I'm a sucker for an open ended narrative, and Anatomy of a Fall gives us so many breadcrumbs to work with it's hard not to get lost in how we feel once the credits roll. It's been amazing to read multiple interpretations throughout the days following my viewing, and I'm still not sure where I land on the ultimate conclusion of the plot. What I can say for certainty is that Anatomy of a Fall is a glorious peek inside the life of a delightfully nuanced couple. Their interactions are raw and real, arguments feel clumsy and looped, realistic and believable. It asks us to question our perception and interpretation of others; seeing relationships for brief moments and coming to grandiose conclusions about their infinite nuances without ever truly knowing these people and the dynamics that push and pull between them. I'll continue to return to this movie in my head for weeks to come, as another minute detail bubbles up and questions the narrative I've built in my head about these people and what transpired between them. Maybe I should watch it again, I can't imagine what a second viewing will unearth. Fantastic film, I expect a lot of award season love for this one.
How are they still making movies like this in 2023..and there is a part 2 coming in 2024. I am actually concerned for the future of cinema as an art form. Movies like Rebel Moon or even The Creator we got early on this year both consist of visually stunning and breath-taking cinematography. However when it comes down to the script it seems like it was generated using Chat GPT. Where is the creativity in this? I missed when we used to get movies that are actually original, nowadays we only seem to get movies that have been done before with no originality.
Review Rant (because I have nothing good to say about this movie)
Yeah the visuals are great...its fine to be honest, didn't baffle me at all. Cool spaceships, laser beam guns streaking across the dark and things exploding, whatever. Then when you look past behind all this you see recycled plot lines and lazy writing generated by ChatGPT. Take Star Wars, throw in a table spoon of Dune. Oppressed colony fighting bad king? Check. Chosen one destined for greatness? Check. It's all been done, seen and shat on before.
Don't even get me started on the characters. We got the generic "tough women warrior queen with a mysterious backstory" accompanied by a weak male. I was really excited to see Charlie Hunnam in this but god damn it he tried, the character was just boring and we all saw the betrayal coming from a mile away.
The story itself takes light years to get anywhere, first half feels so dragging and when they finally starts to pick up on the action it just ends up being soulless cluttered and just flashes and bangs, it ultimately leads up to a "final battle" where your 2 character fight to death. of course instead of making sure your opponent is dead you just throw him off somewhere and go about your day, I think we've all established where that goes. YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE HE IS DEAD.
If you seek movies with interesting plot, originality and well written characters, you won't find anything of sorts in this movie. Do yourself a favor and watch Dune.
Right off the bat the intro monologue is pretty bad and unoriginal… it gets worse from there… Kora is tilling the earth at night and sniffing the turf… in her tank top… then the Irish folks songs start playing… pretty sure at this point this is not going to be good… wait the clan leader is a breaded gentleman with an Israeli accent… I do like the French actress what’s her name… did not like her the first time noticed her in Atomic Blond (a fav of mine)… but have seen her a few more times and she’s grown on me… I feel terrible she’s getting a shot a leading in this dog poop…the CGI is pretty good… the score is terrible bad opera… wait here’s the bad guy…basically a silly ripoff of the SS… and his cronies… I have to stop… OMG this sucks balls so much it’s mind boggling that it was made… dude if this can get made I have a good shot at moviemaking because it would be hard to do worse with all the funding they have… everything is ridiculous… I could keep writing… OMG why would they spend infinite resources to fly across the galaxy to claim some farming rights from this poor planet? How many accents can you have in one movie? Aussie, Irish, British, Israeli etc… lol UPDATE contrary to most poop this actually gets better and they spent a ton of cash CGI is dang good.
Oh god.. where do I even start.
The Good:
The Premise was one of the biggest strengths of the movie, aligns perfectly with the thought provoking narrative. The film captures fear and confusion as the world is crumbling around them, from the get-go the viewer is suppose to keep guessing what's happening and leaving us doubting the very meaning of existence. Director Sam Esmail does an excellent job at keeping the viewer engaged throughout the movie despite the inconsistent pacing in the later parts. The performances by all the adults are masterful.Unlike the cookie-cutter disaster movie you get most of the time, this time you are not puzzled with clear cut answers but rather invites the viewer to question the nature of the crisis befalling.
The Bad
I thought I was the only one who felt the cinematography and the camerawork was overdone but some reviews I read the same thing, the constant use of slow motion and the subtle movement of the camera while transitioning smoothly to different cuts, although unique, it's overdone and looses its magic too soon. I had the same problem with the soundtrack sometimes the film tries to overexaggerate suspense and abruptly ends.
Recommendation
If you enjoy slow-burning, thought provoking philosophical thrillers, "Leave the World Behind" is a must watch, if you are not a fan of open-ended conclusions and prefer action packed disaster movies, this is clearly not for you.
Saint Maud joins the ranks of Hereditary, Midsommar, The Witch & The Lodge; a movie that is primarily a chilling drama with shades of horror throughout, a formula which has shown to be exponentially more frightening than the cheap thrills of yesteryear. Rather than easy scares and loud noises, Saint Maud focuses on the realism of it's protagonists struggles to paint a more horrific reality than any prosthetics or high decibels could create. If you are a fan of the new wave of horror, Saint Maud is unmissable. Rose Glass has easily secured herself amongst the ranks of Ari Aster and Robert Eggers in the horrorsphere with this beyond impressive debut. I look forward to whatever she works on next.
