If you're looking for an action and "turn brain off now" film, just don't watch it and spare us the 6-7 hearts review.
I for one, am very tired from 500$m crap like Indi Day and Marvel's poop. So I was very excited to watch this one.
This one is more like Spielberg's Encounters from the Third Kind. It's more about the characters in the film and the amazing journey they go through. It's mostly about the human behavior that will make you think.
While it's not an End of the World aliens movie like Battle: Los Angeles, it still offers great amount of military presence and plenty of stuff that's going on.
So if you actually want to care about an intelligent movie and use your head - go. Otherwise, go watch an X men.
Highly recommended for some audience 10/10.
2-feb-2017 edit: Just came out on Bluray and I saw it again. Definitely keeping my rating.
Watching again at July-2023, excited towards Dune II : Excellent. Excellent film. So called plot-holes listed here are negligible when the overall product is really thoughtful and masterfully crafted.
how could a film that bases an entire storyline around a Ratatouille joke not be absolutely fantastic?
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
the show should've ended with all of them dying due to the asbestos exposure
Seeing a film that's won the Palme d'or at Cannes or Best Picture Oscar is like drinking a bottle of ridiculously expensive wine: with every sip you ask yourself over and over again if it deserves the price. Fortunately, Parasite is so good you won't be drinking very long because you'll be drunk on its power soon enough.
A film that crosses genres so many times it leaves a permanent mark, Parasite is a clever story performed wonderfully and directed to perfection.
Mind f* and retro-modern techno wierd. Exactly how I like it
Tumblr gifs make this movie look way better than it really is.
In Captain Marvel, I didn’t like the main character, but I thought the movie around her was quite solid.
Black Widow is the exact opposite: I quite liked the two leads, but the movie surrounding them doesn’t really work.
Pros:
- Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh are easily the most entertaining part of the film.
- I liked the first act. It feels like Cate Shortland is trying to do an impression of a Jason Bourne movie. It’s fairly humourless, the cinematography is bleak, and the score is intense. It has a tone that no other MCU film has.
- The action (minus the final battle) is fairly well done. As per usual, less editing would’ve made it better, but at least it feels weighty.
Cons:
- The story itself isn’t that interesting. The themes and main mcguffin are oddly similar to Captain Marvel, though it’s not executed as well. The villains also fail to make an impression.
- This movie really loses its identity as it goes along, to the point where it turns more into a generic Marvel movie as it goes on, and eventually a generic action blockbuster by the third act. Everything gets way too big and bloated for its own good.
- Not a fan of the Russian accents, they sound very tacky. Just let everyone speak with a normal American accent, I can look past the fact they’re Russians. Besides, they even had a story based reason to ditch the Russian accents entirely.
- I found David Harbour quite cringeworthy in this.
- The main characters are protected by strong plot armour. Most characters should’ve been killed 3-4 times based on the things that happen during the action scenes. This isn’t even a ‘suspend your disbelief, it’s an action movie’ situation, it gets really ridiculous, to the point where it’s almost Fast and Furious level.
- The pacing is a bit inconsistent, you really feel it slowing down during the second act.
Finally, I want to address that I already find the use of Nirvana songs in movies like these quite distasteful, but the cover that's used during the credits literally sucked all the life out of the song.
4.5/10
Just another movie Dc fans can be disappointed of.Boring Storyline could be tolerated.But why are the action scenes so cheesy:expressionless:
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
I can tell you that Game of Thrones is phenomenal, visual beautiful, fantastic, exhilarating and action-packed thrilling rollercoaster that in many ways has not been seen yet in a tv show. I could say that and be absolutely right about it, but unless you have been living under a rock without an internet connection for the past 2 years than no doubt you already heard, seen or read for yourself what a masterpiece the books and/or this tv series is.
Game of Thrones is exactly like the title says: A game for the throne. Played by the people who think its their right to claim, conquer or inherit it. They all have different goals and different ways of getting to that point, but their goal is in essence in one way or another the same for all of them: to be recognized and remembered for their deeds. Off course that is not so weird since everyone in real life at some level thinks like that. But the main characters in Game of Thrones are different, either through noble descent, the power and money they have, intelligence or sheer luck they have become a member of one of the noble houses that rule the countries and can decide the fate and lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people within the fictional continents of Westeros and Essos.
