be a story of survival of a hostage, or an exploration of empathy in an intense situation, or maybe it wanted to be all these things at once that it failed to be any of these things in a fulfilling manner.
Then the movie ended as it was just getting good. I was really surprised as the screen went black and the credits rolled in, I felt like there was still a third act in that story that would've at least taken this movie to a 7/10 at least, just by virtue of taking the story home and giving the viewers closure.
Eh, another one for the "Only if..." pile.
What a treat! No One Will Save You is a dialogue devoid, tension soaked thriller with an understated backstory and a great presentation. Employing my favourite style of storytelling by showing rather than overtly telling, this deeper-meaning alien thriller is decidedly something special comparative to the other streaming movies that get dumped onto their respective services each week. Surprised this one didn't get a run out at the cinema, I think it would have benefitted from the theatre experience. That's to say you should give this one the setting it deserves. Turn off the lights, crank up your sound device of choice and let this one thump and thrill you for 90 minutes. If you're willing to give it your full attention, I think you'll be greatly rewarded.
Much like all of these post/elevated-horrors, many of the elements are metaphor-laden and hold deeper meaning past the usual surface layer. The aliens in this scenario embody the feeling of anxiety, dread and guilt that is currently holding Brynn hostage in her own home. Unlike everyone else in the rest of the world, who let this anxiety and dread wash and takeover them, Brynn has decided after years of solitude and self-hate that's she's going to stand up and fight back. My read on the ending is that Brynn, who we now know killed her best friend in an accidental retaliation during a childhood fight, has now processed that guilt and stopped it from "consuming" her. We see that everyone else has allowed the alien parasite into them and are now living life with the motions, while Brynn actively fights off the possession and kills many of the aliens trying to force it upon her. Now she has faced the guilt head on, she can live her life free and unburdened, as we see her going about her daily tasks and being accepted by the possessed town that once shunned her.
It's amazing to read other reviews where people are completely slamming this movie for "not making sense". I think this movie is a good litmus test for people who actually pay attention and those that have made doomscrolling on socials part of their movie watching experience. Without things being overtly spoken through dialogue, many are missing this movies well conveyed story, and it's pretty depressing. Hope the industry keeps giving movies like this the time of day, they're the kind of movies that really remind me why I love this medium and the places it can take you.
Heavy with style but lacking in substance. That's the sum of Peaky Blinders.
Peaky leans hard on slow motion shots and a modern punk/indie rock soundtrack that you'll either love or hate. I actually like the choice of music but how many times do we need to see someone walk past a fire breathing factory with a cigarette in hand and punk rock blaring in the background before some actual character development happens?
Cillian Murphy is excellent but aside from one or two other characters the rest of them are very one dimensional. You see all the faces in the background pic on this page? Less than half of those faces have any real narrative in the show. Because of this you are left with just a couple of prominent figures that tend to be overused
The story-lines are never all that compelling either unfortunately, style wins out here as well.
I thought the first season was decent and I was curious to see if they would improve for the second. When it was announced that Tom Hardy would be joining the cast I was pretty excited. Sadly his role isn't featured that much so his impact was minimal.
I see people trying to compare Peaky Blinders with Boardwalk Empire and I just don't see it, Boardwalk had compelling story-lines and an ensemble cast it actually used. Here's hoping season 3 will be different.
I’m generally getting a bit tired of movies and tv shows that critique the rich, but this does have a fresh take on it. It’s essentially about how removing the social contract for the rich creates a breeding ground for psychopaths that need to do increasingly crazy shit in order to feel any mental stimulation. A concept like that asks you to go crazy as a director, which this movie does successfully. There’s some very weird and grotesque stuff in it, and that’s easily the most entertaining part. Moreover, it has some beautiful cinematography (some close-ups seemed Mr Robot inspired to me?) and Tim Hecker’s score sets exactly the right atmosphere this movie needs. I also thought Mia Goth and Alexander Skarsgard were both excellent, they both get to show a lot of range and they’re playing interesting, unlikeable characters. However, it starts to feel repetitive after a while. I had a grasp of its concept around the halfway mark, after that the story takes a backseat and stops building. It relies on horror and shock value, which is fine for the movie that it is, but I wanted a stronger conclusion for the narrative because it kinda just ends. I also thought the whole cloning element felt a little too thrown in there, it feels like it comes from a different movie. Overall, a very solid, quality horror film to start the year.
