Not as solid as I hoped. It's confusing for sure, but they could have done so so much more with this concept and world. But they didn't. It has left us with a story that is interesting, yet unrelatable. Things move way too fast and I would have preferred a longer runtime because it is that intriguing. And while the ending is great, the way that Nolan tries to merge the two viewpoints isn't done well. Leaving me feeling like my dad when he watches Transformers (2007) and asks who is who.
It needed to be simplified a little more because everything else is amazing. The effects, the overarching story, the acting. The music, however, is terrible and overblown to give a sense of action when there isn't enough happening. The only part where it worked well was in the final fight, but even then it needed to be quieter.
The cinematography is good as always, but I feel it is lacking compared to Nolan's previous work.
When it comes to action and the draw to this movie, the reversal shots. They deliver, but they are too and far between. It gives us great scenes of reversal action, then one drawn-out segment at the end that doesn't feel rewarding as like I said before, it isn't merged well.
This movie may grow on me more after a second viewing, but it left me in a state that I don't wish to see it again any time soon. It is not fun enough to see again, it is not engaging enough to associate and learn from. Something that Nolan has done well at in the past is his ability to leave questions with the audience after they finish his films. Here, it just provides answers and left me unsatisfied in that regard.
7/10
Ladies & gentlemen, they & them,
Early 2000’s superhero movies are back, baby!
Madame Web is a top-tier dumpster fire.
It has some of the worst dialogue I have heard in a while. How are these writers, who brought us such gems as Dracula Untold, The Last Witch Hunter, Gods of Egypt, and the trillion-dollar hit Morbius, still working?
“Every day that goes by, my appointment with death gets closer.” is an actual line from the movie. There is plenty more to go around.
The editing and visual effects are atrocious.
The acting from everyone is awful. The line delivery is shockingly low energy, and I did not believe a word any of the actors were saying.
I have seen these actors do great work in the past, so this is 100% the director's fault here. It's crazy how a director can get piss-poor performances from good actors.
The characters had no chemistry with each other. The scenes together felt so awkward and unnatural.
There are so many character choices that don't make sense.
The villain fucking sucks. There is no real character to him. He's just a boring evil guy who wants to kill three “teenagers” because he dreamed of them killing him in the future. He is not threatening at all.
I noticed the actor who played the villain was dubbed over with ADR for most of his scenes. You can tell.
None of the humour landed. Painfully unfunny.
The 2003 pop culture references were a pathetic excuse for creating a time capsule setting.
Adam Scott and Emma Roberts have nothing to do here. You wonder why they are even there.
For a superhero movie, there are barely any exciting action scenes. Whenever there is some action, it's nothing special. I would not mind the lack of action if the story, characters, and acting were superb, but it has none of that.
The fact that the final battle scene takes place underneath a Cola/Pepsi sign is another example of the terrible product placement from Sony.
The final shot is the most embarrassing thing I have ever seen.
My jaw is on the floor of how a movie like this can be shit out by a big studio. Sony REALLY needs to cut it out with these unnecessary Spider-Man spin-off films.
Madame Web is the worst superhero movie ever made. Yes, I mean it. At least the other bad superhero movies had some redeeming qualities to it. But this movie has nothing. Everything about this movie is wrong. Fant4stic is better than this. It makes Morbius look competently made.
The current state of superhero movies is in trouble, and Madame Web is not helping.
Starts off really strong and fun.
The sets look incredible and its immersive. They had a really great message about body positivity and unrealistic expectations on women & I was all the way behind it.... Then rapidly spirals into a pure man hate / Women supremacy. Its obvious the writers have a huge chip on their shoulders.. It's messaging is so heavy handed it completely took me out of the movie & brings it from enjoyable to a drab 2 hour rant by an angry twitter blue user who think's women's rights is still in the 1800's.
They have this unreal take that you're set for life if you're a man and just get instant success. They think everything's better if you're a man (Guess what, it doesn't work that way. I'm told every day how I'm a bad person because I'm a man, and for only that.... Just like this movie does)...
Being preached at about why being a man is so bad for 2 hours does not make for a fun viewing experience.
It shows the glaring double standards of the current mainstream talking points.
This movie blindly preaches that "the world would be better if the shoe was on the other foot" and it comes across as tone deaf.
Its BAD all one gender "rules the world" but if its women, its A-OK!... which defeats the purpose of feminism.
Women getting equality, not supremacy.
call this a hot take but I think men and women should be equal..... but this movie thinks men don't even deserve a seat on Barbie world's court - that's insane.
Why is Patriarchy bad but Matriarchy good....????
Its either all bad or none of it is, and this man hating director needs to make up her mind.
Starts very well, the way they handle the death of Boseman is very tastefully done (so many well executed emotional beats) and I like the new conflict that they set up, which is a little more grey and intelligent than the usual blockbuster, like the first movie. The new villain is an interesting character, and I quite liked the creativity that went into the design of his powers and world, but for the love of god, never show me those goofy wing boots again. From the second act onwards, the movie starts to get bogged down by the Marvel machine, i.e. the movie slips out of Coogler’s hands. It’s unfortunately forced to function as a backdoor pilot for Disney + shows and used to drive the corporate machine forward, instead of focussing on the development of its own premise and character arcs. The way it rushes through the arcs of Okoye, Shuri and Namor leaves a lot to be desired. Meanwhile, cutting/writing out Riri, Martin Freeman and Julia Louis Dreyfus would improve the overall cohesion and pacing a lot. What doesn’t help either is that the action and visual effects get increasingly worse and worse as the movie goes on, to the point where we again have an ugly third act on our hands, which includes some of the most hideous looking costumes the MCU has ever put out. Moreover, the soundtrack is kinda bland this time around. It’s not like Kendrick et al. were putting out their best material for the first film, but the music here is just so vanilla and forgettable. Finally, I’m not enitrely sure what the script is trying to communicate on a deeper level, besides being a general statement in favour of diplomacy. If it’s meant to be just that, I don’t think this is anywhere as bold as the first movie. Not that it needs that in order to be good, but it’s another layer stripped away from what made the first movie special. What saves the film ultimately is a lot of its craft: the directing, worldbuilding, acting, score, cinematography, costume and set design (underwater world looked great, much better than Aquaman IMO) are all very well handled and stand out in the blockbuster field. It has those strong foundations in place that make it hard to produce a flat out bad Black Panther film, but man does this movie also show that Marvel is its own worst enemy at this point.
