Atlantis14

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

I'm not so sure whether I've simply forgotten how to have fun with really stupid movies or whether Matthew Vaughn simply can't manage to make his truly dumb movies fun anymore. After 'The King's Man' and now 'Argylle', however, I'm leaning towards the second scenario. Because in the director's new movie, it feels like he's shouting 'Have fun already' in the audience's face the whole time. But you just can't force that to happen.

Vaughn's unique style is still clearly recognizable, but somehow it no longer works as well as in his earlier films. This is particularly evident in the colorful and absurd action sequences in the finale, which are extremely dynamic but still bored me to death. And honestly, the whole cliché of CGI fluids splashing around in action scenes and leaving no trace on the characters' clothes is something I just don't want to see anymore (I'm looking at you, 'Renfield').

The story can't save the movie, either. Apart from a whole series of twists, one of which is stupider than the next, it has nothing to offer. The characters are also weak. On top of that, the runtime is far too long, so I definitely won't ever watch this movie again. Accordingly, I have absolutely no interest in this franchise or the hinted-at crossover.

Everyone seems to love this movie, yet I did not. I want to say that it wasn’t a bad movie it’s just that I didn’t get it; however, certain parts actually felt contrived to me. Some of the conversations on the bus felt unnatural and scripted such as the one between the teenage girl and boy discussing some Italian anarchist. The bartender’s female friend came in to fuss at him for taking her cookie jar money. Her performance felt a little off as well. For much of the movie, I was painfully aware that I was watching actors rather than becoming immersed in the story.
Perhaps you need to be into poetry to like this movie. I am not particularly interested. So apparently, everyone in Paterson, New Jersey is a poet. There’s the poet William Carlos Williams, the main character also named Paterson (rolling my eyes at this little coincidence), some little girl waiting for her mother and sister who he happens upon, and a Japanese tourist. I didn’t find the poetry aspect of this movie the least bit interesting. To me the most interesting part of this movie is his relationship with his wife.
Paterson seems sad and unhappy with his life. Writing in his notebook is his escape from his dull existence. I’m not sure he’s very thrilled with his bus driving job, yet it gives him a chance to observe people and eavesdrop on passengers’ conversations. I’m not sure how happy he is with his wife either. Sure, they are extremely pleasant to one another and they seem to be affectionate enough and genuinely care for each other, yet something feels off. His wife Laura is beautiful. I get the feeling that was his main, if not his only, motivation for marrying her. Paterson seems to struggle at times to overlook his wife’s ditzy and eccentric manner. She conducts herself in the free-spirited manner of someone who has never had to worry about such mundane things as working to pay the bills. Such are the advantages of female beauty I suppose. She is constantly decorating everything in the house with black patterns on white background. Everything is black and white. One day she is going on about having a cupcake business and the next she is telling him that she wants to order a guitar with lessons for a few hundred dollars so she can become a country music star. During nearly every brief evening interaction with his wife, his face shows displeasure or discomfort with something she says. Most notably when she asks for the expensive guitar and again when she tells him she ordered it. Paterson however just continues to be quiet spoken and polite. Is he afraid to say anything which might upset her? When the guitar arrives, unsurprisingly it is black and white which is probably why she wanted it in the first place. Despite Laura’s somewhat childlike frivolity and naivety, she did make over $200 selling her cupcakes at the farmer’s market and she learned an impressive amount on the guitar in the first day. Perhaps Paterson is simply doing his best to support his wife and avoid negativity while he bears the brunt of the real world. It seems odd to me that although he is gone all day at work, he only spends an hour or so with his wife before he takes the dog for a “walk” and stops to hang out in a bar. This furthers my belief that their relationship is based primarily on sex and beyond that they have no real connection. His life wouldn’t suck so bad if they were actually friends and could share common interests and truly enjoy each other’s company outside the bedroom. She seems a little too eager to have him take the dog for a walk every evening. I actually suspected her of having an affair at one point.
Anyhow, Paterson is distraught when his notebook is destroyed by the dog. (Should have made copies like is wife urged him so often to do.) This is when he has the strange interaction with the Japanese poet tourist who gives him a new notebook when parting ways. So, it seems he’ll get over his loss and soldier on.
Look, we all bring a bit of ourselves into the interpretation of a movie. We see things from our perspective which is shaped by our life experiences. Perhaps I did not like this movie because I could not relate to the main character. Although pleasant and open to others, he is completely void of any personality. The only things he ever says to his wife is in response to her questions.
Bottom line is that I was unable to care about the main character, Paterson. His life is boring because he is boring. Although he has nothing to offer, he does manage to touch the lives of others by just being there and listening. The only real things he has to say, he writes in his notebook, which is destroyed and lost forever. The true tragedy of this story is not that he lost his notebook, but that he chooses to put himself into the notebook rather than share himself with his wife and others.

Walking out of Warcraft, the overriding feeling is one of a missed opportunity - this is by no means a disaster and there is plenty of potential here. The scope of the film is impressive and it's clear there is a lot of world-building going on here for future sequels. Part of the problem, however, is there is simply too much plot going on with not enough time devoted to a central thread - the director's admission that some 40 minutes have been cut is not surprising. This is a film that has ambition to be an epic, with many threads introduced to carry over to potential future films and glimpses of many different settings in this new world, but consequently there is a rushed feel to the central plot of this film with not enough time devoted to developing the relationships and motivations of the central characters, Thus plot developments and twists whilst potentially interesting do not have the emotional impact desired making it difficult to really care about what happens. It is a shame because what there is here works surprisingly well - Jones' ambition is to ensure the audience is invested in both sides of the conflict rather than the obvious human side. Perhaps there may well be a future director's cut that restores some much needed character work and slows down the pace a little.

