Between this and Cherry, it’s becoming more and more clear that the MCU’s best director is called Kevin Feige.
Netflix clearly spent a lot of money on this, you can feel the price of your subscription going up with every new set piece that’s introduced, but the end results are still unforgivingly bland and generic nonetheless.
It’s their attempt to compete with Bond, Bourne or Mission Impossible, but if anything this feels like a poser imitation of those superior blockbuster franchises. The plot is in fact literally ripping off both Skyfall and The Bourne Identity at the same time, but forgets about any of their depth in regards to story and character.
The Russos are clearly trying to recapture that same tone and spark from their Captain America: The Winter Soldier days, but they end up making something that’s more akin to the quality of Red Notice.
In terms of directing they kinda got outdone by their own second unit director with his Netflix action flick, as I’d argue that Extraction is a marginally better film than this.
The action’s poorly done and cheaply put together, lots of annoying editing choices (heavy overuse of drone shots, quick cuts and can the Russos pick a normal font for once?), corny dialogue, distractingly bad CGI, boring visuals and music (why is everything so low contrast, foggy and muddy?); not a lot to recommend about this one.
The acting’s fine, Evans is having a blast, but I have absolutely no idea why an extremely picky actor like Ryan Gosling chose this script in the first place. It seems like a paycheck movie for someone of his caliber. Just watch The Nice Guys instead of this if you want to see Goose in an action comedy, we don’t need these 200 million dollar direct to streaming action films.
4/10
Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
If last year's Top Gun Maverick gave everyone the slightest bit of hope in regards to films that click with the general audience and blow up at the box office, this is the kind of film that'll make any self-respecting film fan lose all hope. Here's the deal: kids will pretty much like this by default, adults who are looking for validation of their childhood obsession will like it, and people who show up to see an actual movie won't. It's pretty much the blandest, calculated, do-nothing film they could've made out of this material. The animation is devoid of style and looks like it was originally rendered for a Dreamworks project back in 2008, the voice acting is mostly ass, it triggers the nostalgia & reference button way too often, the story & characters are watered down to a point where they're almost non-existent, it's not funny and its boomer rock soundtrack choices make absolutely no sense. It's irredeemable trash, like every product that rolls of the Illumination Entertainment conveyor belt. Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that due to the large fanbase of the IP, this will be one of those films where in the short term some of the discourse will insist that "some people/critics don't know how to have fun" or "it's made for the fans" (only for those same people to deny ever liking it in the long haul, of course). Here’s hoping Illumination doesn’t listen to those voices in the same way that DC did after the release of Suicide Squad. This is not a foundation to build a franchise on.
2.5/10
Nothing to say really besides: that’s how you do it!
This has without a doubt the most impressive stunts of the franchise, and it really knows how to use its characters and challenge them. There’s a lot of propulsive energy, lush cinematography and great editing. Lorne Balfe does a great Hans Zimmer impression, and Chris McQuarrie does a great Chris Nolan impression. Alright maybe I’m oversimplifying there, because I have to commend McQuarrie for doing another stylistic reinvention of the franchise, the cinematography and general feel aren’t just that of Rogue Nation 2.0. I’m not even sure if the constant evolution of this franchise comes from a place of creative ambition or commercial opportunity, but at least it keeps the films fresh. Some of its core elements will always remain the same, however. For example, the plot’s once again just a vehicle for all the juicy stuff. You could call it out for being generic or basic, but they find so much creativity and fun in these tropes that it becomes very entertaining (intrigue, the mask sequences, the craziness and constantly rising intensity). Sure, there’s a very predictable twist at the end of the second act, but more often than not, it managed to surprise me. Henry Cavill is a great new addition, bringing back Rebecca Ferguson was the best choice they could’ve made, and Pegg & Rhames remain the reliable anchors that add some heart & humour. It’s all exceptional stuff, it could very well go down as the best action franchise in history if the next films stick the landing.
9/10
Godzilla x Kong more like Kong ft. Godzilla. Bro didn't have any screentime in his own movie.
Anyways this doesn't even feel like you're watching the latest monsterverse movie but more like the same old movie you've seen a morbillion times. There's literally no story or plot and the added exposition does nothing to the already hollow plot. Don't get me wrong the action was fantastic, the CGI was great but as always there's so much of it. Bernie was funny as heck and I loved his performance and also that pewdiepie looking guy was fine too I guess.
Initially I wanted to give this a light 6 but there's just so much criticism. I hate that little girl she adds nothing until she's forced to, the whole movie she was like an NPC with two default emotes ☹:slight_smile:. Scarking is probably the most underwhelming villain yet, my guy is built like damn stick, not threatening at all, also he could've been introduced way earlier in the movie. I love the action but there's just so much of it at the end, basically a CGI-fest, my head started to hurt after a while probably because I watched it in 3d. The main thing that brings the movie down is again the human characters, silly and boring dialogue and over the top humor from Trapper, like Bernie was funny but Trapper didn't really do it for me. I love Kong and his story arc was really great with mini-kong but come on we all love Godzilla more, he is just too OP. I think we all know they'll never add a story ever in a monster-verse movie but eh it is what it is I guess.
Guess I won't be beating the "bro doesn't know how to have fun" allegations.