7/10
This is essentially Spielberg's Almost Famous. It's way too sentimental and white, which is a complaint that's often thrown at Spielberg's work (one I don't always agree with myself), but this is undeniably him at his schmaltziest. Every genuine emotion is buried under such a deep layer of cheese that the entire picture ends up feeling phony and disingenuous to me. There's an unironic record scratch sound effect in here at some point, and it's just so corny. Michelle Williams is also a major victim of the direction, her performance and the dialogue she's given are awful. The other performances are passable at best, with Gabriel LaBelle and Paul Dano being the clear standouts. Visually I did not find the movie to be that compelling, it's overly reliant on a generic orange/teal color grade, but there are some strong moments that illustrate the power of visual filmmaking very well. John Williams' score is probably one of his most forgettable ones, it sounded like a composer who's trying to do an imitation of Alexandre Desplat. I just don't really see the overall appeal. Emotionally it clearly doesn't work for me, but I also find it to be lacking in substance. We don't learn that much about Spielberg as a filmmaker or artistic force, it's mostly focussed on him as a person, which doesn't interest me as much. He probably poured his soul into this project, but to me it's a perfect example that artists should not be in charge of their own memoir, because it doesn't focus on the interesting stuff.
4/10
All Quiet on the Western Front (2022): 7.5/10 (Impressive, yet it doesn't quite hit the mark in every respect)
A fascinating film with potential that was never fully achieved. “All Quiet on the Western Front” does not rely solely on shock value to disturb its audience; instead, it uses the horrors of war to sober them with facts and dismal realities. The film's story was worth telling; it left an impression long after the credits rolled. It dealt with many weighty themes, including a young man's journey through war, the difficulties of combat, the cruelty of desperation, and the value of friendship and camaraderie, all of which were handled with grace and artistry. Furthermore, it boasted first-rate production values, breathtaking visuals, a terrific score (although maybe a tad bit over the top), and stellar acting. Although there is much to praise about the film, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is ultimately hampered by its drawn-out length, the plot dragging in spots, and several confusing moments. All the pieces were in place for “All Quiet on the Western Front” to be the best picture of the year, and in some respects, it is. Fans of the genre, or anyone who appreciates a well-made film, should not miss this film despite its limitations.
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
This was a struggle. You want to give it points for quasi-creativity (is it though?), but how you manage to take such a talented cast and put nothing in their mouths to work with is beyond me. There's just nothing else to say about it. People gotta work I guess.
It just sunk in why this is so bad! You know the phrase, "Good artists copy. Great artist steal."? You feel like the people who created this had that in the back of their head with no greater vision or capacity to make it into something better, individual, or worthwhile. They just steal, maybe thinking their idea is great, but end up not even good because it's just a laziest copy you've seen in some time.
On top of that, why hire a bunch of comedians to play in an uninspired drama? It's insult to injury. You spend so much time waiting for the joke or thinking about the funny thing you've seen someone in that you're stuck in a constant reminder that they went out of their way to pack it full of funny people to half-ass do drama? The more I think about this series the more it upsets me.
Elizabeth Perkins playing it straight during her feature is the only time I felt a genuine laugh, so, go her.
Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia.
If anything, Hollywood has boiled that concept down to a science over the past few years, as this film is basically a summary of everything that’s wrong with the industry in a neat, 148 minute package.
It thinks it’s meta and self-aware by pointing out how cynical and cheap franchise filmmaking is.
That might sound similar set-up as 22 Jump Street, but this film proceeds to be cheap and cynical itself without saying anything substantial beyond its own set up, so it embraces what it’s trying to criticize.
Everything in this movie is structured as an excuse to show stuff you’ve seen before, there are little to no original concepts or ideas that push the franchise in an interesting direction.
