The real question is why the hell did the guy charge money for snacks at the white house?
The movie might be showing its age, or maybe I'm showing mine. The structure just felt off. The pacing was much too slow until the last quarter. There's something grating about Maverick's character—there's supposed to be, but I couldn't really find anything to like about him. And of course the romance is entirely unnecessary, but that's been a Hollywood problem since long before this movie (and still is).
I'm half tempted to give this full marks just for daring to play Radiohead's Everything in Its Right Place during your typical military in dropship scene. Anyway my boy Gareth knocked out another cracking piece of scifi. You really don't mind when a director takes a few years off and comes back with something like this. There's certainly a fair amount of Rogue One, Blade Runner and Terminator in the mix, the latter of which he takes the Judgement Day plot and turns it on its head defying expectations where I assumed it was going just due to the tropes of the genre.
There's also a lot of stuff on screen for 80mill in comparison to other recent effects heavy films. Gets you wondering if budgets elsewhere escalate to $200 mill mark due to talent demands or that something like this has less behind the scenes VFX artists but take longer to bake? I dunno. Either way, check it out. The trailer gives too much away (as always my opinion) however there's plenty more that isn't shown.
NB. Watch out for the Scarif Easter egg
As an uncultured gay, it pains me to admit that I have not read the novel and I have nothing to compare this adaptation to, but my own expectations and this movie totally meets them. The chemistry between the two leads, the back and forth banter, the well-portrayed and sensual sex scenes; it is a 10 out of 10 recommendation.
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
Don't believe the pack mentality concerning The Snowman. This Cult of Rotten Tomatoes and piling on after one bad review is a tad ridiculous, especially concerning solid films like this one. For example, I liked the filming style here and found the cinematography often gorgeous.
On the other hand, the story was like a child who tries too hard to be clever, and watching Michael Fassbender act is like making love to someone who's always looking in the mirror when he fucks because he's more interested in his own image than your pleasure. On top of that, what was up with Val Kilmer's voice that they had to dub all of his scenes? Whatever the reason, the Christian Bale Batman voice they chose was extremely distracting...
Bottom line: don't believe everything you read. Like with every other movie, see it and judge it for yourself. Don't let other people tell you what you think!
A comedy should be judged by if you laugh. A horror movie should be judged by if it is frightening. If this movie was judged by its ability to put an audience to sleep, it would be great. It's a horror movie, though, so a fail. I'm not saying I saw the end coming, but all the characters acted like they were just serving the plot instead of being actual people. Toni Collette's performance (or was it the script?) was incredibly uneven as she moved from unaffected to completely traumatized...sometimes within the same sequence. I actually liked the final story reveal and it was certainly built throughout. The problem is it took forever to get there and I hated every character so much, I couldn't care less if they lived or died. Garbage that every critic wanted to use "heightened" in a review will be lining up to kiss its ass. Here's the thing...my theater was full and never even a gasp. Did hear one dude snoring, though. See at your own risk.
IF YOU THROW ANOTHER MOON AT ME I’M GONNA LOSE IT
Timothee Chalamet absolutely won over my heart with this one. When I was growing up I loved both renditions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory so when I heard they were making a prequel I was definitely intrigued. This was everything my heart could want and more, the songs were sombre and bittersweet - like something out of your childhood dreams. The acting was good, corny at times, but it was the sheer wittiness that gave this film its charm. I would definitely recommend checking this out.
The movies starts off really well. The acting is good and the story line is initially captivating. Half way through the movie it's seems like everything goes downhill, the story gets more and more far fetched, the acting starts to get hokie, it's like the director got to a point where he rushed to the end as fast as possible without regards to the viewer. It could have been done so much better.
Decent movie, not the best scream. I liked Emma Roberts and I did enjoy seeing Kristen Bell stab Anna Paquin. The biggest crime this movie makes is killing Alison Brie so early.
"You couldn't be anywhere near Epstein and not know." I have to say the retelling and production quality was outstanding. I had to blink twice with Rufus Sewells make-up and acting. Billie Piper, Gillian Anderson, and Keely Hawes all captivated the perfect amount of acting, "Like a walk in the park." The genius in dialogue and dramatisation, my eyes and ears were hooked. Power in the wrong hands is pure evil, If anything is to be learnt, it's to watch who we give our power to. I do wish it had gone deeper than surface level, but the inside to key events felt good enough.
Unfortunately a massive waste of time. The premise is good, the meat of the story drags a bit, but I was bought in to it until the ending which leaves you with little to no payoff. Some “high-brow” stuff was clearly being attempted. Meant to trigger discussions about the interpretation of the ending. This attempt fails so badly that I am not willing to spend an additional minute googling to find out what it was about. If the movie didn’t respect my time enough to tell me, it doesn’t deserve even more of my time.