Musings and details I enjoyed [SPOILERS BELOW]:
The lighter is foreshadowed throughout the movie, from Maud idly playing with it along the sea front, to the party guest helping light the candles at Amanda's party. Every side character in this movie also smokes, something I'm struggling to land the exact symbolism of outside of the mentioned foreshadowing of the lighter.
Maud/Katie's descent into madness is shown via spirals/whirlwinds/tornados throughout the movie. Water is shown swirling down the plughole multiple times, a tornado appears in Katie's beer at the bar and obviously the opening in the sky during that scene.
Maud/Katie's past life and current life are kept very distinctly apart until the final scene when her ex-colleague comes to check if she's OK. We then see, as Maud/Katie looks out the window that her eyes are now different colours. Does this portray that her Katie and Maud personas are now one and she's fully succumbed to her religious delusions?
The movie flips the usual trope of women being objects of desire and sex by having all male characters be literal sex objects. Katie gives the guy at the pub a handjob, she sleeps with the guy who's beer she knocks over, and Amanda only has her male friend over at the start of the movie to drink and sleep with. Cool subversion of older tropes which isn't pointed to or overly highlighted.
The movie solidifies that all of this is a delusion in Katie's head with it's harrowing finale, but other details shown throughout also confirm that this is nothing more than a coping mechanism. For example, when God speaks to Maud, it's in a foreign tongue that I initially mistook for Latin, but it is actually Welsh. The actress who plays Maud is Welsh so it's not much of a stretch to assume that Maud herself is Welsh, confirming that God didn't actually speak to her, she was simply speaking to herself.
The movie asks a lot of questions about the validity of religion, as well as the support structures available to those who live through traumatic life events. It's terrifying to think that people out there could suffer with PTSD and have no one to turn to. Maud (like many others in real life) fell into religion as a coping mechanism for her pain. This movie is horrifying in the sense that I could see this really happening to someone. Being unable to deal with a life changing event, and instead projecting a higher purpose on yourself to try and run from the problem, ultimately leading to the destruction of others and yourself.
I enjoyed the parallels between Maud and Amanda's characters. Amanda has been told her life is abruptly coming to an end, while Maud is struggling to find any reason for her life to go on. Amanda is leading a life of frivolity and recklessness in a final blaze of glory, while Maud is attempting to lead a life of conservatism and modesty. Great dynamic to have, especially seeing as where the story takes these two characters.
Man, this movie has so much to unpack considering it's fairly brief 84 minute runtime :laughing:
Over average “portrait of an assassin” film. Fassbender plays the role very well.
The inner monologue is ok but seemed to fail, at times, at being as interesting, as original or as funny as it intended to be.
Having our assassin listen only to the Smiths was a little cheesy IMO. I know it was meant to be cheeky but it missed the mark for me.
My daughter and I agreed that because of Fincher we entered the theatre with high expectations and were a tad disappointed. Had Fincher tightened things up and sprinkled in a couple more tasty morsels it could have been a great film…
… and there are a ton of plot holes and implausible situations. Here are a few in chronological order (spoiler alert):
Being invisible is impossible our man says because there are cams everywhere. So his camo is dressing like a German tourist. He scopes out the location of his future assassination for days as the German tourist, then switches to ninja clothes for the dirty deed, then switches back to his same German tourist outfit to make his escape. Ridiculous.
Why didn’t the assassins that beat up his gf wait around to kill him? You would think that would count as a failed assassination and that they too would be targeted for cleanup. I need to rewatch the part with the attorney because perhaps he says that he expected our man to have disappeared to the other side of the planet and that sending the assassins to his house was just a gesture to make it look like he made an attempt to clean up. And in that case to whom were they making this show of cleaning up? The botched assassination victim? That makes no sense…
The first assassin has one of those loud entrance door beeps when our man enters the assassins house and yet our man goes about looking through the house as if he expects to find the assassin asleep on the couch with a bag of potato chips. Of course the assassin gets the drop on him… Ridiculous.
Billionaire client says attorney suggested the proper thing would be to cleanup (kill our man) for an extra $150K. What? $150K? Assuming the attorney takes 1/3 as commission, that means each killer gets $50K to fly to Puerto Rico and murder another assassin? Dang assassins are on sale in this movie! They must have killed a lot of folks at $50K a pop to have “more money than they could ever spend”.
That’s it for now. If I’ve missed any other plot holes or implausibilities please let me know.
PS: I don’t usually care about holes and implausibilities but this movie pretends to be a realistic peek into the life of a highly competent, no frills assassin.