Denis Villenueve. A solid lineup. A different take on first contact. I loved Sicario but went in expecting a cerebral epic sci-fi.

That was a mistake.

Good things:
- Some really nice visual scenes
- Interesting aliens Calligraphy aliens!
- Clear theme of communication is omnipresent
- A neat score that might be awesome in a different movie

Bad things:
- The acting
- The lack of emotional reaction to ALIENS! The students asking to turn on the TV, all of the main characters
- Lack of useful characters Only the aliens and Louise actually did anything the entire movie.
- Supporting characters are very stupid in an attempt to foil the main character slightly
- Very clumsy exposition. Genre-typical news reports, voice-overs, dumb characters asking stupid questions.
- Very slow pacing. This worked in parts of Sicario, but didn't work in this movie because there was no tension. The main characters never seemed remotely threatened.
- Lousie showing up at school thinking everyone will be there after aliens arrive and there's a state of emergency
- Why can't you translate alien language like you can translate Farsi. This is a paraphrase but in the spirit of what Colonel Weber was saying.
- Useless love interest when the costars have no chemistry.
- Ultrasecure military base lets someone steal a ton of explosives and put it in an ALIEN SPACECRAFT without anyone noticing.
- Many unbelievable plot points
- Poor dialogue Let's make a baby - real quote
- Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?
- Very heavy handed moral messaging that didn't align with the rest of the movie.
- Why couldn't Ian also see into the future as he studied the language, or any of the others?

Overall extremely disappointing. I'm honestly surprised critics or general moviegoers like this. The premise was very good. It's a real shame the execution failed so miserably.

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

EDIT: It has now been revealed the original film/script was radically different, longer, and explained many of my issues presented in this review. Studios, stop butchering your films to be more palatable to audiences.

This is what happens when the people who say, "Godzilla movies don't need to have good human stories," get their way. Easily one of the weakest Godzilla films ever made and the worst of this series. You're not a fan of this franchise if you say Godzilla movies don't need story. Every one so far has had an interesting enough script to justify it's monster bits, even the worst Showa or Heisei outings do more. It's not even really sure what it wants to be. Kong is propped up as the hero and clearly the protagonist of this story with Gojira making cameos as he hunts the organization Apex, but then Kong just loses anyways. What purpose is there for even setting up these monsters as sympathetic when all writing and soul is tossed out the minute they start brawling in Hong Kong. It actually forgets humans exist for a good four minutes as these two punching bags throttle around neon buildings. Craft is gone, it turns into The Avengers, with barely any collateral damage. "Oh but, you can follow the journey through the monsters! You don't need humans to have that nuance." Oh really? Godzilla doesn't like Kong being off his island, he puts him in his place, story done. Talk about deep. No moments to breath or for a character to properly react. This is hot off the heels of King of the Monsters, a film that continues the themes of Skull Island and Gareth Edward's Godzilla. Dougherty's outing before this deeply explored the themes of what it means to live with these monsters on Earth. How do you continue living when a relative of yours has been taken at the hands of one of them, do you shut yourself off or do you try to change the world? Emma became essentially so riddled with guilt she released the devil on Earth. How are these monsters really not so different from us, considering they were birthed out of our own arrogant, persistent lust for control over this world. It's too much to get in to, but that film dealt a great deal with overcoming grief, putting your faith in God, coexistence, and forgiveness. Mark's scene where he looks in to Godzilla's eyes and finally restores his faith is one of my favorite moments from this series. There is nothing in Godzilla vs. Kong that could be remotely construed as a plot. Charles Dance's role has been replaced for some reason, we have a wacky podcast conspiracy guy that serves as just a walking prop for the viewer to see world explanations, Kyle Chandler as Mark has been reduced to a cameo, and on that note: Why is he working at Monarch? He consistently hated Godzilla until he had a change of heart and faith by virtue of Serizawa and Mothra. Monarch didn't change to the good guy, they're still an organization on the cusp of lawsuit and government shutdown. Would GvK mind explaining that for us? How and when was Apex formed? How is it possible the creation of MechaGodzilla never leaked out? The world has been introduced to the titans. It's plainly established everyone is obsessed with these things, the internet and news won't shut up about them. The government doesn't know this is how Apex is using their power supply? In '14, it's at least explained their research on the MUTO was a government cover up for Monarch, that's why Joe in that film became a crackpot theorist who wouldn't let the nuclear incident go. But it's not 2013 anymore, the creatures are no longer a big secret. In King of the Monsters, the people unleashing Ghidorah to rival Godzilla are small band of eco-terrorists, they aren't a multi-billion dollar corporation. It makes no sense and done so much more poorly. It's rushed and done with quips. The most we ever get in terms of world building is a single shot of a map and newspapers, talking about the UN vetoing Godzilla or Apex facilities springing up across the map. We don't hear internal communication or even have a Senate scene like in this last film. The world has simultaneously been expanded greatly and shrunken to nothing, something Pacific Rim Uprising also horrifically accomplished. This series was built off the foundation of engaging with this science fiction, government monster universe through the lens of a sympathetic every-man that's been hurt by the monsters in some way, usually a familial death. Dr. Nathan Lind is given two words to establish he lost a brother in the Hollow Earth, but nothing ever comes of that information. Humans? There are storytelling devices used to get the audience from scene to scene. In the same span of runtime, from '14 to this, Bryan Cranston is grieving over his dying wife, to this has a fat guy making jokes about toasters. The most amount of interesting character development are thrown away in two very specific pieces of dialogue. The little native girl's family was killed by the storm surrounding skull island, which we saw in Kong's film, as was the whole island wiped out. I imagine there was a sequence that explored this and able to give a more tragic or perhaps resounding, uplifting message of sticking with family even when you've suffered so much loss. It would fit the overarching narrative that's stuck to this MonsterVerse so far, but it seems the cutting room floor did a number to this movie, as even stated by director Adam Wingard. It really does feel like the movie is playing damage control. Audiences didn't understand the previous films' stories, so they got fed up trying to understand them and just declared they don't want any characters in these movies. So we get walking action figures that say the words necessary to get us to our next fight. The best potential that existed in one of these dolls was Shun Oguri's character, Ren Serizawa, who is related to the Serizawa of previous films, the one who sacrificed himself to save Godzilla and prove humanity needed to accept him as their king. It was a very touching, holy piece in the last film, and Ren could work as an antagonistic son who resents his father for giving up his life to this monster he doesn't understand, and we could go through a similar arc Mark Russel did in the last film. None of this is realized, he is a dummy test pilot told to get in the goddamn chair, like it's an Evangelion reference. The most amount of enjoyment anyone could get out of this is the splodge of CGI dumped on to the screen with no visual grace or narrative substance. If that's all you want, then I pity what this means for blockbusters. Edwards crafted a fantastic character movie in 2013 and the series has been handed a blow here.