-1 point for naming it Godzilla x Kong and not have a kiss scene at the end
This is somewhat reminiscent of the 2014 Godzilla film in the sense that it's trying to be a drama first and a spectacle second. Don't worry, you'll get more of the titular monster here compared to that film, but those who are just looking for destruction are bound to walk out disappointed. In theory this should be right up my alley for that exact reason, but despite being a relatively small Japanese production, the end result I found oddly commercial. Take the character drama, which thankfully is handled more interestingly than the Gareth Edwards film. It puts in just enough work as an analysis of post-war trauma in Japan (I like that they play up the angle of Godzilla as a metaphor for this, wish they'd pushed that a little further) and they put more effort into making us engage with the characters than a movie like this usually would. However, there's still something very calculated and safe about it. In particular, the dynamic between our main 'family' is very obvious because it uses many predictable tropes that play out exactly as expected. For example, our tortured protagonist doesn't quite view the little kid he's living with as his daughter yet (I wonder where that'll go). Moreover, there are plenty of cheesy calls, which during its worst moments lead to scenes that are straight up manipulative. Without going into spoilers, this movie has one of the most annoying final scenes I've seen in a long time, completely backtracking on a major emotional beat of the movie. It honestly felt like the movie pulling a middle finger at its audience. What doesn't help either is that the dialogue, acting and filmmaking aren't the best. Subtleties are spelled out through exposition, every emotion is underscored with generic string sections, the actors are overdoing it at points (even for Japanese standards, trust me). Long story short, the choices all feels very ... Hollywood. I'm not expecting Grave of the Fireflies here, but why focus half of your movie on this aspect when it isn't anything special. The action bits I found slightly better. This movie generally has decent direction, with some design/effects work I'd genuinely call excellent. The fact that they made this with less than 1/10th of the budget of Godzilla vs Kong is really funny to me. Still, the sequences with Godzilla aren't visionary enough where they'll leave a mark on my brain, which is something you really need when you're working in the big monster/disaster genre. Going back to the 2014 film, that movie has a very distinct atmosphere with a very memorable finale. The camera placement and overall presentation here are much more on the functional side. Entertaining enough, but also very reliant on convenience and cheesy, ridiculous moments. For instance, I dare anyone not to laugh at the news crew standing on the roof when Godzilla attacks the city. It's so stupid, but played completely straight. Overall, while I expect a lot of people who think they're cultured for liking Hollywood movies that aren't made by Hollywood will like this, I thought it was the usual middle of the road same old, same old.
5/10
A slow-burn, slice-of-life drama about the lasting effects of trauma and the agonisingly slow road to recovery. A delightful bit of introspective cinema that highlights friendship and platonic intimacy over the usual cliche'd romance as the ailment to all our problems. Causeway does the delightful thing of slowly opening these characters lives through passing dialogue and insightful conversation, highlighting what has lead these two characters to their respective places that aren't so different, even if the path to get there was wildly far apart. Great piece of contemporary drama with stellar performances from Lawrence and Henry, so much is conveyed with so little and really helps the delivery of this sensitive movie. Some will probably bemoan that "nothing happens" upon completion of this movie, but I'd argue that is the entire point; these characters are contemplating and stewing on what has lead them here and how to move on. It is a character first drama, and if you're not prepared to sit back and understand the nuances of these people, you'll probably have a bad time. For me, this was some stellar drama with a fresh angle highlighting friendship instead of romance as the crutch that can keep us going in the darkest times in life. It possibly lacks a layer of depth to make it truly great, but what there is here is very good stuff for the right audience. Really good stuff indeed.
--- Spoiler filled musings beyond this point that might be off-base ---
I'm still trying to fully place the metaphor of pools and large bodies of water throughout the movie. I assumed they were representive of the brain/mind; gunking up and filling with moss/trash/rubbish that life throws in that we must continually clear ourselves of to stay functional and clear. Only then, much like at the end of the movie when Lynsey dives into the public pool, are we able to dive in amongst everyone else and lead a stable life?
The truck is also symbolic of Lynsey I suppose, giving herself over to James to work on her while she's broken down. The parts to fix her might not be in the town she grew up in, but the people can find them from else where to get her back up and running? Maybe a stretch but I like it as an allegory.
I liked the constant reminder of "matching pairs", with Lynsey playing Memory a few times throughout. Lynsey and James obviously being the main matching pair, but also their parents, Lynsey and her brother being equally ruined by their upbringing, both of them having crutches to deal with everything etc. I'd be intrigued to see if there are any other dualities throughout the movie to pull out.
It's very obvious but I enjoyed how, while Afghanistan and the bombing were obviously the main catalyst for Lynsey's issues, it's heavily implied that the unstable, rocky upbringing probably had more of a hand in her instability than the IED. While it was probably the bomb that demolished the camels back (so to speak), the uneven foundation of her childhood clearly made it much harder for her to get back on equal footing with no support system in place. As someone with very "hands off" parents, this resonated with me more than I expected and made my stomach drop a few times during the scenes with her Mom.
Unlike other movies, I was also happy to see that the movie was critical of Lynsey and her coping mechanism for her trauma too. Many of these drama films only navigate the trauma from the perspective of the main character and never usually question if their actions are justified or correct. While running away is a very easy fix, staying and being compassionate is the harder, but ultimately righteous choice that will probably lead to sustained stability and growth. We assume Lynsey will run after she/her truck have been fixed, but she finally sees that she cannot keep running and must stay to fix the wounds that are there.
I look forward to reading all the Reddit analysis and essays that come from this movie that prove me wrong or highlight things that I missed :smile:
I believe that RLM in their review of the last one compared these movies to Taco Bell.
Everything has the same 5 ingredients, just placed in a different order.
It’s hard to argue with that after seeing this film.
It’s plagued by the exact same problem as the Terminator franchise; the creatives behind it are clueless on how to expand the franchise beyond the lore of the classics.
As a result, you get these rinse and repeat movies that are high on the nostalgia bait and devoid of anything interesting.
This somehow manages to be the worst one of the trilogy, I’d say it’s about on par with something like Jurassic Park III.
It’s somehow the dumbest Jurassic film (no, I haven’t forgotten about the military subplots in the previous 2, but this one literally introduces a new dinosaur nicknamed the ‘Giga’ and an evil company called ‘Biosyn’) with some of the cringiest dialogue and acting I’ve seen in a long time, none of which is embraced by the filmmakers. I think it’d play much better if this material was treated like a spoof, or at the very least more tongue in cheek (could’ve used more hallucinations of a dinosaur screaming “ALAN!”). It’s trying so hard to be sincere and Spielbergian, but it doesn’t work.
Moreover, the new characters are still either boring clichés or annoying, it looks too glossy, it’s way too long given how little’s going on, action’s alright but nothing that’s truly impressive or visceral; it’s just a bland mush of forgettable nothingness, and Jeff Goldblum’s charisma can’t save any of it.