5.5/10
.
Rian Johnson is starting to turn into the white Jordan Peele. He's another one of those filmmakers that loves to work in this niche of subversive genre films that include a heavy dose of social commentary, and I'm all here for it. Specifically, with this franchise we’ve gone from satirizing old money with Knives Out to satirizing new money with this new film (chances are Knives Out 3 will center around a group of homeless suspects). Now, a lot of films in that same vein have been released recently (Triangle of Sadness, The Menu), but I think none of them do the satire as well as this film. To me it’s too easy at this point to simply aim your commentary at these people by making a statement about how stupid and incompetent they are. It seems like low hanging fruit to me, because everyone with a brain knows that these types are vapid and contribute nothing to society. Luckily, Rian Johnson understands this too and goes one step beyond that, filtering all of his commentary through this idea of the glass onion. These people aren’t just stupid and incompetent, but they’re using a veil of eccentricity and ‘complexity’ to hide that. This is a brilliant deconstruction that rings very true for today’s society, and of course you can’t quite escape the obvious parallel with Twitter’s manchild CEO firing himself this week. This subtext is woven into a lot of elements of the film (character, location, plot, even some props), which means that some things are a lot dumber and simpler than they appear to be. I think that will annoy some people, but I think it's quite clever. Like the first film, you get a great cast of colourful characters. Some of them are given depth, some of them are just playing funny caricatures. Daniel Craig owns the whole movie again, but Janelle Monáe comes pretty close to outperforming him. Even people like Dave Bautista do a great job, and it’s because Rian Johnson knows how to use these actors despite their limited range. There are plenty of twists you won’t see coming and the filmmaking is again terrific. It looks very cinematic with the blocking, lighting and compositions, and the score feels very 60s (lots of strings, some minor baroque orchestration), which reminded me of The White Lotus and a certain Beatles song. In the end, what puts it over the first film for me is the fact that the tone feels more consistent here. The more tense and dramatic moments of Knives Out didn’t really hit home for me when you have Daniel Craig doing a really campy accent, and this one just fully embraces that it’s a silly comedy. And it’s a great one at that, nearly all the jokes landed for me. Maybe could’ve done with a little less shouting from Kate Hudson, but ok, it makes sense for the character. Probably the most fun movie of the year next to Top Gun: Maverick, and definitely one of the most well constructed.
8/10
This is clearly Matthew Vaughn’s attempt to shake things up and expand the Kingsman films into new territory.
It's a very respectable choice (it’s easier to play it safe, because ultimately that’s what most people want), but we end up with a film that doesn’t quite get the appeal of the franchise.
They used to be keep it simple, character driven and fun, and instead they went with something that’s too plot driven and overly serious here.
A big part of what makes the first film great are its characters. Now, Ralph Fiennes is quite good in this, but Harris Dickinson’s character is very one dimensional (and his performance doensn’t have the charisma that Taron Edgerton gave to Eggsy), and the villains all feel like they’re ripped out of a saturday morning cartoon.
It also struggles with its tone because of that. Like I said before, this is at parts oddly serious for a Kingsman film, and then every time it cuts to the villains it feels like a completely different film and it goes completely bonkers, fully embracing the camp. It kinda reminded me of the first Wonder Woman movie in that regard.
The production makes up for a lot, though. It’s very stylish, you can instantly tell that this isn’t a generic Hollywood production. There’s a lot of personality in the visuals, and the action is well staged (not nearly as tacky as in The Golden Circle), I just wish there was a little more of it.
I’d say it’s about as good as the second film. Not really memorable or something worth recommending, but it has its moments.
4.5/10
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.
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
I recently watched "The Revenant", another Man vs. Nature film also set in the 1820s. If that film and "In The Heart Of The Sea" have showed me anything it's that I'm thrilled that I didn't have to live during that period of time. Both films do a very good job of highlighting Man's helplessness against the world without his tools. I think the same thing holds true today, it's just that it would take a bit longer for Nature to win in the 2010s. But make no mistake, she'd win.
"In The Heart Of The Sea" was not what I expected, which was a story about amazing heroism and bravery. Instead, this morphed into a tale of survival, complete with some disgusting do-it-or-die actions by the crew of the Essex.
This was a letdown from a visual perspective. All of the scenes just screamed CGI. And casting Chris Hemsworth and Cillian Murphy as the main characters felt entirely wrong.
An admission here...I've never read "Moby Dick" so I have no idea how closely this movie follows the book. I was continually surprised by where the film went, though. The tone got very desperate and downright depressing. The impression I had was that this would be a breathless, sea mist in the face, hearty tale of a battle against a mighty beast. That's not how it went at all.
It’s funny to know that this movie was intended to come out before the pandemic, because by releasing it now it might provide some unintentional food for thought for the morons who believe that a certain virus was actually conceived in a lab.
I genuinely wonder if those people will read that far into this film, I’d find it deeply amusing.
The good news is that there are definetely a lot of things this does better than Spectre.
The action is memorable and way more visceral (though it doesn’t quite surpass the Mission Impossible Fallout bar) and the characters are generally more interesting.
I loved the women in this in particular, they all have distinct personalities and they’re not flawless human beings or overpowered (e.g. Ana de Armas is bubbly and fun, but at the same time she’s inexperienced and chaotic), like some blockbusters tend to do.
At the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that this film invented strong female characters for Bond, especially after we’ve had Eva Green and Judi Dench.
Meanwhile, James Bond himself has a very satisfying arc in this film, which isn’t too dissimilar to Tony Stark’s arc in Avengers Endgame , with a bold pay off in the third act. I’m happy that this film gave us confirmation that Mads Mikkelsen didn’t end up castrating Bond during that scene in Casino Royale.
It’s paced very well, more like a traditional action film and less like a drama, which was the case for Skyfall and Spectre. Don’t let the runtime intimidate you, it doesn’t feel longer than 2 hours.