It’s mostly a rehash of the first film (mixed with some stuff from Reloaded and Revolutions in the second half), except the action isn’t nearly as good, it’s more predictable and convenient, the performances are nowhere near as memorable (that’s what you get from replacing your 2 best actors), it looks uglier and more synthetic, the pacing isn’t as tight, and it’s a lot more dull because of how much it overexplains itself.
It also ditches the cyberpunk aesthetic, and replaces it with something a lot more bland and boring, stripping the franchise from a lot of its personality.
It’s honestly quite an accomplishment when you think about it: the original is one of the best, most successful, big budget films ever made that still maintained a strong artistic and alternative impulse.
This, on the other hand, couldn’t be any more lowest common denominator if it tried to.
It’s a parody of itself and modern blockbuster filmmaking.
I suppose that was Lana Wachowski’s goal to some extent, but it isn’t very compelling to watch.
3/10
A big, showy tech giant (totally not Apple) unveils its new life-changing technology and the world moves overnight. Suddenly, every kid in school has one of these blinking, shouting robo-pals by their side, a "digital best friend" to flash notifications, screen meme clips, recommend social media connections and livestream their life. Everyone except Barney, that is, whose family is too poor and quirky to mindlessly, immediately embrace the new tech. Eventually, the kid does score a bot of his own, but his Dad can't swing the full price and scores a glitchy, damaged discount model, something that literally fell off the back of a truck. This leads to a Short Circuit-style awakening and the awkward pairing (kid and robot) learn, together, the true meaning of friendship.
The whole package is deeply derivative - The Mitchells vs. the Machines mined very similar themes earlier this year, Wall-E delivered an equal message in one of its subplots and the bot looks, acts and talks very much like Baymax from Big Hero 6 - but Ron's Gone Wrong is just charismatic and heartstrong enough to keep those comparisons from feeling too distracting. It might not be the cleverest family film you'll see all year, but it's witty enough. Not the most visually-stunning entry, but it's capable enough. Well-made and inoffensive, but also fundamentally inessential.
This series still holds up to this day with exciting action scenes, an amazing cast of characters, an iconic voice cast and unforgettable comedic moments. I don't see why some people say it was a series meant to only cater to female viewers, I loved it ever since I saw a pilot episode on the What A Cartoon show, with all the action in the show boys are definitely bound to like it. This series is most definitely worth re-watching as an adult, the amount of adult jokes and subtext will leave you baffled. I wouldn't let super young kids watch it though lol some of the nightmare fuel here is bound to scar a kid for life.
My fav. character by far is Mojo Jojo, his ridiculous schemes and his over the top repetitive way of speaking make him the funniest character in the show. Almost every episode in my top 10 involves Mojo in some way. My fav. PPG would have to be Bubbles due to the fact that I just absolutely love Tara Strong's performance as Bubbles especially in the episodes Bubblevicious and Los Dos Mojos. I think she was the fav. PPG of the creators too since she's the only one of the girls that never gets punished in their individual episodes where they misbehave.
The only criticism I have is that the latter 2 seasons have a drop in quality. They're not godawful by any means, I just found the majority of the episodes to be boring when compared to the older ones. I can definitely understand why those 2 seasons get hate but there are a handful of great episodes in those seasons so I'd say they are still worth a watch.
I would make comparisons with the 2016 reboot but I actually haven't seen a single episode of the reboot.
This was fucking horrific. This scriptwriter should be forced to find a new career. The second that Rosamund Pike was kidnapped, I thought to myself, "He's either going to propose, or they're going to go into business together." The problem was in getting to the point, where this actually happened. These Russian mobsters must've been the most incompetent buffoons on the planet to not be able to finish off two individuals, who they'd already pretty much brought to w/in an inch of their life. This was such an incredible stretch that it made this movie absolutely ridiculous.
Aside from this, the fact that the writer tried to make these two women sympathetic characters screams that there's something really off w/ this writer. On what planet are people who take advantage of, and essentially murder, some of the most vulnerable members of society sympathetic?