Watched this one as a semi-commitment to "watch every single Friday the 13th movie" and yes, it's taken awhile... There are only so many of these that a normal human being can stomach in a short span of time, so yes, it's been a bit since I watched Jason X but I can now mark this one off my list. As far as films go, I have mixed feelings about this one...VERY mixed feelings. Parts of it were gruesomely good; the kills were excellent and beautifully gory so I was impressed with that part. The flip side, however, is that Freddy vs. Jason was exactly like every other 1980's teen horror/slasher flick: full of stupid teen drama (and acting) that was bad enough to make you wonder if it was really worth it. (Hint: It wasn't.) The teen drama, the utterly horrible acting (and I don't mean "melodramatic" as you see in some teen films, but just the complete lack of talent), the script/dialogue in so many scenes...just YUCK. I love a good horror film but man these 1980's teen scream movies were just putrid. And that hasn't changed. (FWIW, I was a high school senior in the 1980's so I can appreciate the "teen" aspect of these films. They still suck, though. They just didn't suck as bad back then.) There were parts of the film that were actually humorous, and some that tried too hard; the whole "Jason in a pinball machine" was so ridiculous...I mean, there's "cheesy" and then there's infantile ridiculous; this was the latter. But there were some bits that were actually humorous and had me chuckling. So overall, it was just a mixed bag of stupid and violence. There's the bottom line. Choose wisely whether you want to sit through this one; although it's not as awful as some of the Friday the 13th films (by a long shot), it's certainly not the best and it's not really a very good film at all. The storyline is so goofy that you simply have to disengage your brain for an hour and a half (the last seven minutes are credits and there's no "after-the-credits-surprise" to waste your time waiting on) and choose to sit through this mess. This isn't one of those "Man I wish I could get that 97 minutes of my life back" but it IS a "That's definitely an hour and a half I won't ever give up again." It was fun, gory, and teen-hormone-drama-stupid thrown into a blender and the smelly mess is what you wind up with.
This movie was overhyped as being the scariest movie of the year and frankly, I wasn't scared at all.
The idea behind the movie was a completely fresh take and this, I enjoyed. However, being that it was a low budget film I felt they couldn't portray that idea well enough. The dialogue was incredibly frustrating and intentionally created tense moments by the characters constantly in panic and arguing with each other. This creates tension in the viewers, although not executed well at all.
Towards the end of the movie, the writing takes a massive cliff dive as characters make dumbfoundedly stupid decisions. This immediately pulled me out of whatever world this movie was trying to immerse you in, as I say out loud "Well that was dumb". Near the end, two characters have a chance to stop this evil but instead, the guy decides to do what he knows he shouldn't which is leave to another room to grab an axe, which left the only person who could have stopped everything in harms way. This scene was just so incredibly stupid. Then, the end is just that he has to live with his mistakes?
The end was just dull to me. The movie has a lot of shock factor, which it does well. Though overall, I just felt as though it wasn't that special.
Girls get it done. This is Lanthimos’ attempt at a fun dark comedy/satire in a period drama setting. Killing of a Sacred Deer embraced some Kubrickisms with its cinematography, here Lanthimos tips his hat to Barry Lyndon in every creative department. At the center we have three complex characters; one queen and two different kind of parasites. Weisz and Stone might seem like similar characters on the surface, but if you pay attention to the food that’s served when each of them is in charge, you’ll quickly understand the difference between their characters (very nice detail, Yorgos). Still, they’re all simultaneously sympathetic and selfish b*tches in their own way, so that leads to an interesting power dynamic between the three of them. The cast is amazing, smaller roles included. Stone gets Lanthimos’ quirk like no other actress, Colman’s voice and body language make every joke at least 50% more hilarious and Weisz displays an incredible amount of range. Technically the film is immaculate, the cinematography and lighting are incredible and once again raise Yorgos’ already very high bar. I wish he was more consistent with his use of fisheye lenses though. I get why they’re there but their use is almost too sporadic here, so much so that it becomes distracting when they’re used. I also think the film is generally too predictable to be truly amazing. In particular when it comes to the first two acts, you pretty much know what the character arcs are going to be. Lots of funny scenes with great, unexpected moments, but the most interesting things start to happen during the third act. The note that it decides on, though, is unquestionably compelling and comments interestingly on the themes of unconditional love and leadership.
7.5/10
Without a doubt a story that needed to be told. A perfect mix of relevant themes to back it up. Very dramatic, knows when to get emotional, the mystery was very catchy I wanted to catch the culprit myself, great romance, some western vibes and even some well-placed and funny comedy. On a cinematography level there's not much to be said, it's near perfect!
De Niro, Gladstone and DiCaprio all felt pretty equal in terms of performances for me but I found DiCaprio overdramatically out of place in some parts (and it's clearly not his fault, he was most likely told to do it like that but the result was straight out cringe). Excellent characters that were such a treat to disect and the character arcs feel satisfying by the end. Wanted more of Lily Gladstone in the middle but her presence never leaves the movie even though she's off-screen.
Didn't like the last scene at the end, so weird and out of place, it reduced the impact of the ending of the third act. My biggest criticism and what really kept this from being great is the 3h26 runtime mixed with the slow pacing. It kills! Exact same thing happened with Oppenheimer. It felt like being forced to binge a series.
It took 8 years to do... this?!
It goes for scary instead of fun most of the time and that just doesn't work at all. I mean it could have worked if it was actually scary but it's a failed attempt. And really, who could ever be scared of these cute cuddly furry animatronics... it DEMANDS to be fun and campy. Willy's Wonderland and The Banana Splits Movie both understood that. There are some fun moments sprinkled throughout but there wasn't nearly enough of them for the long runtime, it needed way more crazy animatronic moments. It's mostly just a drama.
I was mildly invested in the mystery and characters but the twist is predictable within the first 15 minutes, they make it so damn obvious and there's a very limited number of characters. Story is full of plot holes. Just because your source material is known for having a convoluted story doesn't mean you get a free pass to do a convoluted story, they had 8 years to make it better—it was awful!
Acting ranges from ordinary to good, generic dialogue and the camera cuts away at every kill (PG-13). I'm not a fan of jumpscares in general but this is an occasion where they needed them (the games are huge on them)... hardly any here, sadly.