This movie shows in a very good way how the next virus outbreak that will be just as big or maybe even bigger as the Spanish Flu is gonna happen in the 21th century. And believe me, sooner or later IT WILL HAPPEN.

I liked the electronic music that was playing at the beginning of the movie. It had sort of an panicked tone to it that together with the people who where getting sick and dying set a thrilling tone to the first part of the movie.

I found the movie to be very realistic. Jude Law character was spot-on. When there is gonna be an outbreak we will see people on the internet (who have no medical training whatsoever) who think they have found the cure and millions of people will listen to them. There will be millions of people who stop going to work, who stay at home and avoid contact with anyone. Others will do whatever they can to get their hands on a vaccination, even if that means killing someone else.

I liked the fact that we got to see the story from so many different angles. It really gave an overview of the entire situation and what the virus had for an impact on all the people involved.

The end of the movie was a bit disappointing. In my opinion that could have been a lot better. But overall i find this movie to be really good.

I'll open by saying I am not a fan of Villeneuve. In fact, I think he's a hack whose only genuine talent is making stupid people falsely think they are actually quite smart. I am also a HUGE Dune fan. They have been my favourite series of books since I first discovered them as a teenager. So although I hoped for the best with this, I was expecting the worst. What I got was somewhere in the middle. It's an OK movie, not great, thankfully not terrible, but OK

It got some things right the 1984 Lynch version got wrong, but still somehow managed to get other stuff wrong (including stuff Lynch got right). It was also a surprise how much Villeneuve just lifted directly from the Lynch film, both visually and auditorily.

The wardrobe choices were a huge disappointment. If you didn't know the time setting, going just on the clothes in the new Dune you'd be forgiven for thinking it was set a mere forty or fifty years (if that) in the future rather than the twenty thousand years in the future when it's really set. The Lynch stillsuits look futuristic, unworldly, and something that really would keep you alive in the deep desert. The new desert wear looks like they are just going to go dirt biking for an hour or two in our present-day world.

The casting (completely ignoring the pointless gender swap) was good, However, with the exception of Paul, Chani, and Rabban the original casting was all better. But the original (apart from the odd decision to use the totally unsuited Kyle MacLachlan) was a masterclass in how to cast the perfect people for the role.

Anyway, enough of the comparisons, This film is about the first two-thirds of the first novel. I always thought the story would be better told via a big-budget TV series (or even mini-series) rather than a standalone movie. I still think what they tried to cover here was too much for a single movie, but it was a step in the right direction.

The film mainly sticks to the book story but does make some needless changes, the most obvious of which being the changes made to both the gender and story of Liet Kynes, which in turn impacts the story of Chani. Most other changes are small and mainly insignificant though.

The film being filmed in Norway, Jordan, and Abu Dhabi it looks fantastic and very well suited to the large screen. And it's clear a great deal of time, effort, and money was put into the sets that looked equally good as the places they were meant to be.

The acting was of a suitably high standard, but unfortunately, many of the Dune names and terms were horribly mispronounced. That and the Hans Zimmer fart that is played constantly throughout the soundtrack is likely to pull people out of their immersion in the movie.

I was also somewhat surprised by what was left out, OK the source material is VERY dense and obviously some needed to be cut, but I don't really think it's made clear just how crucial melange is to the functioning of the empire and society as a whole. Also what (and why) mentats are is largely ignored, you may think that isn't overly important, but it is at the core of how many things are done in the Dune universe.

Over all, it's not a bad movie. Despite its flaws, I still think the 1984 Lynch version is better though.