And finally, the whole thing just looks great, it’s produced excuisetely. The cinematography isn’t quite Skyfall level, but Roger Deakins is an impossible bar to clear for any cinematographer.
Unfortunately, this film really struggles with its tone, bouncing between some cartoony stuff and very dark, dramatic moments.
It wants to honor the traditional Bond stuff, but at the same time it can’t let go of the roots of the Daniel Craig iteration, which makes it feel like an uneven artistic vision, because the foundation of Craig’s Bond rests on this idea that this isn’t the traditional Bond.
It’s going for the same tone as Skyfall, meaning its pretty serious, while also incorporating some campy stuff with the plot and the villain (but never going into straight up silly territory, like Spectre).
The problem is that you could still take the villain and the plot seriously in Skyfall (Bardem is still scary despite the camp, the hacking plot feels grounded), and that isn’t the case here, the plot goes too much into sci-fi territory for that.
Also, Rami Malek didn’t leave much of an impression on me, the accent is wonky and he feels like a stock villain (very much like Waltz in the last film). There’s not really an interesting motivation there, or an interesting evil plan. It’s a campy and theatrical plan, and it feels very familiar.
Finally, this film can be fairly predictable at times (for example: Matilde being Bond’s daughter was extremely obvious, but they still try to somewhat play it as a twist. The same goes for Lea Seydoux being framed in prologue.).
So, it’s good, it pushes the creative boundaries of what a Bond movie is in some ways, which is the best stuff.
But I kinda hope they bring in someone with a fresh, fully realized artistic vision to really shake things up again for the next reboot.
7/10
Ps for the Bond producers: please, please make a spin off with Ana de Armas’ character.
Juno is not only one of those movies about mistakes in adolescence or about an unwanted pregnancy, is above all a film about maturity that escapes to all the usual clichès of all films of the genre.
Juno is a 16 year old and she is a very confident and good with herself teenager. She always tries to accept everything in life with easiness and did not run away to her responsibilities when she discovered that was pregnant. Quickly managed a solution and being perfectly aware that she is not ready to be a mother she is looking for a couple to adopt her unborn child. But Juno soon discovers that everything that involves the pregnancy, both physically and psychologically, are not so easy to deal with.
The best thing this film has is perhaps the fact that we think he is taking us to a certain way and after all that happens is not quite what we were expecting. Escaping the usual clichès, ultimately becoming an honest movie and accepting the decisions of the characters without requiring them to be judged by the choices they make.
Ellen Page's performance is absolutely fantastic! Very natural and real, but did not only felt that about her but also from the rest of the cast.
Overall, Juno is a movie with a serious tone that manages to be entertaining addressing at the same time important key issues of life.
[5.0/10] Green Book is quaint. It is the cinematic equivalent of a Hallmark card on race relations, there to make you feel good, reflect the real world in only the vaguest, gentlest way, and then be quickly discarded and forgotten. It is thoroughly lacking in incisiveness or genuine insight, and its take on race and overcoming divisions is about as deep as a thimble. The film’s perspective is limited and provincial, when it’s not out-and-out troubling, and at times even insulting, in its oversimplifications.
The movie tells the story of Tony Vallelonga, a hearty spark plug of a man from The Bronx, who drives Don Shirley, a cultured piano player, through the South on the latter man’s music tour. Green Book is founded on the tension between Tony’s salt-of-the-earth, profane, and uncouth manner, informed by his working class Italian upbringing, and Dr. Shirley’s mannered, measured, and at times aloof bearing, informed by his position as a black man who has to operate in white circles. Along the way, the two clash and come into conflict, but inevitably find common ground and camaraderie through their shared experiences.
That in and of itself is not a bad premise for a film. There’s pathos to be wrung from the intersection of a man kept on the fringes of society because of his class and one ostensibly welcomed but always held at arm's length because of the color his skin. There’s a common understanding that can be established between one man who holds prejudices until he’s forced to confront real people and not just abstractions, and another who looks down on those less devoted to dignity until he learns to appreciate the heart that persists even where manners are lacking. And there’s catharsis to be had from the shared realizations of someone who is the master of his own circle but ignorant to the realities of the wider world, and one who’s seen the world at a distance but comes to know the greater warmth of community and family.
Green Book just doesn't actually achieve any of that. It tires. God help it, the film tries. And if you squint, you can see where the movie gestures toward these ideas, and in exceedingly rare moments, even grazes them. But those noble efforts are lost in its crayon-sketched characters and events, its rampant clichés and archetypes in lieu of depth or complexity, and its bent toward reassuring its audience of who’s really good and who’s really bad rather than confronting the gray areas or the systems that reinforces the types of bigotry the film seems to shake off so easily.
Some of that could be forgiven if the movie, for all its attempts at feelgoodery and humor, were more pleasant to watch. It’s characters are, at best, difficult to like. Even setting aside Tony Vallelonga’s racism -- the fodder for his “I’m a real boy!” transformation over the course of the film -- the character is mostly obnoxious. He’s a pale cross between Tony Soprano and Homer Simpson, with an Olive Garden version of the former’s bearing and perspective, and charmless version of the latter’s doltishness, loyalty, and appetite. He is, even at his best, a large foul-mouthed toddler, always having to be told not to give into his worst and easiest impulses. I’m a firm believer that characters need places to go, to grow, in films, but Vallelonga is annoying for too long in the film to find much merit in that approach here.
While Dr. Shirley is, at least, not so eminently grating as Tony is, the film still needs him to grow and change as well, and so makes him rude and condescending for much of the picture. It’s easier to swallow here, since while Don Shirley is occasionally a bit unreasonable, he’s mainly either having to navigate spaces where he’s made insecure or even at risk because of his skin color, or responding to one of Tony’s immature missteps. What’s more, Shirley has the benefit of being played by Mahershala Ali, who deserves better than this film and its script, but who adds layers to Don’s emotional reactions to the different challenges he faces, and breathes life into the relationship between him and Tony that’s poorly written, but nevertheless the backbone of the film.