The story, setting and characters are all taken from a broad range of European history. Most of what we see of the continent Westeros (castles and tournaments) is taken from High Medieval Western Europe from around the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. But the story takes bits and pieces from other time periods as well. For example the wildfire that was used in season 2 in a brilliant strategic move of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister during the Battle of the Blackwater is in fact Byzantine "Greek fire" which was invented and first used in the 7th century during battles between Muslims and Byzantines. This and other historical events, devices and characters based on real people out of history are all as it seems perfectly interwoven into each other into the fictional world of Game of Thrones by the author of the books George R. R. Martin.
For the actors who play the characters i have nothing but utmost respect. The performance they manage to show episode after episode is definitely what makes this tv show so popular. There is one in particular that without a doubt is one of the more popular stars of this tv show: Peter Dinklage who plays the role of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister. In the 1st season he was portrayed as nothing more than someone who took advantage of his noble status and money to do whatever he wanted. But in season 2 (and hopefully the next seasons too) he transformed despite his disadvantage of being born as a dwarf (who during medieval times and in this fictional world are considered "lesser" humans) into a brilliant military and political strategist and someone who can very good and enjoys as he so very accurately said himself "play the game".
Game of Thrones is without a doubt the hit tv show of this decade. It started out with a story about medieval times, but slowly with every episode we see the world of the Seven Kingdoms transform into a place where mythical creatures exist, magic and dark powers are used as a weapon against enemies and where the dead are once more walking again.... Winter is coming, and i have no doubt it that it will be as spectacular and story-wise phenomenal as we have have seen in the previous seasons.
I hope I can watch this again someday, and enjoy it in a different way. But as far as seeing it in the theater goes, it was a mildly enjoyable journey that turned in to an annoying slog, which ultimately culminated in disappointment.
What the fuck Tarantino? No mystery, no comedy, no trademark dialogue, NO STORY! This movie relies on presupposed knowledge too much. I go into movies that I want to see without reading anything about them or watching any trailers. So if the movie takes until the final act to reveal what the mystery even is, and then subverts it within 10 minutes in a ridiculously, unnecessarily violent way, it doesn't make for an enjoyable movie. It was two hours of a red herring (if you know what it's about already), and then a half hour of "Is this movie seriously going to end without tying together any of these useless, boring storylines?"
First act: Tarantino's use of different film stocks, and his decision to start the movie by showing his version of a corny Oldwest show got me very excited for what was to come. During the first act however, he went back to this a bunch of times, and each time it was a little less enjoyable when it only started out as mildly humorous in the first place. the character development, and relationship between Pitt and DiCaprio was fun to watch. Other character development was pretty flat, and the Bruce Lee scene was just dumb. Pretty early in the movie I started to dislike Pitt's character. this obviously would detract me from enjoying him as the pseudo-hero later.
Second act: The Sharon Tate storyline was really starting to get to me. It's been years since I read about the Manson murders, so when I heard her name, I was thinking "that sounds familiar, I think there was something called the Sharon Tate murders. Maybe Brad Pitt is supposed to end up killing her or something." The more they were following Sharon Tate in her daily activities, the more I was thinking that she better be an important part of this movie or else I wasted about 45 minutes watching something that doesn't even matter.
The scene where Brad Pitt goes to the hippie hideout is easily the best in the movie. Even though at that point I didn't realize this was supposed to be a Manson thing, it was still a very intense scene. Had I known that this was a twist on the Manson family, it would have been a little more entertaining. So maybe Tarantino could have done SOMETHING to tell us this instead of just assuming that everyone is gonna watch every trailer and think that every hippie congregation is supposed to be the Manson family. This was the first time I was taken out the movie by the over-the-top violence inflicted on a character while everyone around me was laughing at it. And if you're supposed to think it's funny even if you don't know that they're supposed to be a murderous cult, then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with people.
Final act: I'm sitting in my seat, and all I can think is "this better be one hell of a third act to bring all these boring, useless storylines together." DiCaprio gets drunk and yells at some hippies. Pretty funny. Pitt takes his dog for a walk, and starts tripping on acid. Kinda funny. then for the first time in two hours, these hippie characters (that you're wondering why are even in the movie to begin with) FINALLY say something that shows they have a murderous leader. Then I start getting excited, finally connecting the dots, and thinking oh man this is gonna be a cool take on the Manson murders. And within five minutes I am not only disappointed by the climax, I am incredibly disappointed in my overall experience with the movie.
The hippie characters only deserved what they got in our real universe where they did the actions that they're know for. But in the movie universe, they were not responsible for these actions, and so their punishment was out of the blue and unwarranted. And if you don't know the real life story of these characters, I would expect that you would be disgusted by what happens, and how everybody is laughing around you in the theater. it was jarring in a way that other Tarantino violent scenes are not. he has made some of the most intensely violent scenes, but they are done for drama, for realism, or to get you disgusted with a character. This violence was done for humor, and I felt very out of place in the theater being the only one who was questioning why people are laughing at a dog ripping a guys genitals off, and then a girls face off while they're both screaming in horror. or apparently everybody's favorite was when the girl's face got smashed over and over into a coffee table until there was nothing left of it. everyone laughed the hardest at that part.