The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.

Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.

4/10

Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).

Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia.

If anything, Hollywood has boiled that concept down to a science over the past few years, as this film is basically a summary of everything that’s wrong with the industry in a neat, 148 minute package.
It thinks it’s meta and self-aware by pointing out how cynical and cheap franchise filmmaking is.
That might sound similar set-up as 22 Jump Street, but this film proceeds to be cheap and cynical itself without saying anything substantial beyond its own set up, so it embraces what it’s trying to criticize.
Everything in this movie is structured as an excuse to show stuff you’ve seen before, there are little to no original concepts or ideas that push the franchise in an interesting direction.
It’s mostly a rehash of the first film (mixed with some stuff from Reloaded and Revolutions in the second half), except the action isn’t nearly as good, it’s more predictable and convenient, the performances are nowhere near as memorable (that’s what you get from replacing your 2 best actors), it looks uglier and more synthetic, the pacing isn’t as tight, and it’s a lot more dull because of how much it overexplains itself.
It also ditches the cyberpunk aesthetic, and replaces it with something a lot more bland and boring, stripping the franchise from a lot of its personality.
It’s honestly quite an accomplishment when you think about it: the original is one of the best, most successful, big budget films ever made that still maintained a strong artistic and alternative impulse.
This, on the other hand, couldn’t be any more lowest common denominator if it tried to.
It’s a parody of itself and modern blockbuster filmmaking.
I suppose that was Lana Wachowski’s goal to some extent, but it isn’t very compelling to watch.

3/10

This is essentially Spielberg's Almost Famous. It's way too sentimental and white, which is a complaint that's often thrown at Spielberg's work (one I don't always agree with myself), but this is undeniably him at his schmaltziest. Every genuine emotion is buried under such a deep layer of cheese that the entire picture ends up feeling phony and disingenuous to me. There's an unironic record scratch sound effect in here at some point, and it's just so corny. Michelle Williams is also a major victim of the direction, her performance and the dialogue she's given are awful. The other performances are passable at best, with Gabriel LaBelle and Paul Dano being the clear standouts. Visually I did not find the movie to be that compelling, it's overly reliant on a generic orange/teal color grade, but there are some strong moments that illustrate the power of visual filmmaking very well. John Williams' score is probably one of his most forgettable ones, it sounded like a composer who's trying to do an imitation of Alexandre Desplat. I just don't really see the overall appeal. Emotionally it clearly doesn't work for me, but I also find it to be lacking in substance. We don't learn that much about Spielberg as a filmmaker or artistic force, it's mostly focussed on him as a person, which doesn't interest me as much. He probably poured his soul into this project, but to me it's a perfect example that artists should not be in charge of their own memoir, because it doesn't focus on the interesting stuff.

4/10

If this film is a cake, then it’s got the best possible frosting you could wish for. The cake itself, however, isn’t great.

I’ve always had a strange relationship with these films. I don’t really care for the Raimi films (I think they’re overly cheesy, poorly acted and dated, though don’t expect anyone from around my age to admit that), the Webb films are fine (really like the first one, second one’s a mess) and I’ve really liked the 2 recent ones (not as much as Into the Spiderverse, but still good in their own right).
Compared to the previous 2, this one pretty much ditches the John Hughes aesthetic as it goes along, and it goes into full on, operatic superhero mode.
Unfortunately, it is another one of those project that puts nostalgia and fan pandering over story and character, the kind of blockbuster we’re seeing over and over again in a post Force Awakens world.
This story is completely hacked together, consisting of so many contrivances, conveniences and established characters acting out of character that it becomes a bit of a shitshow ( Doctor Strange, a genius, is being tricked by teenagers; Peter not knowing about the consequences of the spell is a very forced way to set the plot in motion; Ned being able to open portals is quite ridiculous when the Doctor Strange movie made a point about how hard that is to learn; why is Venom in the universe given how they set up the rules of the multiverse, and the list goes on ). The problem is that they needed to take that bullet in order to make the film they wanted to make here (or rather, the film fans wanted to see), but that doesn’t make it the right choice by any means, because it leads to a nonsensical film with a rushed pace.
Look, you can nitpick this film to death ( why would a university publicly admit that MJ and Ned are rejected because of their connection to Peter? ), but that’s not even my point. It’s heightened and not meant to be taken that seriously, I get that, but you at least need some form of internal logic, you cannot just do these unearned things because the plot demands it.

It’s not all bad though, Holland’s Spider-man still has a very good arc with some great emotional beats in it, and they make some very bold choices towards the end that I hope they stick with. It’s very similar to the first Fantastic Beasts, so I hope they don’t pull a Crimes of Grindelwald by retconning everything .
The acting is great, Holland and Zendaya give their best and most mature performances yet, and the villains are all good. I really like that they toned Dafoe down a little bit.
It looks fine. It has some of the best cinematography out of the trilogy, but some of the action looks very animated (again, stop touching up the suit, just let it wrinkle ffs) and unfinished, which is probably because this thing was rushed out, as we know.
For instance, there are some really wonky shots in the scene where Spider-Man fights Doctor Strange, the close-ups with Benedict Cumberbatch look like a weather forecast on television.
The references to the previous incarnations are a bit of a mixed bag. I like that they progressed some stuff and did interesting things with the things they referenced ( for example, you really feel like time has passed with Tobey and Andrew, they’re not giving a copy of their original performances, which is also a great excuse to tone down the awkwardness and lack of personality in Tobey’s version. Also, the banter between them is very nice, of course ), but most of it plays like a pandering greatest hits compilation. I don't need Dafoe to say you know, I'm something of a scientist myself again, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to trigger my nostalgia button.
Finally, it also has some of the worst tonal balance and comedy out of the trilogy, especially with some of the lines that are given to Benedict Cumberbatch.