The biggest praise I could give it is the animatronics look freakin amazing! Great design. Whenever they're on-screen, which is rare, I was fully captivated. The Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria set was kinda perfect. I also liked the brother sister dynamics it was the heart of the movie.
As I continue watching the Saw franchise in its entirety, leading up to Halloween 2023, the films continue to disappoint me. This was an even bigger disappointment all the way around than its predecessor, Saw IV . The traps were fewer, the ingenuity (apart from the Pendulum Trap) of the traps wasn't as good, the overall story was more confusing (to me, anyway), more convoluted, and more difficult to follow. I'm not a huge fan of the time-leap backward/forward films, and this one (like its aforementioned predecessor) was too "busy" trying to interweave multiple stories and characters and wound up getting very muddy almost from the beginning. I mean, it was obvious what was was going on, who the villain was behind the "Jigsaw" traps, etc but even knowing that almost up-front, this film was just really weird and hard to follow. There was no recurring theme throughout, as there were in at least the first three films. Although Tobin Bell brilliantly revised his role as "Jigsaw" - and still carried the authenticity of despising murder and only using his methods to get people to "see the error of their ways" and begin to live life differently - he doesn't convey that ruthless detachment and desensitized aura to those whom he chooses to disciple; instead, they (Amanda, Hoffman, etc) keep coming across of wanting nothing but revenge and to inflict pain on their victims. To me, the one thing that made Saw such a great movie was Bell's "believability": he carried the authenticity of a sociopath who truly believed the ends justify the means, ergo "If I have to force someone to rip their own body to shreds to help them see the error of their ways, then I'm doing them - and society - a service. If they choose to not learn, then so be it." What a brilliant mentality to portray on-screen!...and that's (again, IMO) what made the original Saw and its first two successors such brilliant psychological thrillers. In Saw IV and Saw V all I'm seeing is brutality, vengeance, pain inflicted for the sole pleasure of watching victims suffer...blood and gore but not much in the way of psychological torture. It seems the more these movies turn out (speaking specifically of the Saw films) the more they just seem to be trying to "one-up" the preceding film in gruesomeness, brutality, gore, and the "traps"...and the story itself (thus, the viewers) suffer. I hope the next one will prove me wrong but this one earns only a "6". Even the traps in this one weren't that good. Not a big fan of this particular installment.
What a treat! No One Will Save You is a dialogue devoid, tension soaked thriller with an understated backstory and a great presentation. Employing my favourite style of storytelling by showing rather than overtly telling, this deeper-meaning alien thriller is decidedly something special comparative to the other streaming movies that get dumped onto their respective services each week. Surprised this one didn't get a run out at the cinema, I think it would have benefitted from the theatre experience. That's to say you should give this one the setting it deserves. Turn off the lights, crank up your sound device of choice and let this one thump and thrill you for 90 minutes. If you're willing to give it your full attention, I think you'll be greatly rewarded.
Much like all of these post/elevated-horrors, many of the elements are metaphor-laden and hold deeper meaning past the usual surface layer. The aliens in this scenario embody the feeling of anxiety, dread and guilt that is currently holding Brynn hostage in her own home. Unlike everyone else in the rest of the world, who let this anxiety and dread wash and takeover them, Brynn has decided after years of solitude and self-hate that's she's going to stand up and fight back. My read on the ending is that Brynn, who we now know killed her best friend in an accidental retaliation during a childhood fight, has now processed that guilt and stopped it from "consuming" her. We see that everyone else has allowed the alien parasite into them and are now living life with the motions, while Brynn actively fights off the possession and kills many of the aliens trying to force it upon her. Now she has faced the guilt head on, she can live her life free and unburdened, as we see her going about her daily tasks and being accepted by the possessed town that once shunned her.
It's amazing to read other reviews where people are completely slamming this movie for "not making sense". I think this movie is a good litmus test for people who actually pay attention and those that have made doomscrolling on socials part of their movie watching experience. Without things being overtly spoken through dialogue, many are missing this movies well conveyed story, and it's pretty depressing. Hope the industry keeps giving movies like this the time of day, they're the kind of movies that really remind me why I love this medium and the places it can take you.
Really simple and to the point, but none of that matters when you can squeeze that much emotion into such a short runtime. Visually, I would call this a masterpiece. I can tell you at least five directors who were directly influenced by this film stylistically (e.g. Aronofsky, Haneke, Noé) which is probably because it’s so good at portraying subjectivity through the editing, lighting and camerawork. The score is also really great, taking clear cues from the Berlin school of electronic music, which fits really well with the tone and atmosphere of the rest of the film. The film understands that true horror is conveyed through filmmaking and atmosphere, not dumb loud noises or cheap shock value. It has its fucked up moments, but they’re not over the top. The acting by Erwin Leder is excellent and he’s completely believable as this emotionally unhinged individual. The film presents us with a character study of his mind, and while it succeeds, there are some clear issues with the exposition. For example, the film starts with this inelegant information dump giving us the backstory of our character, which is unnecessary for this particular story. There’s also continuous inner monologuing throughout the film, which you also don’t need because Leder’s performance already communicates most of what’s being said. It’s like the filmmakers were afraid of the main character potentially being uninteresting, and I don’t get that because everything else is handled with such confidence.