The best things you can say for Green Book apart from that performance (wasted on a film that doesn't deserve it), is that it’s nice to look at and listen to. Cinematographer Sean Porter not only captures the scenic beauty as Vallelonga and Shirley traverse the American South, but uses a wide shot of Dr. Shirley surrounded by isolated by his possessions to convey his inner loneliness, and communicates Dr. Shirley’s awkward place between white and black society better visually than the film can ever manage with its ham-handed dialogue.
At the same time, so many films try to frame a main character as a virtuoso or a talent or a star, and the actual presentation falls flat. That’s a pitfall Green Book avoids entirely. When Don Shirley sits down to play the piano, his performance takes your breath away, and the audience is not only knocked back by the sumptuous melody and talent put on display, but understands how even hardscrabble Tony could be moved by it too. Between the music itself, the masterful playing from double and real life pianist Kris Bowers, and the nuanced acting of Ali, each time Dr. Shirley sits down in front of a Steinway, it’s a treat.
But those gifts are squandered on a story of friendship that’s as predictable as it is unearned. The film is rife with questionable moments. (For example, in one scene Tony cajoles and eventually persuades his African American counterpart on the merits of fried chicken.) Green Book is going for the old chestnut of the prejudiced but well-meaning man with a heart of gold. But it’s take on racism is so archaic, its prelude to Tony’s changes so full of slurs and backwards views and general prickishness intended to somehow be endearing, that when he finally does come around, it’s too little too late. Tony loves his family and eventually does right enough by his partner, but the film gives us too few reasons to root for him, and is often misguided in how it tries to demonstrate his decency or Don’s failings and peccadillos.
There is occasional warmth, and even joy, in Green Book. But in the final tally, it’s a film that seems built for 1989 instead of 2019. Its “can’t we all just get along” and “both sides need to grow” messages ring hollow in the current era where there’s a growing acknowledgment that our cultural ills are neither so simple nor succinct. Even apart from its dime store observations, hacky dialogue, and mealy racial pablum, it just doesn't present much in terms of its story or characters worth investing in. Not every Oscar-calibrated film has to make a truly powerful statement, but it should at least make for engaging cinema, and despite its strenuous and strained efforts, Green Book fails on both fronts.
Just to preface this, I thought A Force Awakens was emotionless trash that undermined the entire purpose of the original three films.
Rogue One was the opposite.
The best thing about this movie was the emotional impact. It underlined the sacrifices made to make the original trilogy possible. Some people have called it long, but that helped build up characters that you actually felt for, and who weren't carbon copy ripoffs (cough cough A Force Awakens). The final scenes as the two main characters face their fate, recognizing that it was worth it, gave such a high emotional payoff. Each major death scene actually made you feel something.
The second best thing was K-2SO. Very funny, and much needed comedic (but not goofy) relief.
The CGI for landscapes and the world creation was outstanding. When I see a movie like Star Wars I want to be amazed and see things that I haven't seen done before. I want to be impressed and drawn into new, beautifully crafted worlds. In this respect, the movie just kept delivering over and over.
The cinematography was great during the action sequences. The sequences looked epic, and the violence and sacrifice felt meaningful. The Vader fight sequence was intense.
It also had interesting ties to current events with its commentary on terrorism/rebellion/weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the science genius character realizing that he isn't priceless in developing some major device is fantastic. All of the movies with "only so-and-so can figure this out" are very disappointing.
The moral message of the movie was also very clear and well delivered.
I really enjoyed the movie overall and thought that it was a big step in the right direction. It was adventurous again, it was sometimes shocking, original, and most of all meaningful. A Force Awakens failed on all of those points. It's good to see a franchise movie that's taking a bit more risk than average. AFA was just like the new Star Trek films, shiny bling low-impact action movies that just happen to be set in space. Rogue One pushes far beyond to show the what drives the Rebellion in a world we know and love.
Despite the fact that I really liked the movie, it had some flaws:
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the acting in the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the cuts were really weird and the pacing felt off for portions of the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Forest Whittaker just deciding to die instead of trying to escape.
- Tarkin face CGI
- A few unbelievable plot lines (thankfully most were minor). Like Cassian being sent to kill Galen for almost no reason, and then deciding not to for no reason, and then Jyn forgiving him surprisingly easily. How did she even know that he was trying to kill her father?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Does every Star Wars movie need to have a father character die? Why didn't Cass follow orders when he heartlessly killed someone else in his first scene?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Heavy handed political messaging.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Said "hope" too many times.
- Tarkin face CGI
- You can just push Star Destroyers that easily?
- Tarkin face CGI
- The word "Stardust"
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too many random worlds introduced that you don't have the time to get invested in.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too much awkward fan service.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Darth Vader's voice sounded off.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the dialogue was really terrible.
- Tarkin face CGI
It is a pity. I am very disappointed in many directions.
I do not know where i should start with this review. Before i start writing anything I should say that I enjoyed Uncharted and that is the most important thing on films.There are still a few BUT.
When the movie was announced I expected the masterpiece in all directions. I could not wait for realase in cinemas. Iam very disappointed for cast. The Actors were good but Mark Wahlberg did not fit me into the role of Sulli.. I must to say it.. He is very good actor for sure, in this movie he did good performace, but he did not fit me.. I expected little robbery from the game Franchize in all the directions like epic scene with epic theme from game during that and more a serious film with occasional jokes and great character chemistry, but we did not get any of that..
So much pity... realy... It is completely comedy film where you will have fun and so much laugh, but do not expect any extra quality story with epic scenes and excellent music in the background like in the game Franchize..
There were so many mistakes, but I enjoyed movie and it was not a waste of time... I could be very worse in all aspects..
Cast 6/10
Storytelling 6/10
Characters 6,5/10
Video Prouduction/Cut/Music 6/10
Environment 3/5
Conclusion 4/5
= 63%
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
The absolute cheek of Hulu calling this a "Hulu Original" when it was originally announced in 2012, got stuck in development hell at 20th Century Fox, then was planned to release under Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures, then the release was postponed, re-announced, delayed again before the film leaked a few months ago…
Hulu, you had nothing to do with creating this movie; please don't brand it like you did.