5/10

In summary/TLDR: great idea for Sony’s bank account, but the seeds for this needed to be planted much earlier in order to make it a good film.

I remain unconvinced that a film needs to last more than two, let alone three hours. "Killers of the Flower Moon" also was far too long for my personal liking. To be fair, though, I have to admit that I was already pretty tired when the movie started. The extremely slow pacing definitely didn't help, though. Still, there's a lot I really like about this movie. For example, it looks fantastic, has an intriguing and previously unexplored setting, and impresses with strong performances by the actors. Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, and especially Lily Gladstone are all more than convincing, although the latter unfortunately disappears from the film for long stretches. De Niro's character was also a bit too one-dimensional in my opinion.

Looking at the story, I hoped for a long time that it would pick up speed, at least in the last third, when the "investigation" of all the murders starts. Unfortunately, that didn't really come true, although the pacing was at least a bit brisker at the end. Overall, it's hard for me to give a final rating, but I'm relatively certain that even in a less tired state, I wouldn't see "Killers of the Flower Moon" as Martin Scorsese's next masterpiece. However, the film is good all the same.

I honestly don't know why they decided to make a fourth "Expendables" movie. It is clear that none of those involved had any genuine desire to do so. That said, all the alarm sirens should have gone off when Megan Fox appeared in the trailer. At this point in her career, she really doesn't stand for quality, and she's abysmally bad in "ExpendFOURbles" as well. To make matters worse, her role isn't exactly small either.

But the biggest sin of the film is probably that not much is left of the original idea of the franchise. It was once supposed to be a retro-fest for aging action stars, but there are hardly any of those left. Even Sylvester Stallone has at most an extended cameo appearance here; otherwise, only Dolph Lundgren and Jason Statham are remaining who could be put into this star category. Actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Wesley Snipes, or at least Terry Crews are no longer present. Instead, you get 50 Cent and Megan Fox—whew.

Those hoping for good action will also be disappointed. Tony Jaa and Iko Uwais are actors who could certainly offer something in this regard. However, the action is so poorly edited that they don't help either. Meanwhile, the level of violence has been raised again, but because of the lousy effects, you can't really enjoy it. Overall, "Expendables 4" is a terrible and, above all, frustrating film that I cannot recommend to anyone.

The movie mainly follows the original story and Halle Bailey was the best part of the movie.
Although her performance felt too broadway-ish at some moments, her voice is stunning and she shows a bubbly personality which makes it able to sit through this boring movie...
Why didn't they give her the iconic red hair though?!

The other characters are pretty bad too...
Triton is such a player... He has 7 daughters and I'm 100% sure they all have a different mother.
The blackwashing of Ariel is pretty obvious, and that wasn't enough for Disney either so Prince Eric is now adopted and has a black mother too.
I hate it when forced diversity is getting pushed down your throat!

Sebastian, Flounder, Scuttle, Flotsam and Jetsam all look hideous, what are they even thinking?!
Scuttle was annoying and they managed to make the worst Disney song ever called the Scuttlebutt.
The song makes your ears bleed, and it seems to never end!
Ursula doesn't look scary enough, Melissa McCarthy her face is just not fitting for the role, but I did like her voice and her vibrant tentacles. those look so awesome.
I did love Vanessa, she was absolutely epic!

The CGI is very bad, it looks incredibly fake. Many scenes are also just way too dark.
Disney has enough money and I'm sure they can do way better than this.
They wanted to make it look as realistic as possible but it just doesn't work!

I recently watched the original again and I laughed so many times and I was still so mesmerized by it all.
I wasn't with this live action version... I was so bored!
The only thing that kept me watching till the end was because I was curious to see if they added the giant Ursula scene.
It was all just one big disappointment...

This was a huge step down from the previous film. I thought the first act was straight-up bad and not at all enjoyable. The COVID mentions felt dated and overly forced, and this film only just came out. That doesn't bode well for how this film will age. However, once the film gets going it gets better and is enjoyable, and they drop the COVID stuff, which in turn, actually makes the COVID mentions at the beginning feel even worse and more pointless than they had felt initially.

I thought that the plot felt far more simple and extremely predictable compared to the first film. I also thought that the characters (aside from Blanc), were largely much worse - both in writing, and performances given by the cast.

Daniel Craig and Benoit Blanc is just as good as he was in the first film, and he absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen. I also found Janelle Monáe as both Andi and Helen to be decent. Edward Norton's billionaire character, Miles Bron, was a mixed bag, and although he started out quite interesting with some potential, I found his character to inevitably be overly shallow and poorly written.

As far as the rest of the cast went? It wasn't so good. Most of them, such as Whiskey, were simply bland and forgettable. But others were downright awful characters that were overly shallow and just plain annoying. Kate Hudson's 'Birdie' was probably the worst offender here, and I found that her character lowered the quality of every scene she appeared in.