8.5/10
Look you don’t have a lot to work with here, so this is probably as good as it could be. I like it more than the live action adaptations from the 2010s, that’s for sure. The plot and characters are nothing special, it’s really the stylistic animation and score that carry the entire movie. I also quite liked the voice acting, the turtles all feel distinct and I’m not surprised that Ice Cube’s expressive voice (given his background) works really well for animation. The problems start to reveal themselves as soon as you start to pay attention to the material that the actors are working with. The comedy mostly sucks and tries way too hard, as expected for mainstream American movies now. Some of the banter and dialogue felt like it got a pass by Marvel’s staff, it’s that embarrassing. It also has some of the weirdest, out of place pop culture references I’ve seen in a long time (you’ll know when you see them), as well as 90s needle drops that serve no purpose besides serving up empty nostalgia (seriously, even Transformers: Rise of the Beasts had the decency to at least set their film during the 90s). Its moments of action can be fun, but unfortunately it zips through a lot of them by montage during the first half, which was the wrong choice. The second half is definitely more entertaining in that regard. Overall, I don’t recommend this if you’re past the age of its target audience, but the beautiful visuals definitely made it more palatable compared to other movies like it.
5/10
The Shining homages abound in this LGBTQ+ fronted moodpiece-come-slasher about generational inheritance and mommy issues. Slow burn to a fault and almost trying too hard to be elevated and vague about it's true message, there seems to be only bad things to say about Bad Things. These actors feel like they genuinely disdain each other off camera, and it bleeds into their fake onscreen friendship to disastrous effect. If that was the intention and I've completely misread this friend groups dynamic, I guess the movies true message was lost on me and I'm usually a sucker for these deeper meaning horrors that don't beat you over the head with what they're trying to say. I'd give this one a miss unless you've got a free trial of Shudder and you've got literally nothing else left on the service to watch, and even then it's a strained recommendation at best.
My read on the plot is that Ruthie was neglected by her promiscuous mother from an early age and only reconnected when money or inheritance was involved. This distance "killed" her chance at making her own meaningful connections with friends and lovers, which we see play out when Ruthie literally kills her friends and lovers throughout the course of the movie. Playing into the movies themes of inheritance, we see that Ruthie inherited her mothers selfishness, promiscuity and possible mental illness during pivotal moments of the movie. Always acting in self interest, sleeping with Fran on a whim even though she's with Cal and seeing texts and web results that don't exist. I still can't place everything correctly, but I didn't like this movie enough to dedicate more time to psychoanalysing it, so I'll leave it here.
Forgo some of the made-for-TV jank and you're left with a competent, drama-led thriller about trauma, guilt and the rippling effects these emotions have on those afflicted. Some will bemoan it's drama focus and glacial pace, especially with the Blumhouse monikor atop the poster, but if you prefer your thrillers more understated I think you'll have a decent time with The Passenger. It's not perfect, but what's here is good with some extra fat to chew on after your viewing is over.
While I'm probably not as disturbed as either Randy or Benson, I did relate with the former on a pretty personal level. Randy has sunken into himself, hiding away and removing himself to avoid any chance he may disturb or alter anyone elses life following a troubling childhood experience. This is to the detriment of his personal relationships and prospects, but lessens the chance of conflict or change to almost zero. He is also at the beck and call of his overbearing mother, who is equally protective as she is hindering. To say I see myself in this character would be an understatement, and is a large part of why this movie was so gripping to me. It did make me self reflect and think about maybe reaching out to old friends, and putting myself out there a bit more instead of hiding away all the time. I guess that's the sign of good art; when it personally speaks to you and possibly affects change.
For a while, I was very confused if this is supposed to be set in the 70s, 90s or present day. Then, once you realize how the film is satirizing the blaxploitation genre, that falls into place. The story also clearly references the 80s, in particular some of the same films that inspired Jordan Peele’s work. Like Peele, the film has some undertones dealing with themes of racial inequality. Really love how it’s made, the lighting and cinematography feel very Donald Glover-esque, but even more lo-fi and grainy. The score and soundtrack, given the wide scope of influences, is very diverse (hip-hop, funk, synthwave), but they somehow never clash. It’s very easy to get attached to the characters because they’re a lot of fun to watch, the film knows how to capitalize on the natural charisma of Jamie Foxx. Parris and Boyega are pretty good too, it’s really their banter and acting that sells a lot of scenes. Yet, for as entertaining as it can be, it didn’t hold my attention all the way through. I feel like it’s one major re-edit away from being great. The concept is a bit too thin to build a 2 hour movie around, so scenes go on for longer than they need to and there’s some unnecessary fat. I also wanted more unpredictability from the story, as a lot of its reveals are familiar if you pick up on the influences I mentioned earlier.
6.5/10
It took me a while to adjust to the directing and editing of this film, but I really appreciate it now.
Great performances, well drawn characters, love the location (immediately seperates itself from Hollywood blockbusters because of the location), the action’s pretty well handled (quick cutting done right) and extremely funny.
The third act of this thing is so good; just about every minor piece of dialogue turns out to be a set up.
There’s also this Agatha Christie element woven into the first two acts that adds some nice subtext. I read the theme of the film as being about the conflict of the values of city life and country life, with the film criticizing the city side as being too stern and driven by rules, and the country community trying to maintain their idyllic facade by upholding these regressive, ridiculous ideas . I think it’s really cool that Edgar Wright found a way to integrate that idea into his big, silly action movie. It elevates the picture as a whole, I think it’s the kind of action film Scorsese would dare to label as ‘cinema’.
Maybe it isn’t objectively the best action comedy ever made, it certainly doesn’t have the biggest, most impressively filmed explosions. However, it’s the most well rounded and rewatchable one if you ask me.