3/10
For something that tries to be as dumb and meatheaded as possible, this is quite boring. There’s an art to making a good bad movie and filmmakers seem so clueless whenever these are attempted nowadays. Most of the people involved probably weren’t coked-up enough to make the end result entertaining, unlike when these were made in the 80s. Take Jake Gyllenhaal, he’s obviously a great actor but someone who’s way too introverted for this type of material. By comparison, Conor McGregor fits this movie like a glove and he’s easily the most entertaining part by playing the same persona we’ve become accustomed to over the years (even if the performance is obviously quite terrible). As far as I’m concerned, his introduction scene is the only memorable thing about the movie, it’s this moment where the movie very briefly finds the right tone. The rest of the film is surprisingly bland and tame. Sure, the throwaway characters, simple story and terrible dialogue were all a given, but even the set pieces aren’t memorable as they’re often poorly staged and lacking in viscera. Someone gets eaten by a crocodile and we don’t even get to see it, the background extras during the big bar fights look amateurish and the choreography/stuntwork (besides a decent final fight) is often way too dull. The 80s, GTA Vice City aesthetic that’s promised by the poster doesn’t show up, most of this film has no visual personality. Then there’s the music, which might just be the worst thing about all of this. Right from the opening scene we’re met with auditory vomit courtesy of a cameoing Post Malone, following that there are occasional musical interludes that don’t complement the vibe of the film and on top of that score is filled with the type of ‘badass’ guitar riffing found in car commercials. None of it works in harmony, and I don’t get who it’s targeting. Much like the rest of the film I needed more wild energy for it to work, as the overall experience feels too much like camp by committee.
2/10
This will probably become more beloved than Dune for being a bigger, more action driven film. Personally I prefer the first film by a long shot, but there's a lot to like here. I loved Paul's new journey for this installment as it doesn't develop in the way you'd expect based on the ending of the first film. The themes of colonialism, false prophecies and religion reach a level of depth that cannot be found in other sci-fi/fantasy contemporaries like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars; this film certainly made me understand why this story is taken so seriously as a piece of literature. Despite the source material being so old, there's still something new and refreshing about it. You don't often see major Hollywood productions calling out religion as a manipulative force helping the people in power. On top of that this brilliantly subverts the concept of the hero's journey we've become accustomed to by everything that was in one way or another inspired by Dune. The acting is pretty great, Timothée does a great job at playing the transition Paul goes through. Despite his boyish looks I was sold on his performance as the leader of the Fremen. Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem are also scene stealers. The visuals are once again mindblowing, in terms of set/costume design, cinematography and CGI this is as close to perfection as you could get to right now. The vision and scope of this movie are truly unmatched, which leads to some breathtaking sequences that I'll remember for a while (sandworm ride; the black/white arena fight; knife fight during the third act).
However, for all the praise I have for Dune: Part 2, I think Denis is being uncharacteristically sloppy with this film. First of all, Bautista and Butler feel like they're ripped from a different franchise altogether. Their over the top, cartoonish performances are more suited for something like Mad Max than the nuanced world of Dune. The bigger cracks start to appear when you look at the writing. The brief moments where the movie pokes fun at religious zealots through Javier Bardem's character, while funny, probably won't age very well. Like the first movie, it has a tendency to rely too much on exposition and handholding, a problem which might be worse here. I feel like a lot of the subtlety is lost in order to make the movie more normie proof, and that's quite annoying for a movie with artistic ambitions like this one. For example, there's this scene where Léa Seydoux seduces Austin Butler's character, and everything you need to know as a viewer is communicated through Butler's performance. Cut to the next scene, where Seydoux is all but looking at the camera saying "he's a psychopath, he's violent, he wants power, etc.". I just feel like compared to Villeneuve's precise work on Blade Runner 2049, he's consciously dumbing it down here. It's understandable and somewhat excusable for a complex story like Dune, but he occasionally takes it too far for my liking. Then there's the love story subplot between Chani and Paul, which almost entirely misses the mark for me. It feels rushed, there's no chemistry between the actors and some of the lines are painfully cheesy. Because of that, the emotional gutpunch their story eventually reaches during the third act did little for me. Finally, I'm a little dissatisfied with the use of sound. I loved the otherworldly score Zimmer came up with for the first Dune, however this film is so ridiculously bombastic and low-end heavy that it starts to feel like a parody of his work with Christopher Nolan. For the final action beat of the film Villeneuve cuts out the film's score, and it becomes all the more satisfying for it.
Overall, I recommend this film, however maybe temper those expectations if you're expecting a masterpiece. There's a lot to admire, but it's flawed.
6.5/10
Jaw-droppingly intimate and sensitive. Be prepared to be wrecked - the whole theater was shaking with sobs at points.
Beautifully and specifically queer. I've never on screen seen gay sex that felt this much like gay sex. The texture of it. There's a brief, funny, inter-micro-generation terminology convo that if you are LGBTQ of a certain age, you've had. There are two coming out conversations with lines that I swear are plagiarized from my life. There's a delightful subversion, in an early scene, of cruising, that achieves a cocktail of funny and sweet and sad that returns throughout the film (most notably in a moment where a 48-year-old Adam climbs into bed with his parents wearing a 12-year-old's pajamas). The exploration of how things can be so much better than 1987 but still not fine, and the ways the not-okayness of 1987 is still with us, especially in the psyches of folks that were there… so relatable and such a rare and subtle theme.
There is a final twist that, while devastating, does some real damage to Adam's character and, in my opinion, the emotional impact of the movie. Investing incredibly deeply in a fantasy of a relationship with a neighbor that didn’t happen is creepy where imagining you can talk to your dead parents again is sweet and sad. We know early on that the interactions with Adam’s parents aren’t a part of conventional reality and that doesn’t diminish any of their emotional impact, but the romantic relationship being unreal cheapens it.
This last emotional gutting felt unnecessary and unearned to me: it makes me hesitant to recommend the movie, despite how much it affected me, despite the impeccable execution. A friend who saw the movie with me and didn’t personally relate to as many of the queer culture touchpoints felt emotionally manipulated, and I get that. But aside from the last few minutes, my experience of the movie was near-perfect.