I'm also interested in any background on why the version Hulu released this week runs only 94 minutes, when IMDB indicates the runtime should be 100 minutes. What did they cut? I wonder…
I have to admit that it's fun. The characters are all pretty flat, even Roy, but the concept is cool enough even if Mel Gibson makes for a really lame villain with no depth whatsoever.
Where others objected to the title, I thought "Boss Level" was fairly apt. Roy's experience mirrors what a gamer might have to do in order to clear a particularly difficult level in a video game. That worked really well for me—much better than the characters.
You think Selina Lo ever got tired of saying, "I am Guan Yin, and Guan Yin has done this"? :joy:
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
[8.3/10] Parasite wears its themes on its sleeve. The divide between rich and poor, between the class that has to scrape and scrap to make ends meet, and the kind that blithely lives in largesse, is made massive and eventually deadly. In the film, the wealthy have the privilege of remaining oblivious to it all, while the underclass must con and fake and fight off one another for a small cut of what their social superiors squander without thinking.
Those themes give ballast to what is otherwise an amusing, twisty, thriller of a film. Separate and apart from the class conscious themes, Parasite is an engaging movie through the premise of one poor, desperate family ingratiating and insinuating themselves into the lives of a wealthy, complacent one. Director Bong Joon-Ho crafts tension in how far the Kim family will take this ruse, and how long they’ll be able to make it last, before it all comes tumbling down.
From there, Parasite simply escalates, going to stranger and more dangerous places as the film wears on. The reveal of a hidden bunker under the stairs, where the former housekeeper hid her loan shark-dodging husband, immediately ups the stakes. Until then, it’s a matter of the Kims slowly but surely pulling themselves out of their meager existence, and the entertaining craft of their schemes and scams to gradually infiltrate the ranks of “the help” for the Park family.
But afterwards, Parasite’s ambit becomes more and more outsized. The Kims have physical confrontations and mutual blackmail sessions with the old housekeeper and her husband. A bizarre episode of Frasier breaks out as the Kims try to hide their indulgence in the Parks’ excess, their bloody handiwork with their working class rivals, and themselves after the Parks unexpectedly return home. And an impromptu garden party becomes a scene of intra- and inter-class warfare, as combatants for the chance to live off the wealthy’s spare change square off, and the insults from being treated like appliances and class signifiers like one’s smell accumulate into a bloody end.
It’s all dark and funny and potent. The violence in the film has power because it’s largely muted and held back until the final reel. Joon-ho spends the bulk of the runtime letting the tension build, letting the audience wonder how far the Kims will let their scheme play out, whether they’ll be able to subdue their competitors, if they’ll evade detection from their benefactors, and when all this sneaking and resentment will boil over.
So when it does, when the rival breaks free and the final insult becomes too much to bear, the contrast between the polite deference and the angry blade, between the sharp young man doing whatever it takes to climb the ladder and the deranged basement dweller bent on vengeance, has a shock and a force to it.
That choice works in a film of contrasts. Joon-ho shows the Kims living in a semi-basement, riddled with “stink bugs” and pestered by random passersby using their alleyway as a public toilet. He depicts the housekeeper and her husband as scraping out an existence without light or air underneath the floorboards. And he depicts the Park household as one of wide-open spaces, of abundant food, protection from the elements and the fresh air and sunshine their less affluent counterparts are bereft of. The destitute are depicted as literally below those of a higher station. It comes through in how cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo and his team shoot the film, with impossibly vivid greens and brighter than bright sunshine coloring the world of the Parks, juxtaposed with the grungry dark and gray that inhabits the Kims’ home and environment.
The film centers itself on the irony of that. The key moment in the film is a deluge that wrecks one family’s life while proving a minor inconvenience to another’s. The rain floods the Kims’ home, destroying their possessions and forcing them to sleep in a gym, packing away the last few signs that the family patriarch was somebody.
All the while, the Parks don’t even understand. Their son pretends to be out in the elements, playacting as a native American who has to brave the raw weather on his own for fun. His parents literally get off to role plays about what it’s like to be the type of people they fire and disdain. The family smiles about the lack of pollution the rain caused and summon their servants for a frolic in the aftermath, safe from any blowback or life-changing consequences that their help is dealing with.
The old saying goes that it rains on the just and unjust alike. But in Parasite, who bears the brunt of that downpour, and who gets to remain blissfully ignorant of the hardships given the financial wherewithal that makes it a mere minor inconvenience, makes all the difference in the world.
There’s supreme, if not exactly subtle, commentary in that. Some of “the help” downright worship the wealthy family whose “grace” lets them lives on the margins of their luxury. The need to survive pits the members of the underclass against one another, ready to con and fight and even kill to maintain their small piece of the pie while their blasé benefactors live in unquestioned plenty. It turns people with talents -- in language, in art, in sport -- into people who strive only for that brand of comfort and security and the money necessary to attain it. It flattens us, changes us, debases us.
It’s a cheesy thing to say, but Joon-hoo asks who the real parasites are. At the beginning of the film, the Kims complain about the bugs infesting their tiny home. They are signifiers of how the upper class views the inhabitants of these places, as those sponging off the successes of those in higher rungs. But by the end, the tables have turned, as the same type of insect hovers around the dead body of the Park family patriarch. It suggests that he and his socialite cohort are the ones siphoning the labor, the talents, the lives of so many others who don’t have a fraction of what he and his family take for granted.
It’s a reality that the Parks can remain wilfully blind to, until the flash of steel and panic of a perfectly manicured garden is haunted by ghosts kept outside and below. Parasite spins an engrossing, comedic, and suspenseful yarn without that barely-submerged subtext. But the combination of story and theme gives the film a weight behind its thrills, a knowing glance behind its laughs, and a darkness beneath the bright images of success, punctured by those denied its fruits and necessities.
Pros
+Looks Beautiful and Ugly at the same time (Ugly as in portraying the ugly circumstances of the war)
+The way it is shot is incredibly fluid, it's very much a long shot movie but there are maybe 5 actual like hard cuts in this and the hidden transitions are seamless. It really feels like you're walking alongside these messengers while still also giving the viewer an impression for how much time is passing in the story.
+Characters were all believable and likeable. There's some funny banter, there's some emotional release, a bit of fear, some kindness, and it's well acted so it gives the viewer a good impression of who these men are and it makes you want to care.