On one last note, I've never been a fan of Rosamund Pike. I'd seen her in two previous films, where she was not good at all: Jack Reacher and Gone Girl. In the former, she's so melodramatic, it's difficult to watch, and it's even more difficult to take her character seriously. In the latter, although she's playing a character w/ Antisocial Personality Disorder, that doesn't necessarily mean someone devoid of affect, which is exactly how she played that role. She may as well have been a talking stump in that movie. I realize that she received industry-wide recognition for the latter role, but I prescribe this to the industries' complete and utter lack of understanding of psychological disorders and their accompanying attributes.
I wasn't going to watch this film b/c of my distaste for Ms. Pike's acting ability, but the movie, on its own, won such rave reviews, I figured that I'd give it a chance. However, something about her just wasn't right. She had this odd grin in a lot of scenes, where it either didn't fit, or it seemed like it would've been inappropriate, if it had been a real-life situation. I just find her acting to be really off-putting. Luckily, both Peter Dinklage and Dianne Wiest are always top-notch performers.
Could not take it seriously with the robots' abilities that don't even exist in the year in which this was set, let alone the slew of appliances with "PAL Chip installed" that could do completely ridiculous things. Not one of these devices should have been able to pose a threat, unless they were intentionally manufactured with features that would never apply to any intended use of the product.*
I can ignore little details that are embellished or ignored for the purpose of telling a better story, but when the entire premise of a film set in the present rests on impossible and unrealistic technology? Pass.
Even better, no one thought of just… finding another PAL retail store when the mall's router was destroyed with the upload at 98% complete? This film's entire spectacle rests on its characters' poor decision-making and lack of forethought—including the defective robots that join the gang and tell them about the solution.
I'll admit that the story is a bit heartwarming, but it's nothing new. It's also trying too hard regarding commentary on the influence of technology in today's world. Several lines of dialogue are extremely heavy-handed, as if the writers expect the audience to understand nothing and need to have the "moral" of the story handed to them.
Ugh. I wanted to love it. At least I can steal some playlist entries from the soundtrack.
* — See: Furbies that spit plasma beams, laptops that could close on your hands and crush them, refrigerators that walk… I could go on and on about that mall scene.
The season 10 of Friends as a Marvel superhero movie. After all the hype, we knew it was going to be a let-down, we just didn't know it was going to be disappointing.
Compared to Avengers: Infinity War (and how can one not?), in which the multiple character angles were juggled with sufficient expertise, the different arcs were badly botched in Endgame. Minor characters chew up screen time and some characters we were led to believe were major appear so little their absence glows like a nuclear WTF.
And remember how we were warned there wouldn't be any moments to take a pee break? Oh my God, taking a leak isn't the concern, taking a nap is, because the real challenge the Avengers face through most of the film is staying awake.
The first two acts are overlong, with dialogue heavy, self-indulgent information dumps and its only in the tragically short climax that we get to see the sort of action that filled Infinity War from beginning to end.
The bottom line is that The Avengers: Endgame is not just worse than Infinity War, it's worse than Justice League. But of course it will make Disney buckets of money, which is what the studio wants, and fanboys will defend it tooth and nail, which is what they want, so the only ones left out in the cold are those of us who simply want to watch a halfway decent action flick.
Hamilton is absolute dog shit. I'm not a musical fanatic but I can get into musicals most of the time. But this is just a bad story. It's stretched an hour longer than it needed and got extremely repetitive halfway through. I'm a huge fan of history but this is not the story to make into a 3 hour play. Hamilton is not Alcibiades or Hong Xiuquan or Napoleon or Sulla. Historically Hamilton is interesting for what he was NOT able to accomplish but the play just gives him God mode and everyone loves him to the point that they're also all jealous of him. He's a glorified accountant/banker with sexual controversy that only makes you dislike him. Weirdly the play implies that it shouldn't make you dislike him and that it isn't a big deal while simultaneously showing that it was extremely important in his downfall. There's just way too many songs that are purely about gossip in this play and honestly (and yes I know this is one of the central concepts for the whole thing... but) the rapping was just cheesy as fuck and a continued reminder that you are watching a melodramatic play rather than engrossing you in a compelling story.
tldr: It's boring and over half of the dialogue is cheesy gossip rap, it stretched the history way too thin and has terrible pacing, Hamilton is turned into a man where his only flaw is that he fucked bitches all day every day and even his enemies love him, and the story is never sucking you in because it's all so melodramatic. I have no idea what people see in this other than minority representation, which is fine but it doesn't make the story bearable.