More garbage from Zaddy, this is a modern blueprint for what not to do when you’re making operatic sci-fi/fantasy. You could point at the obvious issues, such as the worldbuilding and story ripping off every other property in existence without putting much of its own spin on it (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dune, Harry Potter, Mad Max, Excalibur, Seven Samurai, The Matrix to only name a few), but that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what’s wrong here. Snyder’s often praised for being this great visual stylist, but with Rebel Moon he might just deliver his most poorly directed film. Multiple shots are out of focus, the score is really manipulative and overblown, the staging of the action feels amateurish, there’s often a lack of proper depth of field (it kinda feels like those Star Wars shows on D+ due to the poor use of the volume stages) and he’s generally wanking off way too much with all the slo-mo here. Moreover, this has one of the worst scripts of the year due to all of the cheesy, overwitten dialogue and ridiculous amounts of exposition. It’s very hard to find a scene in this where the presentation and writing are somewhat organic or manage to create meaning in a way that feels artistically instinctual. Instead, it’s this lifeless mismatch of stale ideas. Add to that the fact that Snyder doesn’t know how to emphasize the strengths of the limited performers he’s working with here (besides Hounsou and Hopkins, who can handle themselves regardless of the director), and you can only conclude that Disney made the right decision by rejecting this.
1.5/10
A total mess. It's another example of contemporary filmmaking where making an actual movie is at the bottom of the priority list. It's pure corporate drivel that won't be remembered by anyone in the long run. However, for a brief moment, it tricked me into thinking that it wasn't going to be like that. In fact, I quite liked the opening action sequence. Sure, visually it's already not up to snuff, but the weird ideas and energy of the scene totally won me over. Once it gets into the actual story, it immediately flies off the rails and never recovers. To start off, it has a massive problem with delivering exposition, so much so that every crucial piece of information is repeated at least twice for the dummies in the audience. Ben Affleck and Kiersey Clemmons make a quick cameo in order to spell out the character arc of Barry in the film through clunky dialogue. It turns out the actual meat of the story revolves around Ron Livingston and Maribel Verdú, who play Barry's parents. A good movie would realize that this is the emotional heart of the story, the thing that should be the main focus of its multiverse/time travel set-up. Instead, this movie sets that stuff aside and turns into an exercise of branding and dopamine. Think Spider-man: No Way Home, but somehow it makes even less sense. So much of the pandering here comes off as pathetic and desperate. I like Michael Keaton's portrayal of Batman in the Burton movies as much as the next guy, but when you cut here from him flying like a plastic doll, to his stuntman kicking ass, to a close-up of old, wrinkly, post-Birdman Michael Keaton, I can't help but laugh. Let's turn his character into a joke and give him long hair for the introduction scene (in order to conveniently hide the stuntman), only to make him look like regular Michael Keaton two scenes later when barely any time has passed. Let's put in a beat where Supergirl leaves the group for one scene without any clear motivation. Let's make sure Keaton says the line about going nuts, who cares if it makes any sense. It’s all painfully stupid and hits one shallow emotion after the next. Sometimes it tries to be funny, there's a surprising amount of slapstick in this. It's different than the snarky lines and bathos we're used to in superhero movies, which is nice, but I only chuckled twice and cringed at most of the other stuff. The movie weaves in the origin story of Barry, which is a neat idea, but this means we get to spend time with the 18 year old version of Barry Allen, hands down the most annoying character you're going to see at the movies this year. It was pretty smart to retcon Miller's abysmal Justice League performance into a character arc, but both versions of the character here are still incredibly obnoxious. The performance is godawful, almost every line that comes out of their mouth sounds phoney and overacted (no, my personal feelings regarding Miller have zero influence on this). I can't really comment on any of the other performances or characters (Shannon, Calle), because their appearances are too brief to leave a genuine impression. Everything leads to a rushed third act that has no problem breaking its own logic in regards to time travel, and it goes completely nuts with the amount of pointless fan service. It even introduces another villain out of nowhere, all before wrapping up the story in a way that barely feels like a resolution for anything. The (clearly reshot) ending scene ensures that this wasn't entirely spinning its wheels, but a lot of stuff still gets no pay-off. In terms of filmmaking, this is also pretty disastrous. Yes, the green screen and PS3 graphics are terrible, but more importantly this movie isn't even capable of putting two Ezra Miller's on the screen in a convincing way, which is a type of visual trick that got perfected back in the 90s. The framing and lighting often enhance the visuals looking like plastic, and this gets particularly bad in the third act: the staging, blocking and editing are an incoherent mess. Finally, the music is unmemorable and sounds like a poor man's Danny Elfman. I don’t understand the decision to omit the Flash theme from the Justice League film, which was the only memorable bit from that soundtrack (and composed by Elfman, no less). Maybe the filmmakers wanted to distance themselves from the theatrical cut, but then why is this movie insisting that this is the first time Barry runs back in time? That’s already canon in the director’s cut. Just so many baffling decisions with this one. You should do yourself a favor and just (re)watch the earlier seasons of the tv show, there's nothing to be gained by investing your time in this trainwreck.
2.5/10
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!
Like I said...this is the best science fiction movie I've ever watched. Watched it a few hours ago and I still can't get my mind off of how beautifully crafted this movie is, it's not your regular science fiction movie, it does not resonate with everyone. But Dune part 2 has just reinvented the science fiction genre to a place where you never would've thought. Denis Villeneuve is the best working director in the industry right now. His mastery in worldbuilding is simply a cinematic spectacle, Dune 2 surpasses its predecessor in every way imaginable delivering a deep dive into one of the most beloved stories in fiction ever.
It cannot be stated enough, but this movie is one of the most visually stunning movies I've seen in my lifetime, although it's not as stunning as Blade Runner 2049, it's a close second. The breathtaking cinematography coupled with Hans Zimmer's score captures the grandeur of the world and immerses the viewer into the beautiful world Dune is.
Yet another stacked cast with Timothée Chalamet being the lead, delivers a captivating performance from start to end. The supporting cast including Javier Bardem, Rebecca Ferguson and Austin Buttler is nothing short of a memorable performance.
Dune isn't without it's fair share of nitpicks, I loved all the characters but the female characters in particular felt under-written or under-developed, which seems to be a recurring issue with Denis lately, most the female characters were used for 'Sex Apeal' and lacked depth in exception to Rebecca's character, who was fleshed out really well in both movies. I loved Zendaya's portrayal of Chani, but I wasn't sold on the romance one bit, at times it felt too forced and their chemistry wasn't convincing, once again this isn't an issue in their acting but rather the chemistry was a bit off. I love Hans Zimmer but his score here is probably the most forgettable yet, there is one track that stood out to me but all the others felt like recycled tracks off his other movies.
This is now officially my 3rd favourite movie of all time.