Either I missed something absolutely huge that changed my perception of this movie, or Tarantino has made a huge shift in his writing style, and the audience has made a huge shift in what is funny. Two movies ago Tarantino had a guy getting ripped apart by dogs, and it is one of the hardest scenes for anyone I know to get through, now it's funny because they committed murder in a different reality? I don't get it, I don't get the movie, and fuck you Tarantino for giving us two hours of nothing so you can give us 5 minutes of violence. I enjoyed the first time you did that in Death Proof, when it was actually entertaining. It's a real shame to add this movie to his near flawless career.
2 / 2 directing & technical aspect
0 / 1 story
.5 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
.5 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
1 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
-.5 / 1 misc (wtf?)
6.5 / 10
Comments here need to be at minimum 5 words, but there are only 3 that are needed:
holy shit, chef
What a phenomenal show! Being a Marvel production, I fully expected something of quality, but my expectations were blown entirely out of the water. Daredevil has easily taken its place among my favorite shows currently on air and far surpasses the current lineup of comic book-based television properties (including Marvel's own Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.).
The cast is great. Charlie Cox brings emotional weight to Matt Murdock and an intimidating presence to his vigilante alter ego. Supporting players Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, and Rosario Dawson, all make their respective roles feel critical, never distracting or annoying. But it's Vincent D'Onofrio that really steals the spotlight as Wilson Fisk, bringing to life a villain who is not only vicious and truly terrifying, but also heartbreakingly pitiful.
Daredevil's writing separates it from the current crop of superhero television. The progression of the plot is well organized and dialog rarely (if ever) crosses that line into comic book corniness. You really get the sense that the show runners had a clear vision for where they wanted this freshman season to go, while still laying groundwork for future seasons. Never does it feel like you're just being strung along for bigger and better things to come next season. And the show doesn't constantly try to remind you of the broader Marvel Cinematic Universe, as any references to it are (usually) subtle.
But perhaps Daredevil's greatest strength is its cinematography. Fight sequences are expertly choreographed and coherent (not to mention brutally gritty), even rivaling those of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The production value is top notch, probably thanks to the refreshingly limited reliance on CGI. But what impressed me the most was the brave willingness to let the camera linger or even meander occasionally. Ending episode 2 with a minutes-long single take fight sequence had me speechless, and is a testament to the level of quality brought to the show.
Daredevil is a strong addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think Marvel's partnership with Netflix could prove to be one of their best decisions regarding their television properties and I look forward to future shows like A.K.A. Jessica Jones and Luke Cage.
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
It's so much fun. It knows what type of movie it is and delivers. The story kept me on my toes. The ensemble cast is terrific. Chris Evans having a blast playing an asshole, Ana de Armas is great, and Daniel Craig playing a detective with a funny accent is a treat. I want to see this again knowing the plot so I can look for all the subtle foreshadowing.
After a rewatch I am even more impressed with how good the script is and how much is set up and paid off. This one is of the better movies of the year.
We've kinda come full circle with these superhero films when you think about it.
After the camp of the 90s, directors like Nolan and Singer reset the tone of superhero movies in the 2000's to something that was more grounded and serious, which in turn laid a lot of the groundwork for the MCU.
Here we have Taika Waititi providing a throwback to the Joel Schumacher days.
If that's your thing you'll probably dig it, but it's definitely not my brand of camp.
I’m not exactly a Thor: Ragnarok fan (nor the other two Thor films). I don’t have a problem with its silly tone, because I’m not a manchild who needs to see his childhood validated, but a lot of its comedy didn’t click with me (even after a rewatch). Everything that didn’t work for me in that film is amped up to an eleven here.
There are some serious points in it where the acting choices, slapstick/childish/hokey comedy, overly bright colors, gay undertones, overdesigned costumes (no nipples yet, but give Taika another film and we'll see what happens) and godawful music choices started to give me genuine flashbacks to stuff like Batman Forever, not quite the thing you want to remind me of.
It's not a complete disaster; the performances by Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and especially Christian Bale are generally quite good. I'm also glad Marvel seems to have definitively found the saturation button back after Guardians 2, even if the framing/lighting with the visuals remains uninspired and maintains a general level of artifice that makes it look like shit. I believe they used the volume stages for most of the production, and like Obi Wan or The Book of Boba Fett, it’s very noticeable for most of the runtime.