Truly one of those rare films that improves when you get a better grasp of its rhythm.
9.5/10
The difficulty in watching classics is to judge them fairly in the time they were released.
The positive side is, while I have limited knowledge of 1980s animation, it is not too hard to see how the Akira excels in the animation quality, even today, particularly in the very first sequences with Kaneda's Capsule gang driving though the city night lights, and the climax with Tetsuo's blowing up to a gigantic mass and the extradimensional inflection with the ESPs.
The excellent animation is used masterfully for conveying the atmospheric world-building: the sky-high lives of Neo Tokyo with a drab scummy lives of its citizens, brutal police forces, and economic insecurities painting the world bleak. Perhaps the strongest aspect of this film that I wished they could've took us a walk a little bit further like the politician Nezu took us in a stroll around the city. And like Blade Runner, watching through the film I recognised how the plot points and the themes raised in this film would later be used very familiarly in many other science-fiction films, thus setting up the cyberpunk genre in the years to come.
However, speaking of plot and story, I would say that perhaps writing is not the aspect this film shines on. Characters leave much to be desired. They feel like devices for the plot to move forward, even with our main characters Kaneda and Tetsuo, and even the McGuffin Akira.
While I appreciate the film doesn't blurt out everything and treat the audience as smart, some genuine questionable plot points left me wondering: why did the ESPs lure a certain character? What was really the reason of the rebellion? What's the point of the last sequences with politician Nezu and the opposition Ryu? The film seems to save some points for a future setups (that seem to be never realized) and the awkward fade to blacks between scenes and unexplained sequences made me feel like I'm missing out something and have to check Wikipedia - something that I realize later that I have to find out in the source material (manga).
As the credit rolled, my mind wander, not unlike Tetsuo's, the possibility of remake (even a live action one) that could amplify the excellence of this film and connect the half-painted tods. That being said, Akira is still a masterful cornerstone of science fiction/cyberpunk material that deserves at least a watch in a lifetime.
Well I just watched this for the very 1st time and I can already tell that this is a film that needs to be watched more than once to be fully understood and appreciated. When you watch this you really have to make sure that you're completely focused on it. Honestly from the moment the plot starts to pick up I already felt like if you turned attention away for only a second, you would probably miss a crucial detail. I actually even found myself rewinding certain scenes just to be absolutely sure that I understood what just occurred. I never even read a plot synopsis before watching this, so a lot of the story's moments were unexpectedly quite shocking and disturbing. All I'd seen before was a clip of the opening showing the bike chase, so that probably left me expecting a completely different atmosphere and story. I will admit I was not wowed by the story to the point I wanted to jump out of my seat but the movie really left me in a deep state of thinking wondering how certain things were meant to be interpreted.
One aspect I find unique was that there really was no hero or villain at all. Every single character had a big focus on their flaws, with their strengths receiving less focus, most likely to hammer in the fact that not a single character is meant to be portrayed as hero. I thought the Colonel was going to be the main villain but honestly he just makes the most logical decisions given the circumstances. I found myself thinking there was a lack of exposition, I was wishing I knew more of the characters' pasts, near the end we see a whole bunch of flashbacks that I felt would've been placed better at an earlier time but meh that feels like nitpicking. Part of me felt like the story was a bit abridged but that's understandable since I read this was made while the manga was still ongoing but that doesn't soften the blows from the themes of rebellion, creation, destruction and power in this movie.
The quality of the animation blew me away, not reusing any character animations, having their lips actually match the words that they're saying. Japanese animation must have reached an all time high when this was released, if I hadn't known the year this was made I actually wouldn't believe it was a product of the 80s. If Akira was made today using same techniques as in 1988, it would probably be so immensely expensive that it would make any publisher studio shit their pants. My favorite parts would have to be watching Tetsuo mow down every single thing they threw at him, I honestly found it comically amusing, and the incredibly well animated chase scene at the start.
I imagine that back during the times this was made there weren't much dark, gritty, disturbing and grotesque moments in anime and that Akira most likely set the stage for the future animes that contain those aspects. It's easy to see how this influenced future cyberpunk animes such as, Ghost In the Shell and Cowboy Bebop. I wonder if Final Fantasy 7 had some inspiration from Akira? FF7's Jenova, Midgar and bike scene came to my mind as I watched. The entire time I was really reminded of Blade Runner, which ironically is another film that I found to be one of those that needs to be seen multiple times to be fully appreciated and understood.
I would've gone into major plot details but I'd rather leave that for when I at least have one re-watch. I might come back and edit in my thoughts on that. Oh and did anyone else have a difficult time telling the Colonel and Ryu apart?
Saw the trailers and thought it looked like a horrible dumpster fire that I would not watch, but then I heard that "Paramount did NOT understand how to market this movie", and that "actually it's REALLY good." So I gave it a shot.
It's fair. Maybe even good. My expectations going in were out of wack for sure but overall I definitely expected more action and more humor, but it was all pretty surface level stuff. The humor was very dry and there was maybe once it escaped the dryness and I did chuckle out loud. The few action scenes I did appreciate for being pretty easy to follow but I definitely thought there would be more of them.
The plot and characters were serviceable enough I am just coming out of it with an empty headspace. It just didn't have much substance. And maybe that is on purpose to mirror the vibe of an actual DnD one-shot or something? Not sure why it isn't landing for me. Maybe my movie expectations are too high. Really don't know.