Sam Esmail, take a bow. The style, pace, punch and composition of this contemporary cyber thriller is top notch, a film that feels no where near it's 141 minute runtime. Harrowing, darkly humorous and while also being a poignant, cautionary tale, Leave The World Behind is dripping in Sam Esmails signature style while telling an equally depressing, all-too-real story that touches on many themes surrounding the human condition in the modern day, as well as environmentalism and technology reliance. Fantastic movie, I can't wait to watch this one again.
-- Spoiler-filled ramblings below --
I really love the topics that Sam Esmail tackles, and the lens with which he frames them. It's an interesting look at the destabilization of a country after a, worryingly plausible, large scale cyberattack. The movie critiques our over reliance on digital conveniences and champions older, more analogue technologies as a more reliable, persistent alternative. The virtues of physical media, maps, books, vinyls and even candles are pushed to the forefront here, reminding us that our devices are all useless without the power of the network behind them. It also critiques our inability to trust our fellow man due to the digital echo chambers we've built ourselves, and the prejudices these spaces create within us without ever meeting the people it warns us about. Additionally, it shows the younger generations, unheard and toothless (heh) in their protests while being actively ignored by the elders, resorting to over consumption of food, material possessions and media to escape and block out the incoming end of the world. There's also commentary on the environment and pollution, with plastic haphazardly buried under the sand on the beech, and the wildlife encroaching back onto the land we've built our overtly large accommodations on. Still trying to put my finger on why all the rooms in the movie are overly blue, it was garish how much blue was in the first apartment shot and the beach front home that G.H. owned. Great movie, I guess I should buy and read the book now.
I love these condensed, boiled down character studies so much, even if they're told with this level of camp and soap-operatic flair between scenes. It tells such a thematically dark story, but keeps it bubbling under the surface for the entire runtime, only told through brief glimpses and passing conversations between these embroiled characters. Gripping and thoroughly engaging, with a lovely layer of double-speak dialogue and symbolism, May December will leave you feeling disparaged and gross, but also deeply sad and empathetic towards some of the people wrapped up in this morally questionable tale.
-- Incoherent, spoiler-filled ramblings --
Although on the nose, I really did like some of the framing and symbolism woven through this movie. Joe cultivating butterflies, caged and trapped while they are given time to cocoon and transform, a direct metaphor for Joe himself. I like the hope this builds around the character, he's still in chrysallis, all he needs to do is break out of the cocoon he finds himself in, be reborn and start anew.
I really liked the shot of Elizabeth going to see Joe at his place of work. These two people of equal age, but with completely different levels of maturity and posture. One plucked from childhood by Gracie before he's had a chance to grow, still a child in demeanour, shoulders slouched and unable to confidently talk or hold a conversation. The other fully grown, at the top of her respective field, speaking coherently and with projection. It was a very nice way of showing the difference between the two, and how regressed Joe really is after this entire ordeal.
Gracie is shown as a proficient hunter, holding a snake in the reenactment, a predator, only giving off the fascade of innocence and softness to entice and ensnare her prey. We see throughout that she attempts to instill a sense of purity, innocence and childlike maturity to those around her to control and make people do what she wants. It's only when Joe later attempts to speak openly about how he really feels do we finally see the real Gracie. Cutting, manipulative, and immediately on the defensive, blaming those around her with a deft spin. She tells her son from her first marriage to lie about being a victim of incest to try and win sympathy; to give a cosy explanation as to why she is the way that she is while also trying to manipulate his way onto the movies production. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree it seems.
Elizabeth's monologue to the drama class is also very apt and inkeeping with the themes of the movie. Firstly it shows the maturity difference between boys and girls at that age and by extension Joe when he was groomed by Gracie. All the girls in the class are mature, poised, ready to listen, while the boys are all joking around, unserious, immature. Elizabeth talks about actors accidentally becoming one with their characters and scene partners, the line between reality and fiction blurring, becoming one in the same. This directly relates to Gracie, who is playing a character of her own creation, trying to convince everyone she's lovely and innocent when she's really the exact opposite. Controlling, manipulative, sociopathic. We also see Elizabeth fall victim to this as well, growing too close to Gracie and Joe, culminating in her sleeping with the latter. I still can't decide if Elizabeth is just as bad for preying on this couple for her own career, I feel I might need to go back and watch this one again to fully understand how I feel about her.
The most straightforward genre film Fincher has made since Panic Room, and probably his goofiest effort since The Game. It’s not great, what’s really lacking here is that inventive spark that makes his best work tick. The script is generally cliche, repetitive, predictable and sometimes cheesy. That’s not entirely surprising given that the film’s based on a graphic novel, and thankfully the film is at the very least somewhat aware of its own shortcomings. For example, there are some really funny moments of dark comedy through the film’s use of cynical narration. I also feel like Fincher is self-inserting himself in Fassbender’s character here (it’s kinda obvious if you’re familiar with his other work), but that ultimately doesn’t lead to a new, unique insight. It’s not a secret metaphor for filmmaking or Fincher’s career, at least I’m not seeing that. At most it just feels like Fincher taking a laugh at himself. It’s also not really reinventing the wheel when it comes to the way that it explores the serial killer as a cinematic archetype. Instead, this movie is at its best when Fincher’s finding new ways to present familiar ideas. The set pieces are pretty decent, he still knows how to bring the tension, shoot with precision and use great sound design & score. His use of songs from The Smiths adds a cool stylish touch, or it comments on scenes in an ironic way. Again, the sum doesn’t add up to something special or unique, but because it's made with a lot of skill and sleek style, it doesn't feel as disposable as a lot of other films like it.