I realise that this review has been largely negative, but what I will say is that Glass Onion is still a mostly fun and entertaining experience for the majority of its runtime. I had a lot of fun watching it (aside from the first twenty minutes or so), and I don't regret it at all. I'd recommend watching it if you enjoyed the original film, but I just don't think it's anywhere close to being anything great like its predecessor was.

Look, I'm very much in favor of giving directors the creative freedom to put their own spin on whatever they're adapting.
In fact, I think it's quite shallow and close-minded to judge an adaptation against its source material, pretending as if that's meant to be some holy grail of perfection.
That being said: the whole appeal of the Uncharted games in the first place is that they feel like a mix of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, with this sassy, horny, shit-talking protagonist at the center of it.
This movie captures neither of those aspects, and replaces them with basic movie tropes.
It doesn't feel like the aforementioned franchises. Instead, it looks and feels like your generic, throwaway action movie that usually stars The Rock (e.g.Rampage, Red Notice, Skyscraper).
Tom Holland plays Spider-man with attitude. He's not playing (a younger version of) Nathan Drake.
Mark Wahlberg plays Mark Wahlberg.

Like, why was this project treated like a tax write-off?
It has everything a Hollywood executive could want: the source material is cinematic, action packed, fun, and best of all: it has a built in audience.
This could've easily been the next big summer franchise if this was given a proper treatment. It should be much easier to get this right than other videogame based adaptations.
So why is Avi Arad producing this? Why is Ruben Fleischer directing this? Why is this script burning through four games of material? Why is the dialogue so clunky and unfunny? Why is the casting so lame? Why does it look like plastic, when the cinematographer of this thing shot Last Night in Soho and Oldboy?
Fuck.

3.5/10

The main selling point for this is the first on-screen pairing of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren, two of the most accomplished actors in the history of stage and screen. The film is worth watching for their performances as they are both so good they elevate the fairly mediocre subject material to a higher level than it deserves.

The film wants to be a tense thriller in which you are rooting for Mirren's wealthy widow, not wanting her to fall victim to McKellen's conman. There is some good material here and the two leads, plus Russell Tovey, are extremely watchable.

I felt shortchanged with the dénouement as it left me thinking 'Really? That's the motivation and the entire reason for the actions?' At that point, I should have wanted to immediately watch the film to see what I missed, but this seems like a film where the plotting feels a bit half baked and the ending doesn't link in with the rest of the film to the point where you'll watch it again to see where you were deceived by Bill Condon's direction and Jeffrey Hatcher's script.

It's a film which is worth watching for the interplay between the two stellar leads, but one which won't stay with you for long after the credits have rolled unless you want to spend some time wondering what made this so appealing to McKellen and Mirren in the first place.

Okay, more of a romance than a comedy.

Seems to be written and acted by people who have no idea about mmorpg's and think every game is GTA o.0

Story leans more towards what should have been a VRMMO at least then the chemistry would have made sense, kinda feels like someone told someone about a VRMMO novel and then they made up all the details around that. Not saying they should make a overgeared or legendary mechanic movie or better yet tv show.... but if they did, it'd be better than this. Not saying this is bad, just if you actually play any games beyond GTA you'd realise pretty quickly.. this game would be boring as hell, there's only one small city for a start. Player housing can be broken into, which would be an interesting twist... but not one many players would subscribe to as new players would just get tired of being robbed every 2 seconds and starting from scratch everytime they login... Hard pass

Writer's have zero clue about code, servers, network management, user management, GMs, streaming - though was surprised to see poki (only one I recognised) or even deleting things o.o Seriously the guy just had the old build running in the background?
I got too many complaints about the technical side to go into...

Anyway, not a bad movie. Well worth a watch, just try not to think too deeply when watching it.

Before explaining why I liked this movie, I'd like to point out that the main idea of the movie is NOT that you need find your purpose to have a happy life. It's the exact opposite! I'm not saying this just to be a professor, but because it's really important and that's why I loved the film so much. You don't need to be fixated about something to find a meaning in your life. You need to savour it and learn to enjoy the little moments instead of waiting for something big to happen to reach happiness. It's so profound and refreshing. A movie just about a guy waiting for his big moment and feeling fulfilled after having reached it would have been dull, boring, trite and most of all wrong, like pretty much all "self-help" advices.
Instead the opposite idea is presented and if you just pay attention to the dialogues -and the story, really- you'll understand what I mean and most importantly what you might apply to make your everyday life better.
But back to the movie I've got to say I almost cried as the end was approaching as much as I was going to turn off the tv when the movie started. The whole initial setting reminded me too much of Inside Out, a film I quite disliked, so I was worried it was a copy of it (it kind of is in the beginning). But luckily the second half steered away from it and developed in one of the most moving film I've seen in a long time. Undoubtedly one of Pixar's best.

And so the Brosnan come to an end and goes out with a whimper. Whilst the opening sequence is weak and dull (someone needs to point out to the filmmakers that vehicles with huge fans behind them are not that exciting), the initial setup is intriguing. But once Bond sets out on his mission, most of this is forgotten and the rigid formula is set. There are some occasional interesting moments - the car chase on ice is unusual enough to lift the film out of its mediocrity, but only for a moment. The two principal Bond girls add very little to the film and Brosnan is yet again saddled with a principal villain who is simply not a credible threat. Toby Stephens hams it up way too much, even for a Bond film and unfortunately it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief as a result of the quite ridiculous story. Action sequences that are poorly edited and dull and building action scenes completely around CGI are also the worst things a Bond film could do. It's a shame Brosnan was never able to be involved in a truly great Bond film, as he did make for a great James Bond.