Maybe a sequel could iron it out and make it land better. It's at least good enough to warrant another go in those regards.
Scale it down, Wes. I’ve been a fan of everything he’s done since Fantastic Mr. Fox, and this is the first one in a long time that doesn’t sit well with me. It’s easily his loosest film since The Darjeerling Limited, and as a result he kinda lost sight of a coherent narrative here. It simply has too many characters, and while they’re all decently interesting, none of the arcs are developed to a point where I felt an emotional pay-off. The postmodern/meta stuff tanks the pacing and adds little to the overall narrative. There’s an attempt to use that layer to give the film a deeper meaning in the third act, but it feels like an anticlimax. The deeper meaning is that there is no deeper meaning, we’re just putting on a show . Ok? Did Rian Johnson have input on this script? Is this Wes trolling the people who claim that he’s style over substance? Add to that that this is one of his films that relies the least on comedy, and I can only conclude that this might just be his weakest screenplay. The reason why I still like it, however, is mostly because of the technical aspects. The cinematography, set design, editing and music are all fantastic and I’m continuously amazed by how this man is able to build a complete, original world for every new film. There’s always enough quirk and detail in the frame to keep the movie alive. The acting’s also really solid, I don’t quite get the complaint from some people that it’s emotionless. While the delivery is as deadpan as ever, the actors add plenty of emotion though the tone and cadence of their voice. Overall, I think he really needs to stop worrying about topping the scale of his last film, because it’s making him lose focus as a director and writer. It’s enjoyable, but for me it’s his worst next to The Life Aquatic.
6/10
The fact that most of the characters in this film are Harvard students gives a perfect excuse for Sorkin to write some of his best and most eloquent dialogue.
It’s such a fantastic script: focussed, great flow and dramatic build up, and filled with interesting characters.
I do find it kinda hard to believe that Zuckerberg is as smart as this movie wants us to believe, given some of the things he has done since this film.
Fincher’s directing is flawless, cinematography and score are well done, the editing is great and precise (especially the intercutting between the different timelines), and the acting is very strong all across the board.
It’s actually quite fast as well, the dialogue comes quickly and you have to pay attention or you’ll miss important beats. But that was a very smart choice: the film always moves and it isn’t dull for a single moment, despite the fact that it’s 2 hours of people sitting and talking to each other.
I’d give it a perfect score if the social commentary that’s lingering in the background was a little stronger.
It presents this idea that our societal norm of striving to be exceptional leads to us making the wrong, egotistical choices as individuals, but it’s almost a little too subtle about that.
It kinda fades into the background after the first act, as it becomes more about the consequences of the decisions being made, and less about the human psychology behind it.
9/10
Ps: small nitpick, but the sound mix during the club scene wasn’t very well done. It’s realistic for sure, but you cannot make out what people are saying. Luckily it isn’t the most integral scene, but they should’ve reshot that in a different location.
Not really plot or character driven, this is more like one of those emotional rollercoaster/experiential type of movies. Think Gravity, where it’s less about the plot or Sandra Bullock and more about experiencing anxiety in space for 90 minutes. This plays with similar emotions, but with Ari Aster behind the camera there’s a stronger focus on subjective filmmaking and surrealism. The entire film is a unique, comedic nightmare. Unfortunately I think it’s also quite easily Aster’s worst film to date. To start off, it simply doesn’t have enough meat on the bones to keep the viewer engaged for the entire runtime, too often does it fall back to the same bag of tricks whenever we go into panic mode (e.g. people yelling, absurdist imagery, match cuts, dark comedy). I won’t say that it wasn’t effective or memorable, but it should’ve been condensed to the best moments. Moreover, it’s unable to carry itself with the characters or story. I found Beau to be a poorly developed protagonist, it’s hard to connect with him due the lack of detail in the writing and one-note performance by Phoenix. He’s a representation of an idea, and because of that he feels more like a type than a character. The bigger picture that the movie gets at is somewhat interesting, but like Midsommar, it could’ve dug a little deeper with its ideas (especially given its runtime). It doesn’t comment on social anxiety or paranoia in any way that’s particularly mindblowing, if anything it feels like a surface level exploration of its causes and effects. I think the movie is truly at its best when it’s simply Aster playing the viewer like a violin, the most interesting scenes here are constructed like a maze of emotions. Thankfully there’s more than enough of that, but like already mentioned, it’s not enough to carry a 3 hour movie. Aster continues to be a great filmmaking talent (excellent cinematography & editing, interesting sound design), but he needs a creative partner to reign himself in.
5/10
Another incredible achievement for animation. Everything about this is more ambitious than Into the Spider-verse. To start off, I love that the script is in no way interested in repeating the same beats as the first film. It's a true multiverse story that doesn't use the concept as a cheap, corporate gimmick. The comedy is once again razor sharp, but there's a deeper emotional underpinning to this film as well. In fact, the film is confident enough to take an entire hour to ensure everything is set-up properly, before it throws the viewer into the new adventure. Every new character is well developed and adds a different (stylistic) flavor to the film. The casting is great, they continuously pick interesting actors with distinct, expressive voices. Visually it blows every other animated film out of the water, there are so many different animation styles and it still feels cohesive. Even the action sequences are very well put together, there's not a moment where it becomes messy or turns into sensory overload. Yet despite all of that, I still prefer the first movie. A small issue I had with the first film was the use of licensed music, and that continues to be a problem. I like Pemberton's score a lot, but the songs are once again just a bunch of bland pop rap and trap. It's not like there's a shortage of great (popular) hiphop from the east coast, so I don't understand why a movie that's so ahead of the curve in almost every way would settle for something that commercial. And that's not the only area where you can see some signs of minor artistic cheapening. For example, while you can tell that the creators tried to integrate some of the cameos and references as naturally as possible, they still end up feeling tasteless and unnecessary. It's Sony making sure the normies receive their shot of dopamine, which is understandable, but it doesn't fit the very high artistic bar these movies set for themselves. Also, some of the exposition recaps could've easily been removed. Overall, I thought this was great and it confidently sets the stage for these films being among the best trilogies of all time.