5.5/10
This has everyone involved play to their strengths. It's another tale of Scorsese deconstructing the myth of the American dream, but with a thematic approach I found quite refreshing for him. The way that the film tackles racism, and how it's tied to issues of money, power, greed, trust and systemic injustice, feels authentic and well constructed. It's a movie that's unsettling and will leave a mark on your brain emotionally, you should know that going in. De Niro has a lot of fun playing a sinister crime boss with a wholesome facade, it's a performance that could be compared to Giancarlo Esposito in Breaking Bad. DiCaprio is always at his best when playing a pathetic dumbass, and he also shines here. It almost feels like he's in Tarantino mode, it's not similar to any of the previous work he's done with Scorsese. Yet, despite both of Scorsese's go-to actors having prominent roles here, it's actually Lily Gladstone who ends up delivering the most emotional, subtle performance. Technically the movie is pretty much flawless. The production design, lighting, cinematography and score are all immaculate, and despite the long running time, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing kept me engaged for the entire runtime. However, the pacing is still somewhat of an issue. As Scorsese has matured as a filmmaker, the choices he's making are becoming more and more understated. The tracking shots and montages are still here, but they're less energetic and he's relying more on pauses instead. There's nothing wrong with that, given that the substance carries the movie, but with a movie this long I want a little more pop. There's one scene involving fire that'll stay with me, as well as another couple of haunting moments, but besides that he's not turning up the intensity too much. It would've been nice if the movie ended with an extended courtroom scene where all the actors get to really show off with some incredible dialogue, for example. This movie still ends in a pretty weird way, having some creative use of what are essentially ending title cards, but it involves a major tonal shift that didn't work for me. Finally, I thought Brendan Fraser's performance was flat out bad, showing up for a small part and overacting every line. All in all, while I do recommend this movie, I don't think it's a masterpiece. Martin 'this is cinema' Scorsese would probably hate me for saying this, but given the pacing issues, there's an argument to be made it would've worked better as a miniseries.
7/10
Another F&F movie that’s stupidly entertaining if you can meet it on its wavelength. You don’t need to turn your brain off, but you absolutely need to be able to embrace the madness with this franchise. These are science fiction/anime, they have been for a while now and that tone is once again clearly communicated by the filmmakers. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some small changes compared to previous installments, however. They toned down some of the dramatic undertones and over the top antics from the last ones, which I think was drastically needed. Momoa is a blast to watch, his mannerisms do feel inspired by Ledger’s Joker. In fact, I liked most of the new additions, even someone like Brie Larson is a lot more fun here than anything else I’ve seen her in. However, it’s having a hard time balancing all of its characters and storylines (did we need this convoluted mini sidequest/Infinity War-esque structure?). Sometimes you really feel that any breathing room has been taken out of the edit to make it as tight as possible. It’s not incomprehensible, but I really hope they make something more focussed for the next part. It’s F&F, this should thrive on simplicity. Everything else is the same old recipe. It’s a string of set pieces (loved the bit in Rome) and other entertaining scenes filled with bad acting, boring trap rap, great sound design, soap opera dialogue, lots of production value, fun comedy, plot twists to roll your eyes at and a whole lot of Vin Diesel mumbling about family inbetween. The weaknesses are all very obvious, but it makes up for a lot of them by being shamelessly entertaining.
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
For those confused about the ending
With the exception of the ending I think everything was real. We can see the impact that David had on Margaret’s life. Due to him completely ruining her trust with men it means that she’s having sex with a married man. That makes him off limits as far as relationships go. It’s also why when Abbie invites him over for an intervention that she’s so pissed. Because it’s just supposed to be about sex and nothing more. The same goes for when he tells her that he loves her. We also see this when David asks Margaret who the father of Abbie is. She says that she just had sex with random men, so she doesn’t know who it is. She did that so that she could have a child and the father wouldn’t be involved in their life so that she wouldn’t have to experience what happened with David and their son again.
David obviously never ate Ben. He killed him and and then buried or put him elsewhere as part of the abuse. In the same way that some people will try to have a baby in order to keep their partner around, he decided to kill the child and convince Margaret that he ate him and that he’s still alive inside. It’s obviously insane, but you have to remember that when Margaret told Gwyn about their relationship that she mentioned that she believed everything he said. So for as unbelievable as that is, she still believed it because of how successful he was at manipulating and grooming her from a relatively young age.
The end I believe is her breaking out of the delusion that she went into after killing David. We already know that Abbie moved out their apartment, so it makes no sense for her to be packing up. And Ben has obviously long been dead. So we get that zoom in on her where everything looks perfect. Except it keeps zooming closer and closer revealing all the flaws on her face. It’s her delusion slowly breaking.
The trailer didn't do much for me, but being familiar with the director I knew it was probably going to be more clever than the marketing was letting on. Turns out I was right, Richard Linklater has clearly been studying the works of Erving Goffman and decided to make a fun hitman movie about it. The script keeps it fresh by using its central concept of role playing in a couple of different ways. It's simultaneously a psychological thriller, quirky romance and postmodern comedy. I noticed a lot of different influences (e.g. Burn After Reading, Fargo), but all of the elements here work together to create something that feels cohesive and fresh. For me it checks a lot of boxes a lot of films like this don't hit anymore: the leads have good chemistry, it's patient and doesn't go too crazy right from the start, characters are properly motivated and the fun concept always remains thought provoking. It's main selling point, however, is definitely Glen Powell, who's playing the type of character that I can only imagine is any actor's dream role. Some of his outfits are bordering on the ridiculous, but the performance ultimately makes every character work. Not a huge fan of the perplexing ending, and a little more bold energy could've elevated this beyond that typical Netflix feel (Linklater's naturalistic filming style, editing and score sometimes tip into bland territory here for my taste), but this is probably the best crowdpleaser to come out this summer.
6.5/10
Bloody (and) disgusting. But it struck the right balance for me.
I'm a reluctant horror watcher, but I enjoyed this a lot more than I expected to, and I wanted to give it an 8, but knew the treatment wasn't quite "Classic" territory. Nevertheless, I was entertained the entire time, despite the fact that the film starts under the auspices that the audience doesn't know what's going to happen... but does it really? Look at the tagline.
But here's the thing-- to me, it didn't feel like that. Considering viewing environment, etc. YMMV, but I'm a sucker for sepia glow lighting in sumptuous old world micro-mansions, and ballet/ballet music, so I actually enjoyed watching all build up to the reveal (and subsequent raucous revelry.) I really only had disdain for one character, and that was fully intended by the film. If anything, the (initial) reveal would be a bonus for the younger viewers watching a few years from now.