+Music and general sound design was nearly perfect
+ The story in general is solid. There are some things that I feel won't please everyone (which I'll mention) but I think overall it's a good story. The beauty is kind of in the simplicity. It's all about getting from point A to point B, but having it be that simple it makes room for the viewer to appreciate everything that happens in the journey.
+ You've probably guessed it from the things I've already said but the overall atmosphere is great without feeling like it's up it's own ass
+Very purposeful film. Lots of efficient scenes which seem disconnected at first but end up communicating an aspect of why the messengers are doing what they are and reflect the importance of this mission and/or increase the urgency of what is happening.
Neutral
*The movie is partially about will power and the main character's name is Will lmao
Cons
-I think Tommy's death happened too soon I understand not wanting to waste too much time but I feel like just a few more scenes would have done a lot for that part of the movie. (FYI this is not a big criticism I kinda knew it was going to happen since the trailer had so many scenes where Will was alone but it didn't quite mean as much as I would have liked)
-Predictable. This isn't honestly a criticism for people like me who don't really need any twists but I feel like some people would be bored with how straight forward and unapologetically predictable it is.
- in the German trench it says on one of the rafters "I <3 Elsa" a clear anachronism since Disney's Frozen (tm) had not come out in time for WWI soldiers to be fanboying Elsa smh btw I'm joking lol but I did see that in the trench
Definitely worth a watch
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.
This movie was wrong on so many levels. It was as expected though. Jessica Simpson flat out can not act. We all knew that. But she wasn't the worst singer trying to be actor in this flick. That honor goes to Willie Nelson. His lines were mechanical and painful to hear. There had to have been someone better that auditioned to play Uncle Jesse. The paper thin plot line was about equal to one episode of the TV show in strength. It basically serves as an excuse to drive the General Lee all over Georgia to some VERY sweet stunts with a secondary purpose of letting us see Daisy show off her assets. Note that the boys seemingly drive all night to Atlanta to get the core samples tested but when they run in trouble with the law, Daisy shows up to save the day immediately. Just a minor complaint. Possibly most annoying was the character of Billy Prickett, the towns favorite son and four-time winner of the road rally. He not only looked exactly like Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball, he was played the same. There was some entertainment value to this movie. I did enjoy it to some extent and got exactly what I was expecting.
Technically, IT was a good movie. The effects, the cinematography, actors, pretty much everything was objectively good. But as a horror film, it doesn't have an impact on me.
The film was definitely designed for the kind of people that go into horror movies WANTING to be afraid. It is filled with clichés and typical stupid behaviour from characters, such as choosing to slowly walk into a trap just so the audience can say "DON'T GO IN THERE!". And most of the "scary" things that happen in this movie, aren't really scary because they aren't REAL. Which is what bugged me most about the movie.
Most of the horror scenes are nothing more than a figment of the character's imagination. Why should i be afraid when a zombie spawns out of nowhere in the middle of the street in broad daylight when i know that it isn't actually happening and no one other than the kids can see it. Pennywise does prove to be a physical monster when we see him kill people, but it isn't clear what the writers of the movie were thinking when they created him. How am i supposed to believe that he can casually teleport around public spaces without anyone noticing, or that he can somehow make himself appear in old photographs and pre-recorded television shows. His capabilities aren't consistent and it just feels like a compilation of cheap scares. Like the writers used a slot machine of horror tropes to create his character.
Still, i am looking forward to the sequel just so i can see how adults would deal with Pennywise. Maybe they will be a lot smarter and spend less time running from things that aren't real. But who knows, IT is a pretty basic horror flick.
Den of Thieves is like the male reproductive organ: exciting at each end but long and boring in the middle.
It's a trap most films of this genre fall into. An action scene at the beginning to grab our attention and one at the end for a climax, but in the middle nothing but cliches. And with the European version clocking in at TWO HOURS AND TWENTY MINUTES (WTF!?) there's a lot of room for cliches.
The renegade police squad as bent as the criminal gang they're pursuing is a cliche we've come to expect, but too much time is wasted demonstrating how '3-dimensional' and 'fleshed out' these men are. To be sure, there's enough beefcake here to choke the deepest of throats (Gerard Butler, Pablo Schreiber and 50 Cent are so cut their shirts keep falling off), so they're 3D and fleshed out all right, but family men? We're meant to believe they consider family important, yet the only proof of that we're given is they feel guilty every time they treat their families like shite.
It's a shame, really. Christian Gudegast does a competent job directing the action and suspense, but he should've stuck to that rather than drawing so heavily on the source material (a 1992 non-fiction book by Pulitzer Prize winning author James B. Stewart).
No, Den of Thieves is not the epic cops and robbers film it thinks it is. It's simply a giant fake boob: over-inflated, self-aggrandizing and not as unique as it thinks it is.
7.5/10. Dan Harmon, creator of Community is known for several things -- his trademark bottle of vodka, his tendency to spill his guts to audiences full of strangers, but also his story circle. The story circle is a device that Harmon uses as a blueprint for nearly any story he writes or supervises. It offers a series of steps to telling a story: 1. A character is in a zone of comfort; 2. But they want something; 3. They enter an unfamiliar situation; 4. Adapt to it; 5. Get what they wanted; 6. Pay a heavy price for it; 7. Then return to their familiar situation; 8. Having changed.
Brooklyn is basically Story Circle: The Movie. Eilis may not have the best life in Ireland, but she is comfortable there. But she hopes and wants for a better life than she can expect to have in the Emerald Isle. So she moves to Brooklyn, a situation whose unfamiliarity is hammered home from the first Irish immigrant she meets on the boat, to her fellow boarders who snip at her a bit, but also guide her through her new surroundings. She slowly but surely grows accustomed to her new home, with its different social mores and customs. She eventually has a good job, a future in accounting, a boyfriend, and the good life her sister wanted for her when she helped send Eilis to America. But just as she grows comfortable in that new life, she pays the price not being able to be home for her sister's funeral or to comfort her mother in person. Eventually, she's able to return home, but as the film makes clear in its third act, she is much different person now then when she left it.