Finished watching Kill List late last night and it kept for up for most of the night, not because it was so scary but that ending. Did I miss any clues? I knew something was up. When Fiona took Jay's (Neil Maskell) blood and marked their home. The blood pact later on etc. etc. I knew something cultisch was coming up. But I never knew how. Did I miss any other clues? The ending is bizarre too. Right before the reveal I knew what was under the blanket but it still shocked me.
Anyway, the performances are all great. I liked the slow-burn pace. The movie also kept me on the edge of my seat. The gore is brutal, when he kills the LIBRARIAN (IT MUST BE IN CAPS) with that hammer, I was like DAMN SON take a beer and calm the f down. The ending was sudden but I was alright with it. It left at the right point and made me want to think about it. I also believe this is a great movie to watch a second time with the clues you might be seeing the second round.
I do believe it is essential to go into Kill List without knowing what it is about. Don't read the back of the dvd cover, don't look shit up on the internet. Go in as blind as possible. I found out about this one because of a Shockwaves Podcast. And glad I watched it blind. Loved it! (Still a bit confused though)
The testosterone reaches critical mass quite early in this ridiculously self-indulgent nitrous oxide orgasm. Paul Walker gets his breakout role as an undercover cop, one with very little interest in actually doing any police work, who falls in with a crew of enterprising gear heads on the midnight street racing circuit. Vin Diesel, the headline costar, takes on his usual character: a growling, flexing, ultra-chill bro with shady connections but an open heart. Neither are particularly likable or interesting.
The whole thing is shallower than a toilet bowl, ticking so many "cool point" boxes that it mimics a rich, forgettable, three-minute music video. We've got fast cars, gorgeous sex objects, adrenaline-rich action scenes, loud radio hits (juuust a bit dated) and a posh location or two. Not much in the way of meaningful character arcs or deeper substance.
It's a true "what you see is what you get" experience. Big and dumb and gruff and insecure, with a plot that varies from meaningless to pointless and a versatile cast with nothing to do beyond gripping the steering wheel (or each other) and looking sexy. On this first go-around, at least, the action retains some passing association with reality. Points for that.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dul boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no plany Makes ack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dul boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play make Jack a Dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All workand no play maks Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no plany Makes ack a dull boy
All work and no play make Jack a Dull boy
Beginning with an immediate lob into both cheese and action, I was caught off guard and genuinely wondered whether I was watching the same movie as everyone else...because I really wasn't liking the 80s commercial-type editing and the horrific use of music, but despite these two aspects not necessarily getting any better, the movie does somehow become an engaging crime mystery.
Even though Martin Scorsese 'borrowed' way too much from this film, to the point where it's an almost identical story, I still think The Departed was a much better movie, and that's because that propelled everything that was wrong with this version. This one was incredibly rushed, giving almost no time to build characters. This one had lots of music but it was just terrible and took me away from the emotion at points. Infernal Affairs also had a very on-the-nose screenplay that almost felt like a first draft. Scorsese corrected all these things in his version with a longer run-time, a more patient pace, better use of music, a more realistic script and a terrific casting choice of Jack Nicholson!
There's a few parts I preferred about Infernal Affairs, but the majority of my preference leans towards The Departed. Great film though and very different to Scorsese's picture anyway, purposely feeling more like a cheesy b-movie action flick. I guess I liked it.
High Life, I was surprised to learn, is a science fiction film directed by Claire Denis and not a publication campaigning to legalize marijuana.
The film itself is like your colleague's kid. He's presented as hyper intelligent, moody and artistic, yet the first time you see him he's just as banal and indistinct as every other co-worker's son you've ever met.