The Cast
I only ever remember seeing Kevin Durand as a Gual'uld in Stargate-SG1, so it was quite amusing to see him playing a lumbering, room-temperature IQ Quebecois heavy. He's got plenty of charm to make Peter palatable and fun to watch. Really, everybody played their parts to the page, except, surprisingly, I found Esposito to be a little too on-brand, and then too hammy, which didn't ring quite as true as the others. Barrera's lead, Joey, started out feeling underdeveloped compared to the rest, but she developed along with the plot. It was a sympathy story, which can often turn me off when it's badly executed, but I was invested, especially with the rapport that Willam Catlett's Rickles ("Rinkles!..." lol) developed. I'll have to watch out for him in the future.
Dan Stevens (is English?!) was perfectly effective as the New England skeezy slimeball ringleader. The onions bit was hilarious, partly due to how believable it was, but his exasperated performance sold it perfectly. In fact, all the screwball bits played out extremely well, both in that I always laughed, and that it seemed to be perfectly balanced within the overall tone, which is always the deciding factor. I'm not a big fan of the "idiots getting killed" trope, but here I cared about the characters just as much as I was supposed to, and it's not something I watch much of, so I'm not 'troped out'. It was terrible in Prometheus, though, since they were all supposed to be leading scientists.
Just in case you haven't already spoiled yourself by looking at the cast list, I have to say that Matthew Goode is not the first name I would have thought of to play the part he was cast for, but it really made sense while watching, especially the voice once I heard it (and I actually did go in blind regarding the identity.)
I'd never seen Alisha Weir in anything before this, but I was appropriately disturbed by the performance, partly in a meta sense, given I wasn't sure about the actual age. But even so, I'm still not sure how I feel about a fourteen year old in such a role. But she did not disappoint--in character, or in toe shoes.
I also hadn't seen Kathryn Newton since she appeared as one of the kids in the phenomenal Halt and Catch Fire, but she really got to show off her range here, even if not quite in the traditional sense.
I can't say I'd be mad about a sequel, but I assume it will more likely be another joint feature starring Barrera with the same writer-directorial team, which I'm totally up for. Actually, I'd be happy to see any of the cast return for similar hijinks. I'll just make sure to also eat beforehand, as I, thankfully, did before witnessing such a-literally-visceral display.
It's more Solo: A Star Wars Story than it is Better Call Saul. This is an unnecessary, drawn-out prequel that's more story driven compared to Fury Road. From my perspective, this emphasis is a mistake for a franchise which has never used story as its major selling point. I have to ask: what does this really add to Furiosa as a character, the feminist themes of Fury Road or the revenge genre? The answer: not a whole lot. You probably already pieced most of this backstory together in the abstract if you paid attention during Fury Road. Because of that, Furiosa quickly becomes predictable and stale, especially with the new characters not being terribly interesting. I loved Hemsworth's zany performance (great voice work), but on the page there's not much there. Tom Burke turns in a really flat performance as the underdeveloped love interest this story didn't need. Anya Taylor-Joy is fine in this role, but she isn't given a lot to do. For the first two chapters, Miller makes a conscious effort to hold back with the more operatic set pieces, instead focussing on Furiosa's childhood with a younger actress. It's not the worst thing ever, but I never felt like the film came off the ground. The film picks up considerably during the war rig attack early on during the third chapter. It's an impressive scene, although it does look considerably more plastic than all the action in Fury Road. Sure, it's still way more artistically accomplished than everything else you're going to see this summer, but visually it's a noticeable downgrade. Still, from that point on, the film becomes more entertaining and set piece driven until the credits. None of it feels particularly innovative or original, but George Miller's vision for these movies remains unmatched. The camerawork, worldbuilding and atmosphere are great, although as mentioned before the lighting and CGI could use improvement. Combined with the weak story and character work it never quite manages to turn itself into something I'd recommend, but as the only action tentpole made for adults this summer, maybe consider supporting it.
5/10
There’s this conversation about how the food they serve in this restaurant is simple, unpretentious yet tasteful. This film has a similar punk ethos. It’s a very simple exploration of why working in the hospitality industry is a nightmare, a pressure cooker thriller in the same vein as a film like Uncut Gems (or The Bear, who took this idea for their tv show). For a film that’s only 94 minutes we get a pretty detailed picture. Dumb customers, colleagues who get on each other’s nerves, unexpected guests & orders, flawed characters; it’s all in here and not always executed in the most expected way. With the note it decides to leave on I interpret the film as being a critique of how the industry currently operates, which the rest of the film builds a solid argument for. The third act in particular is some of the finest drama I’ve seen in a while (great acting from everyone involved). Sometimes, however, the portrayal of characters (e.g. the influencers) or dramatic escalation leading up to that point can feel a little forced or inauthentic. There’s obviously meant to be a history between these characters we never got to see, so I can look past some of it. Stylistically, I think it pulls off the illusion of using a single take perfectly. I also liked the subtle use of Dutch angles and shaky cam as things got more stressful. Maybe they could’ve also played around more with making the lighting harsher as the film went along, though that might be impossible given how much the camera moves around. Overall, I really enjoyed this and I’d recommend it to fans of the aforementioned film and tv show.
7.5/10
Well, this sure tickled my interest. This investigative journalism doc plays out a lot like David Fincher-esque thriller, but it also finds the absurdity and humour in its own subject matter. The unfolding of new events is handled really well, much like the journalists you’re constantly guessing what’s going on. The answers that we get during the third act are very satisfying; when reading between the lines I think that the final conversation between David and the grandmother connects all of the dots that have been laid down in front of us. I also like that it takes its time to explore and inform about this fetish and the business behind it. It’s weird and bizarre, but pretty harmless all things considered. Technically, it’s well paced and shot, though on a few occasions I found the editing to be overdramatic. There are also some moments where the editing seems unsure what to show, so you get a few too many generic cityscape shots. These are minor complaints though, this is a memorable documentary with a unique tone that’s sure to shock, inform, entertain and horrify. Don’t look up too much before seeing it.
8/10
P.s.: There's a fascinating 20 minute follow-up to this documentary which can be found here: https://youtu.be/K88xF9mOUjc?si=F1VSvmwJKlje2zVe
I cannot find a single review that doesn't compare this to the American remake 'Departed' by Martin Scorsese which is one of my favourite movies of all time. So fuck it I'll compare it too.
First of all, the style of this movie is definitely not for me, the way they build up tension using an electrifying score with some weird camera angles and overly dramatic shots is just too off putting for my taste, gives major bollywood vibes. Some scenes are hugely exaggerated unnecessarily. That and the fact that I've seen The Departed earlier didn't really help because I knew all the twists that was gonna happen, even if I didn't I think Scorsese did a much better job at the twists, it was so sudden and unpredictable the way he did it.