Sure, there are movies with open endings. But you can guess at a few different possibilities and the fun comes from figuring out which, if any, is right. This movie is so open-ended that they had to explicitly show “The End” to clue viewers in that it had indeed ended. It’s almost as if they made half the movie and decided to call it quits.
Save yourself from this movie. If you really want to watch it, start the movie and stop at any point. You’ll still have a better movie than what this was. Harsh, surely, but true.
The actors are fantastic. The premise is great. The pacing is a tad slow but forgivable. The “ending” ruins everything.
Unexpectedly theatrical and with substance - like gothic thrilling vice laden modern Shakespeare. This is a film about consumption, the weakness and naivety of arrogance, and a complex first love emotion rolling obsession/jealousy/narcissism into one driving force.
There are three acts for me: Oxford, Saltburn, & madness.
The first act didn't work for me till the second act kicked in. I was worried about a overly-parody-fied and caricatured script. Whilst I recognised the feelings and experiences of Oliver at Oxford, the people were too larger than life and the early laughs didn't land properly for me. Laughing at silly posh young people or uber geeks just wasn't my thing. Some of the cruelty and snobbery played out well though.
The second act puts the first into perspective. The first act which shows an alienated and floundering Oliver gain acceptance from a dislikeable group through the actually sane, kind-ish and likeable Felix sets up for the second act. More unlikeable rich people consuming each other and tossing people away like toys. But Oliver has Felix now and has picked up skills in getting things his way, seduction and sweet talking. But the acting from everyone at Saltburn estate is spot on - I properly laughed at Rosamund pikes and Richard e grants moments. Even though they are all spoilt, sheltered, unwittingly arrogant and judgemental - these characters you like, you see their vulnerabilities and insecurities - you have fun when they have fun.
Things start looking beautiful in the second act. Sometimes distractingly so. The light play, framing, and camera work are stunning. You feel you are in the throws of first love in the best summer of your life. Sometimes this was at odds with the drama or tension in the story.
Final act madness. The sympathy built up for the family now leads into the thrilling dramatic unwinding. The consumers become the consumed. Arrogance and haughty ideas of invincibility led to weakness and fractures.
This isn't an overly cohesive film for me, but I think that's intentional as mis direction. Clues for the real story are laid throughout and I had guessed the ending about two thirds of the way in. I really enjoyed the moments of summer headiness, where everyone is enjoying each other's company. Sometimes the inter-character drama and tensions were too much for me - almost descending into reality tv pettiness. I think thats intentional to show the unsympathetic side of the upper class and olivers push back - I just don't think it needed so much.
The pacing and focus was a little off for me at times. The film was full of symbolism and clever lines but it almost felt too full sometimes. Like vacillating rapidly between moods. There was a moment where I was full of tears at portrayal of grief when others were laughing - very interesting but it left me feeling a bit all Over the place. But excited!
The score and the setting and sterling acting efforts lift the film up into a grand feeling vision. I was a little disappointed that the tone of the trailers wasn't present in the film at all (bloc party song teaser trailer was amazing) . But the score takes this to a different place - British, establishment, old money, young love, hubris and longing - great score.
The film is exciting and there are unexpected moments and some brave choices too. I enjoyed watching this a lot and am excited for more films. There's a lot to enjoy here. Barry keoghans metamorphosis through the film is really really thrilling. Reliving 2006 is fun too - wish just a bit more was done with the music and feeling of that time. Some duff moments for me too so a 7.
Recommend
I felt so many things watching this. It's stunning, it's twisted, it's weird, it's hot. One thing's for sure, it'll be on my mind for quite some time.
Was funny when Ed said come over and have dinner and meet Annabelle, the next scene she looked devestated lol.
Hipster academics having Seinfeld conversations in a retro fabulous stage play that takes a post-Thunberg twistaroo into existentialism and crisis. Smart aesthetics, precocious kids, family drama. Heavy flavours of New York arthouse, Woody Allen and David Byrne. Early notes of tiresome pretentious satire but a lingering and satisfying aftertaste.
A wonderful summary of all the reasons why I despise the vast majority of all horror movies. The only scary parts were the dialogues and what the writers had planned next.
The film starts out fun, funny and ambitious. It is that way through at least half the movie. After awhile it got a bit draggy and not as involving.
There’s a villain but we don’t see enough of him to feel like they are in danger by him. While it feels like the characters spend half the movie figuring out what their strengths and weaknesses are.