That's not meant to be a criticism of the film. That type of adherence to story structure does lead to a film that feels conventional, and in truth Brooklyn is a feel-good story that is as interested in a film experience that feels like slipping into a warm bath as it is in proceeding through its simple-but-sweet coming of age tale. The notes are familiar, but the melody is beautiful, and the audience goes home happy.
At one point, Eilis offers her beau, Tony, an adjective to describe herself -- amenable. And it's the perfect way to describe Brooklyn It's a very amenable film, happy to lean into the soft hues of the past to tell a love story, and immigrant story, and a bildungsroman, in gentle tones that provoke smiles and sighs as Eilis finds happiness, love, and fulfillment despite her initial reservations and homesickness.
If I have a criticism, its that Eilis's journey is almost too successful. For all the accusations of unrealistic perfection leveled at Rey in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Eilis is a paragon of good fortune throughout Brooklyn. Nearly everyone she meets in Ireland and in Brooklyn short of the prickly Miss Kelly likes her and helps her to feel more comfortable in whatever her current surroundings are. To boot, she becomes successful at nearly whatever she sets her mind to, from working at the department story, to courting, to her burgeoning skills as a bookkeeper.
But that's not to say Eilis does not face challenges in the film. Hers are challenges of conscience rather than the standard plot obstacles we expect our cinematic protagonists to leap over. The crux of the film is Eilis returning to the land that she thought had nothing there for her, and finding that she was wrong, that there is good work, and friendship, and family, and a nice boy with a good future. Suddenly, the life she forged across the pond, the one with her husband, and her studies, and seems distant, something that unexpectedly has to compete with the renewed comforts of home. The choice the film stakes out -- whether to take the stronger, more confident persona Eilis has built back to Ireland and start a life there better than any she hoped to be able to enjoy, or return to the place that made her into that stronger person with the man she pledged her love to.
The problem is that as well as the film sets up that choice, and lays out compelling elements on both sides of the equation, it glosses over the conclusion in a somewhat unsatisfying fashion. While the touch of Miss Kelly's would-be blackmail is nice, it seems abrupt that after all the time the film spends setting up Eilis's hometown as somewhere that Eilis has a place and could be happy, one harsh woman is enough to send her back to New York. There's subtext about an iron fist hiding beneath the velvet glove that's been offered to Eilis since she returned to Enniscorthy, but it's hard to see it anyone besides Miss Kelly, with everyone else in the town seeming a bit pushy and presumptive, but also genuinely enamored with the young Ms. Lacey. Her confession to her mother is a quietly powerful scene, and the breakup letter she gives to her Irish beau feels like too easy way to resolve that relationship, but more than anything, it just feels odd that one mean old crow is all it takes to convince Eilis that she could never have a life in a place that, despite the vows she's tried so hard to put out of her mind, seemed to welcome her with open arms.
Still, the scene where Tony finds Eilis waiting for him and the pair embrace is a sweet moment, even if it doesn't feel totally earned given what motivated Eilis to come to that point. But it's a lovely image in a film full of them. Brooklyn is awash in muted pastels and primary colors, that give the past a gauzy hue that catches the eye and conveys the sense of a sweeter, simpler time. It's also a supremely well-shot film, that shoots Eilis and Jim Farrell at the beach having a conversation with their romantic companions framed in between them in the distance, conveying the subtext of the exchange. It's also a film keen to use subtle touches to show changes in Eilis's mood or perspective, from the simple act of wearing her bathing suit under her clothes that impresses her friends back home, to the letters she shoves in a drawer to signify the way in which she's putting Brooklyn out of her mind. None of these techniques is so subtle that the viewer will miss them, but the film takes the old admonition "show don't tell" to heart, and succeeds well with that principle in mind.
In the end, Brooklyn is a fairly simple story. Girl leaves home. Girl makes a new life with success and romance. Girl returns home, seeing the beauty of what she left behind and has to choose her new life or her old one. But the film's pleasures come from the sweet stillness of the moments in between, of the temping worlds the film creates on either side of Eilis, in the recognizable steps of maturation, of change, that Eilis goes through as she moves past her homesickness, past her reticence, and eventually, past the girl she used to be. Brooklyn is an aggressively amiable film, that breaks little new ground, but covers the familiar territory with such a pleasant, charming air, that it can be forgiven for making few new steps.
I've literally seen this movie decades ago and really enjoyed it then, but during the last years entirely forgot about it - until I saw Split in a sneak preview - when they showed the closing (or after credit?) scene, I was the only one in the cinema hall screaming "Oh my god, this is Unbreakable", while all the other visitors where puzzled. Unbelievable. Even my girlfriend didn't know the movie, so it had to be rewatched, and as "Glass" will be released this month, we finally got to actually watching it:
David Dunn (portrait by Bruce Willis) lives an ordinary life in modest circumstances, working as a football stadium security guy who is estranged from his wife and planing to start anew, when he gets in a train accident which he survives as the only person. He is then approached by the comic book enthusiast and comic art trader Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) who is certain that David is a real life impersonation of all the super heroes written about in comic books. He tries to mentor David who doesn't believe a word...
Being a comic book fan and loving the mid 2000s for all the stunning great super hero movies (Sam Raimis Spider-Man, X-Men, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Hellboy, Constantine, Watchman, 300, Sin City and of course the first MCU movies), I have to say this movie really stands out. It's not a typical comic book movie - it's not based on a comic book, it isn't even seeing itself as a typical super hero movie - it's rather a meta comic book movie, all the while having an integral part of typical comic books and focusing on this relevant mechanism that every comic book thrives on.
All the while this movie is so totally different to any super hero movie you have ever seen. Totally calm, slow paced, no special effects, hardly any fight scenes, all the while absolutely thrilling due to brilliant cinematography, great acting and a killer score. The characters and their relations are as deep as in a drama movie, and nearly the entire movie is a built up to a great finale and an unexpected turn of events. There is no CGI, no action, not even a hero vs super villain showdown. All the while it touches the essence of every comic book story, and does so in an ingenious way.
Because of this, of course not everyone will like the movie - a lot will probably not even consider it an comic book or action hero movie. But it really is a memorization of the comic book genre and given its age, and the fact that it came before the action hero genre took off, it really aged well - even after all the Marvel, DC and independent stuff this movie stands out as a great movie.