There are few things this one did much better than The Departed and one is the storytelling, because here it felt like the prime focus of the movie was the storytelling, the characters so were well written and the script is impressively well executed. There is much more of an emotional pay off to the characters and each actor portrays some stellar performance.
I personally prefer if you watch The Departed first if you really wanna be blown away because it does a better job at being more a fun watch than Infernal Affairs.
If I had a yawn counter the moment I started this movie, I would've still lost count.
Man, what a boring, slow-paced, ugly movie that was. The animation is ugly as heck; I didn't even want to look at the screen half the time. In all seriousness, the themes such as human trafficking were scary and all, but the overall execution of the story was really poor in my opinion. It's surely a sad movie... at least that's what they desperately want us to feel every second. It's like they had no vision or an end goal for the movie and just wanted the viewers to feel sad right off the bat. All of this could've been avoided if it were a live-action film, but even then, it doesn't seem really fitting. The whole story could've been a YouTube short, and I would've felt more for the characters. Animation aside, even the technical aspect of the movie is really lacking. While some sound effects are okay, and the 'Low Roar' song at the end is perfect, the voice acting seemed like it was recorded on a phone with no care whatsoever. Nothing notable or memorable.
By all means, I am not hating on any characters. I have no idea what they went through; real tragic stuff happens, so every criticism above is for the movie.
I'm completely fine with not painting the broader context of the civil war in this film. If that doesn't interest Garland as a filmmaker, there's no need to. The notion of California and Texas teaming up negates any possibility of this being a direct metaphor almost by design. His interest here clearly lies in making a movie about journalism and neutrality as symbolized through the character played by Kirsten Dunst. Together with fellow photojournalists Joel, Jessie and Sammy we find ourselves on a road trip where our protagonists are trying to get to the white house and interview the president (Nick Offerman). Unfortunately, none of these characters are developed in an interesting way, so that makes the first half a bit of a slog. There's still interesting bits of tension, but some of the writing is surprisingly stupid coming from Alex Garland. Take the scene with Jesse Plemons, which is probably the best scene. The entire set-up to that scene introduces these two disposable new characters in a way that feels like it comes from a much dumber film, on top of that it makes the Plemons scene feel contrived and forced. That scene has some fantastic acting and tension, but it ultimately resolves in a way that's unintentionally funny by using a trope often found in action comedy films. I don't know if Garland's consciously watering it down to reach a broader audience, but he's certainly not at his sharpest here. You pretty much know from the beginning which characters are going to die, and they're usually killed once they expose themselves at their most human. Going back to how that comments on the theme of the film, I think that's an incredibly narrow minded, childish view of journalism. The film even indirectly acknowledges how taking pictures is a process of selection; there's bias involved there, it isn't neutral or simply something left for a reader to interpret. Combined with the general portrayal of the journalists as opportunistic assholes (look no further than the cheesy note this film ends on), this movie often fails to strike a chord that feels truthful. I could go into all the other small details that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. aren't there a ton of escape routes underneath the white house?), but instead I'll just leave it there. I enjoyed Dunst's and McKinley Henderson's performances (the other two aren't quite as strong) and the third act is an engaging set piece for as long as you don't put too much thought into it. Technically, it's fine. There's some beautiful visual moments but I wouldn't say it looks better than Devs or Annihilation. Rob Hardy does some interesting things with objects coming in and out of focus to reflect the main characters, but in terms of colour and composition I expect a little better from him. The music choices didn't work at all for me, I found the juxtaposition way too jarring. There's this De La Soul needle drop when someone's being executed and I'm still baffled what that scene's trying to communicate tonally. Still, I enjoyed the sound design and strong use of silence, especially during the more intense scenes. Overall, if this is A24's interpretation of what a blockbuster should be going forward, they probably shouldn't bother. I'm astounded by how much of this doesn't work. It's simultaneously too watered down to work as art and not fun enough to work as entertainment. For something that's tainted to be the 'most controversial movie of the year', it's too forgettable to leave a real impression.
4/10
Let's talk about the timeless masterpiece Citizen Kane is :)
I normally read reviews before going into a black and white movie to either curb my expectations or to increase my expectations. Citizen Kane reviews in particular were mixed, some said it's overrated and people like it just to be seen as a "film bro" and some say it's one of the best movies ever made. I had no idea what to expect and I actually agree with the both negative and the positive reviews.
Having said that I believe Citizen Kane not to be just a movie...it's a definitive success in the history of cinema, a magnum opus in filmmaking which transcends from generation to generation aspiring more filmmakers. Orson Wells...the man behind and in front of the camera crafts and portrays a narrative so elegant and also a rich and a profound piece of art that hasn't been seen before.
From the first shot to the last shot Welles's direction is nothing short of a mesmerizing and innovative with each shot having it's own meaning and purpose to the story. His use of the camera movements, the lighting and the dialogue is meticulously crafted and composed with each scene creating a visual feast to your eyes.
I've often seen arguments saying the movie is just technically impressive and there is no story and it's boring, which I totally disagree with, Citizen Kane is not just the technical brilliance, the storytelling Welles brings along weaves a tapestry of intrigue and mystery with such a simple yet so beautiful twist. I absolutely love and adore the opening scene of the movie and the first two acts which follows along with it, the third act do feel a bit more dragged and dramatic they landed the ending. Throughout the movie we are introduced to a series of flashbacks and interviews where we journey through Kane's rise and fall. His relationships, his rise to power and the eventual downfall all the while tackling the truth of human existence.
I can't stress enough how well Welle's portrayal of Citizen Kane is, it's both charismatic in the first part and tragic in the final part, the psyche of a man consumed by ambition draws the narrative further. The supporting cast was nothing short of brilliant. Everybody delivers a performance for the ages.
It's almost a century since it's release and in conclusion I can verify that Citizen Kane is a cinematic masterpiece- a timeless work of art that resonated and will resonate with generations to come. It's not a film to be seen, it's a film that should be experienced, analyzed, studied and appreciated not just for it's technical abilities but also it's profound exploration of the human mind.
Thank you for reading.