8/10
Car Wars Episode 8: The Last Toretto
These movies are always at their best when they’re just trying to be as entertaining as possible.
Sure, the acting and writing are typically abysmal, and they can get annoyingly melodramatic with the whole ‘family’ shtick, but when it’s just about the action scenes with cars, the comedy and The Rock being The Rock, they can be a lot of fun.
This movie has all of those things you’d expect.
The action is slick (minus the CGI in the NY segment, that was pretty rough), cinematography is pretty decent (not as vibrant as 5 and 6), and some characters can be quite entertaining.
The new addition of Scott Eastwood doesn’t really work (I don’t know what it is about him, but he irritates the shit out of me) and feels like an obvious attempt at a Paul Walker replacement.
On the other hand, I admire the fact that they managed to get Charlize Theron and Helen Mirren for this, though let’s face it, these aren’t exactly their finest performances.
There’s also some additional dramatic stuff that doesn’t work, at all.
Everything regarding the Dom/Cypher storyline should’ve been changed, as it doesn’t fit the much lighter tone of the rest of the movie.
I can’t even comprehend why you’d consider going there in an F&F movie, especially when it means you’re asking Vin Diesel to do some serious dramatic acting, which you shouldn’t do.
Just be fun, don’t worry about trying to balance it with drama if you can’t pull it off.
4/10
A movie about the midlife crisis of an aging actor (or should I say celebrity) who’s seeking for validation might seem like a bunch of self-indulgent crap coming from a place like Hollywood, but it actually turned out amazing. I love what it says about fading relevancy, authenticity and how that’s linked to this idea of the real artist vs the sellout moviestar. Performances are phenomenal, characters are very well developed, music’s interesting and you can’t forget about the cinematography. We’ve seen this technique develop since the release of this film, but Birdman has managed to maintain something special. If you look at 1917 , a lot of that film plays out in real time, but this has a different rhythm. It does actually have scene transitions, it just doesn’t have cuts (well, it does, but you know), so it’s more like watching an elaborate play. Some scenes are downright iconic at this point (Keaton walking through Times Square; the scene where a new Birdman is envisioned), but I will say that the scene where the film starts taking shots at critics felt a bit undercooked, lacking the same nuance that’s given to the rest of the material. Maybe it’s meant to be just a plot point and not actual subtext, but it was an odd choice. All in all, I think it has aged very well, and in some ways it’s only become more relevant since its release, with blockbuster films becoming more and more dominant culturally and financially. In fact, 2014 was a highlight for the quality of comicbook movies, so I can understand if this was perceived as snobby at the time, however it kinda feels prophetic now.
9/10
This wasn't quite the beginning I waited for a whole year. It had way to much action for action's sake. Oh, and way too short for a season premiere.
Started good though. I thought at first this would be some kind of flashback to when Din got his helmet. The monster fight did absolutely nothing other then sugar coat CGI. But we find out what will be the quest for this season: Redemption.
The Navarro part was OKish. I had kind of feared one of the pirates would turn out to be Hondo. Like I expected they explain Cara away with one sentence. Shame that she's no longer there as she really was a great character with potential. Great idea bringin back IG88. We'll see how this plays out.
The space battle was again just showcasing CGI, which does look great, but really did nothing then add action. I kind of fear those pirates will be along for the ride this year.
Din's meeting with Bo Katan was interesting and I hope we see a lot of her this year.
The ONE thing that had my blood pumping were the creatures that Grogu saw in Hyperspace. Those were purgill, no ? Now that's an interesting thing to show us.
Still, the pieces are in place and I'm exited for the story to unfold.
Now I won't lie, this definitely is a silly movie but it is still quite a fun watch if you ask me. From a certain point of view it can be seen as a clever movie too. I don't know for sure if it was intentional but I really love the way the movie's self aware satirical humor pokes fun at the fact that war has been merchandised and aimed at children tons of times throughout history. The movie itself actually says "Don't call it violence, call it action; kids love action, it sells!". Even the movie's marketing gives all its attention to the antagonist soldier toys instead of the Gorgonites. It all really got me thinking about how terrible the idea of glorifying war to children is, how societies have tried to militarize the minds of people from a young age. The absurdity of the movie's action also got me wondering if this was a way of saying that war violence is ridiculous.
Unfortunately thanks to sponsors' meddling the mood of the movie can feel like it's all over the place. While it was always intended to be a crazy gritty teen movie the director ended up being forced to make the movie more kid-friendly, they even told the director this way too late and a lot of child unfriendly nightmare fuel was left in the movie. But despite that I find it to be a very fun "turn your brain off and enjoy" kind of movie.
I also want to say that for a late 90s movie, the CGI in it didn't age that bad in my opinion.