The story's not all that interesting and makes no sense when you put any thought into it, but that's fine given that there is some progression with most of the main characters, even if Thor’s character arc throughout the MCU is all over the place at this point. As with most Marvel films lately, there is a lot of unnecessary exposition (e.g. the Korg narrated flashbacks are really clunky), but where it really drops the ball for me is with the balancing of tone and plot elements. I already thought that the darker stuff in Thor: Ragnarok didn't blend that well with the goofy scenes on the trash planet, but there's even more tonal whiplash here. Christian Bale is giving this excellent, terrifying performance, but he's not in the same movie as Chris Hemsworth, who's playing even more of a Thor parody than he was in Avengers: Endgame. One moment we're invested in this heavy, emotional story with Natalie Portman, and then we cut back to a goofy love triangle between Thor, his hammer and his axe. It's an unbalanced mess without a sense of stakes.
I also don't know what it is with Taika's comedy in these films, because I think What we do in the shadows, Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the wilderpeople are all very comedic and smart, but for some reason he really likes his Thor movies excessive and dumb. Screaming goats aren't funny to me, they're a dated meme at best. Maybe it's because Taika can't go edgy and niche with the jokes here, but fuck I really hate his sensibilities for this character.
In short, another major misfire from Marvel if you ask me. I pretty much disliked everything except for a few of the performances. Please go back to making indies Taika, and for the love of god: let James Gunn pick the soundtrack for your next film. Even a film this dumb doesn’t need a Guns ‘N Roses needle drop, let alone four of them.
3/10
Probably the first four-hour movie that I watched in one sitting. Not a perfect one, but the first fiction that caused me emotions since "Endgame". The plot is interesting. The characters are developed. The soundtrack is incredible. It could have been a beginning of something, but, you know what happened. Such a pity that a franchise with this potential has been lost.
I thought the first episode was interesting, if not a little slow. I am now 4 episodes in and I am hooked. Really familiar tropes are turned on it’s head and it’s such a great watch. I wasn’t a fan of umbrella academy as I thought the pacing was terrible, however with ‘the boys’ I feel so far they’ve nailed it. Everything feels relevant and not filler, I can’t wait to see more!
Edit: finished now, a brilliant watch throughout. The quality of this show put into context what has been wrong in other superhero shows for me. A breath of fresh air in a stagnating genre. Great job guys.
If there was a bit more character development, Rogue One would be one of the greatest films of the year. Either way, it was easily one of the best Star Wars films, and it got that way through likable characters, spectacular cinematograpy and a great final act.
Oh, and the Vader scene.
I don’t get the negativity. Honestly you people are so entitled. The lack of context is intentional and there are several clues as to why it’s that way. It’s not a 50s to show (we haven’t seen them imitate a 60s tv show yet, that’s next week). It’s going to change probably every week, even up to the point of imitating modern tv shows like the office from what they’ve said. And the context is clear enough by the end of the second episode. Even without reading additional articles to explain the more subtle hints, you can tell what’s going on at least loosely. Plus it does a great job lampooning the absurdity of 50s tv and ideals about homemaking and marriage. To hilarious effect
An incredible technical achievement. Roger Deakins's cinematography elevates this decent war story to something that is one of a kind. There is hardly anytime to catch your breath. The score is fantastic. I need to see the making of documentary.
Seeing this again it is still very impressive. The story is fine but the way we are always with Schofield and Blake with almost no relief makes this super tense. The score really is great.
This is an excellent movie that has completely surpassed my expectations. It has lots of amazing action and great comedy and wonderful performances from all the actors involved. The movie reminds me of Kill Bill.
This show is streets ahead.
when the critics are using words like "masterpiece", and Den Of Geek is proclaiming that it sits at the top of the MCU, you know a movie is over hyped, and boy, is Black Panther over hyped. the movie is OK, but certainly nowhere near being a masterpiece, and definatly nowhere near the top of the MCU, not even close. Chadwick Boseman is boring and lacks charisma, the female characters are much more interesting. Killmonger is a boring villain, Klaue was much more interesting, but god forbid a white villain be given the spotlight over a black villain. do i care about the plight of black people around the world? yes, do i care about someone's skin colour? no, its not the reason i watch a superhero movie. people are hyping this up into the movie they want it to be, rather than the movie it actually is.
Umm… jesus motherfucking christ… that was equal parts INTENSE and AMAZING.
Michael Mando deserves at least a nomination for this season... damn, what a great job - physically and mentally