Round 3 of Gareth Edwards proving he’s a great visual director that doesn’t know how to breathe life in his scripts. Its best asset is easily the worldbuilding, combining influences from other science fiction material to create a new world that feels fresh. The technical execution is also really well done, with its cinematography and CGI being among some of the most visionary stuff I’ve seen since Avatar 2. Unfortunately, the sci-fi concepts this is working with are stale, it’s all stuff you’ve seen before and the movie doesn’t know how to put its own creative spin on it. Add to that a bunch of characters that aren’t written in the most compelling way (as well as bland, understated performances that will keep everyone questioning whether JDW is actually a good actor), and you have a movie that’s already pretty dull from the start. Now, a big saving grace of Rogue One and Godzilla were their strong climaxes, however that’s not the case here. Instead, The Creator starts to rush to the finish line, which leads to the big emotional beats not hitting the mark. It’s like the pacing of this movie is constantly either rushing or dragging, annoying my inner Terence Fletcher in the process. Overall, while I’d love to champion this as the savior of original science fiction, there’s not much more originality here than a typical franchise film. I don’t want to call Edwards another Zack Snyder, because I think he’s certainly more talented, but he’s suffering from the same problems and doesn’t seem to learn from his previous mistakes.

5/10

Despite the glowing advance reviews, "The Flash" is not the best superhero film of all time, the year, or even the month. But it is definitely a good movie overall. The humor is mostly spot on, the effects are impressive, and Ezra Miller is consistently convincing in the lead role. Michael Keaton still fits the Batman mantle pretty well, and Sasha Calle also delivers an excellent first impression as Supergirl. On top of that, of course, there are some neat cameos.

The pacing of the film isn't bad, either. It starts with a really entertaining sequence before the time travel plot picks up speed. The plot is comprehensible throughout and, above all, not as overly convoluted as in many other genre representatives. However, "The Flash" also has the usual problem of similar stories, that the fate of the characters never really gets to your heart, since it is not crucial for the "canon" anyway. But there is no such thing in the dying DCU anyway. In addition, there is not really a good villain, but then again, none was really needed here.

Overall, I would say that "The Flash" is neither a good conclusion to the old DCEU nor a good transition into the new DCU. You can still have a good time at the cinema, though, as the film works on its own and should appeal to fans of old DC works as well.

I thought this movie started off really strong. I found the whole concept and the setting of the world to be very interesting. But then the dragon character appeared and everything started spiralling downwards. Sisu (the dragon) was annoying, and ruined the entire tone of the movie as soon as she popped up on screen. I get that this is Disney and they like to have a lot of humour thrown in, but Sisu was just too much. For most of the movie, she was just comic relief. Then the movie continued going downhill by introducing a ninja baby who had been raised by monkeys. I was so disappointed to find that this promising movie with a great setting was taking this route of just filling the movie with ridiculous comic relief characters.

The movie also felt way too fast. The characters were jumping from location to location like it was nothing. It would have been nice to stop and breathe, and to spend some time exploring and learning about the different regions in this world. But instead, the characters just leapfrogged from one location to the next, barely brushing over the intricacies of what seemed to be interesting places and cultures. There was simply too much going on for a movie of this length.

It wasn't all bad though. As I said, it started well. And although I wouldn't say the ending was great, it was certainly decent - although I'm still confused as to why the dragons all came back at the end, when they didn't come back the last time the gem had been forged. Maybe I missed something? Anyway, the main issue was with the middle 70%, and it's not even that it was bad, it's that it was generic and extremely disappointing. I felt like there was so much potential for a great story to be told in this world, but instead we got a bunch of shallow, comic relief side characters rushing from one location to the next, not even giving us a chance to explore these seemingly interesting places.

I'm probably being too generous when I give this movie a 6/10.

Harris writes historical fiction. He puts a fictional story inside a historical event. I just mentioned that because I've read some comments saying they don't believe something like this happened. It's not based on anything that happened it's him toying with an idea.

I am a huge fan of Robert Harris and have read about all of his books. Many of his novels have been made into movies so I wasn't surprised "Munich" did, too. I can't say how it compares to the book because it is just about the only one I haven't read yet. So I look just at the movie.

Concerning the story - like I mentioned it didn't happen. But it could have, I guess. And that's what I like about Harris. He gives you something to think about. What if Chamberlain had had this info ? Would he still sign the agreement? Did he, like the story want's to make us believe, bought time ? And what if he didn't sign ? Would it ultimately changed anything ? No one can really answer that. It's all theoretical.

I think they got the look alright. You get something from the atmosphere of the time in both, England and Germany. Especially the German arrogance was displayed rather well. Jeremy Irons seem like the reincarnation of Chamberlain from all I know of the historical footage. On the other side Matthes wasn't a perfect look alike. Nevertheless his portrayal of Hitler was very uncomfortable to watch. And I mean that as a compliment. As a whole I did enjoy the movie very much. It's more along the lines of classic film making far removed from blockbuster cinema.