Denis uses an unnecessarily complex time line in an effort to give the film an artistic edge, but there is no art here to highlight. She metes out information overly-judiciously in an attempt to create an intellectual movie, but the story isn't that intelligent so the film looks like me that one autumn I tried to dress trendy and fooled absolutely no one.
Robert Pattinson, one of the more talented actors working today, does a fine job with his role though there's not a lot for him to work with. It's as though the chef from Good Time is given a handful of ground beef with which to make a meal. Yes, it's a great cheeseburger but hell, it's just a cheeseburger.
All told, I'm thinking High Life never really got off the ground. Is it too late to make it about pot?
I was really looking forward to this movie, even though I am not the greatest Thor fan. However, the trailer looked interesting, I love the 80s style with the colours, it promised to be a wild movie with a great antagonist - I mean seriously - what could go wrong with Cate Blanchett, and even better in a dark gothic look?
Well, I was absolutely disappointed. Seriously, what where they thinking when shooting/editing this movie? There is no plot, the story is totally random and has no meaning at all anymore. It's just like a bad 90s sitcom that is progressing from one joke to the next, and this time it didn't stop at anything - stupidity, slapstick, vulgarity, we have it all, and without any style or niveau. I mean seriously "Oh, I'm drunk, I will just fall down" (as an entrance of a new and important character), "oh, I just saw hulks penis", "now we'll have to fly into the anus", etc. What's the target audience of this movie, childish boys in their puberty? I think even for them this is rather embarrassing than funny....
Epic, dramatic fighting scenes, e.g. when Hela defeats Asgard are equaly destroyed by stupid jokes as are emotinal scenes. Someone died? Just make a joke. Haha, and let's go on. Due to this, this movie wasn't exciting to me at all, it wasn't emotional, it was just dull. This movie is so jokes-packed, that even after the first three minutes (and did they really just do the stupid rope-joke in the introduction three times?! It was hardly funny the first time, it was annoying the second time, and the third I was angered, because obviously the director must think I am stupid), I had enough. And that is somewhat sad, because in the mass of stupid jokes there are some moments that actually where pretty great and that would have functioned superb in isolation. Take Jeff Goldblums character that is refreshingly eccentric and funny. Or Korg - great humoristic character. But having a more than 2 hour sitcom, this doesn't work anymore, even if it's good.
I do believe the story had potential, I mean they had a great soundtrack, stunning visuals, perfect CGI, absolutely gorgeous colours and scenes, a really great cast, I already mentioned the great Jeff Goldblum, who I found ingenious. Cate Blanchett is always a win, and she could have brought so much to this movie. And Tessa Thompson also stuck out to me - great charisma, interesting character. But none of them gets enough chance to really portrait their character, none of them gets any dept. Especially Cate Blanchetts talent is totally wasted - she could have been absolutly evil, strong, powerful - the perfect villain. But she isn't - the antagonist is (as with so many comic movies these days) a joke and a total disaster. There is hardly any substance, much to short screen time for character develpment, for backgrounds, for some seriousness. Nothing.
Seriously, I wouldn't have been surprised if there was laughter from the off.....
4/10
Most of us have come to expect alot from the Marvel Universe. After all, with great power does come great responsibility. However the latest installation of Thor leaves something to be desired.
beginning right away, the musical score attempts to mimic an 80s style scifi feeling. It actually makes many of the important scenes in the film lose their actual significance.
Worse than the music though, is the lackluster script. If you took Scooby and Shaggy in a room they most likely could have created a better dialogue than what is seen in Thor. The actors themselves even seem to have trouble delivering the lines and a sense of boredom is felt through the screen. there are many reasons for this, one of the main being that most films today are filmed almost exclusively in chroma key rooms. It can be very challenging at times, even for the best actors, to adapt to this style and successfully bring a fully realistic sense of feeling to the screen.
All in all, while the graphics are somewhat decent (aside from a few glitchy distance shots and such that can be found in any film regardless of age) the film is a gross failure of the Marvel Universe. Even the star studded cast couldn't save this film from it's multitude of flaws. It makes Thor, god of Thunder, seem like Thor, dworf of the puddle.