Despite my problems with it there was still no doubt I’d still give the film ***. It has plenty of humor, action, locations and very committed actors.
Enjoyable, some fun scenes, but far less epic than the first. It's also a very obvious setup for the next one, which seems hinted at to be much more epic in scale.
Don't know who is more annoying, Franklin or Jar Jar Binks.
It was enjoyable to revisit this world as well as these characters, and the ability to make choices determining the path of the story adds an extra layer of fun. I completed it twice in one sitting to explore as many options as possible; it was uproarious the first time but less so the second time revisiting many of the same jokes, and there were far more dead ends than I expected, many of which were very amusing. Jacqueline could have been used better to participate in the main storyline, but otherwise this serves as a unique sendoff for the show.
One of those movies that's almost too unique to really be good, but maybe that's ok. It's still plenty entertaining. There's some fun, gory, zombie kills and the musical numbers are generally pretty great. It's got a weird, good, off-kilter energy. I wasn't particularly satisfied by the time I finished it, but I didn't regret my time with it either. It's certainly unique - unlike anything else I've ever watched.
I never knew I needed to see a Christmas zombie musical but I'm glad I did. Such a unique movie that doesn't always work but I love the idea. Plus most of the songs are great.
I wouldn't class this as a good or bad film, it's in a weird sorta in-between to me.
'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader' is, comparatively, bad. It loses the vibe and all the intrigue that the first film has, as it continues the downward trajectory set by the other sequel. However, it's still just about got a decent adventure feel to it.
Only two of the youngsters reprise their roles 'properly', those being Georgie Henley (Lucy) and Skandar Keynes (Edmund). I'd always prefer a cast to remain the same, but if I'm honest this doesn't miss William Moseley (Peter) and Anna Popplewell (Susan) all that much. That argument is helped by the arrival of a young Will Poulter as Eustace. He's great.
Plot-wise is where it gets meh. I didn't care for it, even if I did like its swashbuckling nature. I can see many finding enjoyment with it, but for me it doesn't quite come out positively unfortunately - it's sluggish. The ship set also feels rather cheap.
Not at all a bad film; one that was interestingly made without the involvement of Disney, Walden Media joined up with Fox instead. I just couldn't find enough entertainment in it.
It's well acted, technically a star studded cast in the UK. So I was expecting it to be good. It is really good, but it's missing depth of the characters... too much espionage flowing into the actual script. The brothers relationship isn't explored at all. The main two characters relationship isn't gone into fully. The side "romance" is just tiny glimpses. Nothing of the personal interactions reaches the depth of loving the characters. It's a historical docudrama and maybe that's why. They just didn't know enough about the people to develop the characters fully. A shame really. I gave it an 8, but it's a 7.5. Great overall but missing the punch to be fantastic.
This film took me by surprise, I was expecting another sherlock spinoff that does nothing new.
Yet Enola Holmes is simply refreshing with an intriguing story that compels you to keep watching with wit and adventure all the way through.
7/10 - Good film, one that I'll happily watch again
Its Scream meets The Blair Witch but it still manages to transcend both of those films to become its own thing too. An intriguing setup for the next two Fear Street movies and I for one am looking forward to them.
3 Thoughts After Watching ‘Fear Street Part One: 1994’:
Lemme tell you… I loved it! It was nostalgic. It was an homage to so much that has come before (that intro had ‘Scream’ written all over it). But it also had a hefty dose of originality. Great characters you cared about. It took risks. It surprised you. And it was a LOT more mature than I expected it to be. I loved the books way back when, and this made me wanna read them again. Bravo.
I LOVED the LGBT twist in the beginning! Did NOT expect that person to be Sam. Solid execution.
It had a bit of a Hocus Pocus vibe to me, which made the character deaths and the paths into “Rated R” territory that much more effective. It was a weird and welcomed mix.
Bonus Thought: I legit can’t wait for the next one. Super invested.
Other than the sheer charisma of Chris Hemsworth and likability of Miles Teller, there wasn't much carrying the film. The plot is fairly obvious and uninspired (I hope the book is better) and the characters are all somewhat underdeveloped.
Another mediocre Netflix film. It's a very cookie cutter movie. Actually, for Netflix it was good. It just turns out that a good Netflix film is just mediocre when compared to everything else.
With some tweaks to make things less obvious, this could have gone from mediocre to good. Instead of assuming the audience is stupid and unable to figure out whom the bad guys are, make this an intelligent story where things are only partially explained and left open to interpretation. Add nuance to the story to make it interesting.
As it is, it is good enough to watch once and immediately forget. I would never recommend it, but if someone said they were interested, I wouldn't tell them to avoid it. The very definition of mediocre.