First thing I noticed was how inefficient the dialogue was. It beats around the bush in an attempt to be more natural and meandering, but it's just the usual contrived Tarrantino style of doing so. The content of the dialogue isn't even character based for the most part, but just whatever just sounds cool or plot told in a straight forward boring way with no emotional connection to whoever is talking. Worst of all is that it's all completely predictable from Tarrantino. It's the same dialogue style and voice every movie now and with almost every character. His whole dialogue writing is a big style of substance trick. Many praise his dialogue. It entertains people. That's fine. It's not great character based dialogue. It's hollywood cool. It's aggresive and trashy chic. It's why Pulp Fiction worked. It was a perfect fit for that movie. The characters were visually striking in that movie and had a job or purpose, which made them individual - even with simular dialogue. Pulp Fiction also had some plot and pace. A great farce. I'm no hater of Tarrantino and will always give his films a watch.
The way the movie is shot is good.
The story is slow and uninteresting itself. It does nothing for me. It's not that I hate ridiculous stories, but even ridiculous stories can cleverly tell us something interesting underneath the stupidity. That's what makes writing and movies special. The ability to tell a storymore connect with a character.
What story is this? It's a collage of trash, not a parody of styles. This movie is a complete mess and sad to watch. And what a bore, just waiting for something to happen and being left with the plot.
Luckily I found this movie in a pound shop as I looked for cheap DVDs. That was still too much for this.
Tgis is an adolescent wannabe movie buff movie. Self projection in that Tarrantino likes movies and I like him, therefore I like movie just as much as Tarrantino and get him.

Ngl I wanted a lot more from of this. It’s quite well executed technically, but the core of this is nothing more than basic, formulaic schmaltz. Within 15 minutes you know exactly how this thing will play out. In fact, you could give this script to a Hollywood studio and without any major tweaks they should be able to make a cheesy crowdpleaser out of it. Not that this movie is entirely free of cheeseball tropes regardless, just look at the obvious presentation choices made during the big reunion moment. Needless to say, this is not the Before trilogy, what’s on its mind thematically isn’t particularly deep or interesting. Maybe I’m just saying that because I’m not a spiritual person, but isn’t this the kind of stuff that’s better suited for animated Disney movies? This isn’t a mature art film, which would be fine if it didn’t have the facade of being that. It also makes some really odd calls in regards to what to focus on. It doesn’t bother to develop the relationship of the young Nora and Hae Sung, right when Nora meets her American husband we get another time jump; these aren’t very satisfying choices dramatically. Thankfully there’s a lot to appreciate technically (the lighting, the long takes, the precise editing and blocking, etc.), but overall I think this is being massively overrated.

5/10

Maybe I should stop watching movies all together.

There I was, about to invest three hours into a movie about a man I thought to be one of the most interesting characters in human history, and it left me totally underwhelmed. In fact, I quit at the 2:20 hour mark.

This is not "The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer's role in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." This was more about american communist paranoia, about political intrique then it was about a build up to an event that changed the world. And even that, the Trinity test, was a massive dissapointment to lock at. It didn't look like an atomic explosion but rather just a giant gasoline fire, which it probably was. No fascination or awe or even fear, on my part about the power of nature they just unleashed. Why not make a movie about the project, the challenges, the difficulties when all you can show us of Oppenheimer is - what really ? What did he actually do, what were his contibutions other then sitting in meatings and hearing others talk.

I would like to say the acting was great but I can't as there are hardly scenes where anyone has more then two lines of dialogue in a row. Or longer scenes at all for that matter. You try to put yourself in one scene and it switches to the next, and the next and so on. Add to that jumping throught timelines and you can be left utterly confused. Which will probably be the reason it get's tons of Oscar's.

For me it's a soulless, lifeless and, dare I say it, boring movie stuffed with a massive cast that seemed so wasted on this.

This is so bland and inessential, they might’ve as well put it directly on Disney Plus. Why are we investing 300 million dollars in an action/adventure flick starring an 80 year old grandpa? Look I have a lot of respect for Harrison Ford, but everything that’s wrong with this movie is connected to the larger issue of him and the franchise being way past their expiration date, so this never should’ve been greenlit in the first place. Nothing is offensively bad here, but it’s more a case of wrong decisions piling onto each other.

I understand Lucasfilm’s decision to hire a director who just delivered two crowdpleasers in a row, both of which were acclaimed by normies and snobs alike. Mangold understands what makes the world and character work, but he doesn’t get the soul. Right from the opening scene, the movie looks drab, underlit and generic. There’s almost no imagination to the set pieces, and some of the more impressive stuntwork is undone by poor effects work. Take the Tuctuc chase. Ford’s stunt double puts in the work for the wide shots, but when you cut to a close-up of characters in front of a green screen, you’re not exactly selling the sequence. It’s not going to stick on my brain, it’s too unremarkable. Again, what’s the point of making an Indiana Jones movie if there’s no viscera or imagination to the action?

Then there’s the story, which is also very by the numbers and low on risk. It feels like wheel spinning, which in theory could be fine (the Bond franchise got away with that for decades) but there’s nothing to hold my interest. Some of the new mechanics introduced during the third act I found to be underwhelming, and this is coming from someone who didn’t mind the inclusion of aliens in the last film. All of the new characters are boring and underdeveloped (especially the villain), despite the actors putting in decent performances. It’s quite funny how this suffers from the same problem as Furious 7, where villains will show up on the same location as our heroes despite there being no story reason for it. Occasionally there’s a brief fun interaction, or a fun set, or a good visual idea (like the final shot, for example), but that’s not enough to fill its bloated runtime.

4/10