And now I am really looking forward to seeing the final movie :)
Well… this movie has absolutely broken me.
For context Unbreakable is one of my favourite movies of all time. Shyamalan was clearly ahead of the curve by deconstructing the standard comic book narrative only five months after the release of the first X-Men movie. The slow pace and highly intentional camera work make for a very entreating character study.
Split really caught me of guard back in 2017. James McAvoy’s performance being a highlight of the year and the reveal of David Dunn at the end lead to some great discussions about how the two stories would connect.
So now just two years after that revel but a whole nineteen years after Unbreakable Shyamalan brings us the concluding chapter to his comic book inspired trilogy.
Having seen the critical response before going in I wasn’t expecting much but for the first two thirds I really could not tell what the problem was. All of the performances were great. Bruce Willis coming of the back of years worth of disappointing performances seemed to actually care about his character. Samuel L. Jackson shows his ability to showcase a characters entire thought process with just the rise of an eyebrow and James McAvoy is so good at switching between personalities that moments in this film exist for the sole purpose of letting his show off.
The camera work kept me on edge the whole time, Shyamalan utilises every trick he has ever pulled of from hand-help tracking shots, point of view shots, panning shots reminiscent of his every work of Unbreakable and Signs and absolutely wonderful one takes that allow for McAvoy fully showcase the potential of his character(s). The more minor roles are also handled really well with Taylor-Joy returning as Casey Cooke adding to her wonderful performance from Split and Spencer Treat Clark making me question why he hasn’t had the chance to show just how great an actor he can be since his appearance in Unbreakable. Sarah Paulson is also far more important to this film than I had first presumed and her character has some great moments and aided by her subtle and purposeful performance.
But eventually you have to get the the finale. Without spoiling anything I am not a fan of the way this film concludes. To me it appears as if Shyamalan wanted a bigger reveal to justify the existence of the film and it just does not work.
The typically Shyamalan ending only serves to highlight some other issues I had with the film, particularly how underused the character of David Dunn was and how Shyamalan clearly cares more about the plot and characters in Split than Unbreakable begging the question of why this film had to exist and why It is called Glass when that character doesn’t do or say anything for about an hour of the movie.
Most of Glass is good, some of Glass is great but it never quite lives up to it’s full potential. Its worth seeing to round of the trilogy and maybe that ending will grow on me over time.
Great performances across the board and bold, unique direction but ultimately unsatisfying.
So, is it overly feministic? No, it isn't. I'd say Wonder Woman is more so than this film. It holds it's character strongly and does not diverge the audience's views when watching. The undertones are there sure, but it isn't in your face. Just thought I'd get that out of the way because some around me were wondering that themselves.
Carol Danvers is a great addition to the MCU. Not only has the studio thought long and hard about her placement, but also on how they can make her a defining character for our day and age. No doubt that in the future she will grow and see stronger days herself. But for now, we are left with a very fast paced story with Carol herself, not seeming quite right. There is something off about Brie Larson's performance, and I think it's because of the quick cutting of emotional stages she goes through. I know they are making an amnesia story (with a slim amount of tropes I might add!), but for some reason, she can't seem coherent enough in emotional performing to make this character fully likeable. Then again. it's an origin story. The way she is blunt with others is a plus though.
The villain is complicated here. While I'd say one of the better in the MCU. There are some drawbacks to how they interact with Carol. Not much I can say about them. But having a movie set in the past with a big threat like in the 3rd act was kind of stupid in my opinion. No stakes at all.
For the technical side of things, shots were nice. Too much cutting than I would have liked in fight scenes in hand to hand. The final fight was greatly done though. The music didn't stand out much and was unneeded in some scenes that would have benefitted from silence or a more subtle tone rather than an orchestral track. CGI was fairly good. But, Captain Marvel's powers make her look really fake when flying.
Young Nick Fury and Captain Marvel are, of course, the main highlight to take away. Like a buddy cop movie, but with more superpowers and cats. The chemistry between the two was funny and well put together. The final line said by Carol in the mid-credits scene is a nice callback earlier in the film to cement the two.
So yes duh, there is a mid-credits scene and an end-credits scene. But you could leave after the mid-credits. As the final scene is just a cutesy one. But if you want absolutely no spoilers at all and are the type to even avoid trailers for the new Avengers. It may not be the best play to watch the mid-credits.
Captain Marvel is a good introduction to the strong female lead Carol Danvers. A fun journey with a duo I'd love to see more of. As well as more of Carol's flaws in a visual medium, not vocal. It's no Iron Man, but I see a bit of that Tony Stark spark in this promising character.
Second Viewing Update
So after another look because of uncertainty. I can say now that I was frustrated with the lack of actual character build. Before I remarked the amnesia story being an excuse for the lacking of visual storytelling. But now it was getting to me. Carol Danvers deserves better. And I hope in Endgame she gets it. I have faith in the Russos to give her better development. If not, other instalments will hear our cries for giving this amazing promise, flaws. Downgrading my rating a bit as for a movie about this character, it focuses more on her abilities than her as a person.
7.2/10
6.8/10
Check here for my MCU rankings.
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/my-mcu-rankings?sort=rank,asc
Walking out of Warcraft, the overriding feeling is one of a missed opportunity - this is by no means a disaster and there is plenty of potential here. The scope of the film is impressive and it's clear there is a lot of world-building going on here for future sequels. Part of the problem, however, is there is simply too much plot going on with not enough time devoted to a central thread - the director's admission that some 40 minutes have been cut is not surprising. This is a film that has ambition to be an epic, with many threads introduced to carry over to potential future films and glimpses of many different settings in this new world, but consequently there is a rushed feel to the central plot of this film with not enough time devoted to developing the relationships and motivations of the central characters, Thus plot developments and twists whilst potentially interesting do not have the emotional impact desired making it difficult to really care about what happens. It is a shame because what there is here works surprisingly well - Jones' ambition is to ensure the audience is invested in both sides of the conflict rather than the obvious human side. Perhaps there may well be a future director's cut that restores some much needed character work and slows down the pace a little.
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.
