Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
This is THE DEFINITIVE Superman movie. With truly spectacular cinematography, a heartwarming coming of age story, enthralling action and perhaps the best superhero movie soundtrack ever from Hans Zimmer, this movie hits every beat for Superman fans new and old.
As a DC comics fan growing up, the critical response to this movie prevented me going to watch it at the theatre. I mean who wants one of their favourite superheroes being "humourless", "too violent", and "not epic enough"??? Well, I can truly sit here now having said "lesson learned". Never again will I allow critical response to prevent me from experiencing something I had waited a lifetime for. I will never get to see Man of Steel in the theatre, and this movie was shot for the big screen. Some of the shots are truly beautiful, especially when he wakes up in the ocean with whales, and when he learns to fly in the snowy mountains.
The story is often criticised for not having the kookiness of the original four movies with Christopher Reeve - and don't misunderstand this for hating on the first few iterations, I have nothing but fond memories of growing up with those films - but I challenge anyone to watch those movies now and claim that they still hold up. A truly great movie as well as standing the test of time, has rewatch value, and Man of Steel is one of the few superhero movies that I have watched time and time again. This requires a great story.
The story of this movie focuses on a boys relationship with his fathers, and his coming of age through those guises. His cautious and protective Earth father who tought him the morality and goodness we expect from our Superman, who sacrificed himself in order to keep his sons secret; and his Kryptonian father who encouraged him to embrace his difference and be the man Earth needs him to be.
A bonus is that the relationship between Lois and Clark doesn't seem forced. You get to see how she is a great investigative reporter and through her reporting she discovers Superman's true identity. By protecting it, you can see Clark's appreciation and the weight of not being able to talk about it to anyone - something that bothers him throughout the great flashback scenes as wonderfully portrayed by Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline - being lifted.
The character development of the antagonist, General Zod is done in a way other superhero movies can only be envious of. The message that this character, like all other Kryptonians are born with a specific purpose, in this case to protect Krypton at all costs, comes across well. From his perspective he is the superhero of his own story, trying to save his planet and his people, and that is the truest of tests for supervillain development.
And this brings me to the epic and controversial (for some reason) third act. As mentioned earlier, Superman has a strong moral code instilled in him by Jonathan Kent, which is shown throughout the flashbacks. Any observer who doesn't see that Snyders portrayal of Superman has the most morality of any Superman in cinematic history is simply not paying attention. He doesn't spin the Earth backwards to rewind time just to save his girlfriend like in the original, and he doesnt go back to Smallville and hook up with Lana because the love of his life Lois is ignoring him a little bit like in Superman III. That Superman, despite all of his displayed morality (e.g. where he refrains from fighting the bullies) feels he must kill General Zod is one of the most powerful moments in superhero movie history. He repeatedly begs Zod to give up his quest to destroy Earth and humans now that his quest to return Krypton has failed. Zod makes it clear as day that he will NEVER give up, and that he will destroy humanity at all costs as an act of revenge. What was Clark supposed to do? He was left with no choice! Add to this the fact that Zod's laser beams were inches away from killing a whole family, Superman reluctantly had to break his neck. Yet unlike other superheroes he did not gloat in victory, the pain and anguish in that scream that follows is filled with the heartbreak of breaking both his moral code and killing one of the few other fellow Kryptonians in the universe.
Overall, this movie gets better every single time I watch it. If you haven't watched it since it came out and had mixed feelings the first time, please give this movie another try without the immediate negative reviews that were extensively covered in the media at the time of release. It truly deserves it. Man of Steel is THE DEFINITIVE Superman movie.
Blade Runner is one of the more gaping holes in the list of films I haven’t seen (or at least, don’t remember well enough to talk about). Yesterday’s viewing of The Martian got me thinking about Ridley Scott’s past work so here I am.
I really should have done this sooner.
L.A. 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a ‘Blade Runner’ - a policeman whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill replicants; machines almost indistinguishable from humans, yet banned from Earth. Four have been detected on the planet so he is called up to hunt and kill them.
Scott’s dystopian LA draws you in and holds you captive for 2 hours. This is a masterfully shot, timeless, beautiful piece of work. Every single frame is a work of art. The visual effects are not only highly effective, but incredibly creative and unique; never has anything like this been made before or since.
The plot is simple, one man chases another. However it’s driven almost entirely by its central themes; what is it to be human? Who deserves to live or die? Are we responsible for the things we create? What happens when our creations surpass us? All of these questions go unanswered, yet Scott somehow revels in the ambiguity.
Decker is a blank canvas of a character. The replicants he is chasing are complex, unique individuals. It’s no accident that Rutger Hauer plays the most human character in the film. His is the stand-out performance here, if only for the closing monologue.
Still fresh & still relevant, Blade Runner is indeed a modern masterpiece.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/10/31/bladerunner/
Talk about a movie giving you mixed feelings. Before seeing Halloween III, I knew one thing…neither Michael Myers or Jamie Lee Curtis was going to be in it…so the real question was…how was it even a Halloween movie? Doing a little research, I discovered the creator of Halloween thought it would be a wise choice to do the same thing as American Horror Story and switch up the stories. A new Halloween tale every year. Well, you know the problem with that right? It’s not even the fact that people love Michael Myers, it’s the fact that you had two movies with him back to back…and then this. I have extremely mixed feelings about Season of the Witch – so let’s get into it.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is not about Michael Myers, nor is it really about any witches…it’s really about androids. I’m talking full on cybernetic organisms. A doctor ties the death of a patient to a factory that produces popular Halloween masks. As they look to uncover that death, more deaths occur, and they are all seemingly linked to this factory and company Silver Shamrock – and the mystery of what this company is trying to do is unpredictable, believe me.
I think I have a handle on what went wrong here – and the fault lies exclusively with pre-production. First of all, you shouldn’t call this a Halloween movie, and if you do, you can’t say it’s Halloween 3, because people are expecting Michael Myers and Jamie Lee Curtis. All you’re doing there is making people mad when they see the movie. Second of all, you shouldn’t call this Season of the Witch either, because witches play no part in this film . There is magic, but it’s magic taken from a Stonehedge rock. The rest of the movie is strange, creepy, mysterious android humanoids. Which, by the way, aren’t bad. Not at all.
If you went to a friend’s house and they made you watch this movie but didn’t tell you what it was called, there’s a good chance you’ll love it. In fact, if they released this under a different name altogether, it might be its own classic horror film. As it is now, it’s ruined expectations and false advertisement. That’s where my mixed feelings come from, because as a movie on its own without any labels, this is a fine horror film that had me invested from the get go. The only actual complaints I have about it is the decision to have the lead play a doctor instead of the obvious – a cop. He looks and plays the part, a doctor doesn’t make a ton of sense, nor furthers the story. I would also say the film lacked certain motive towards the end, but that’s not a deal-breaker, either.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is incredibly creepy and disturbing – facts that nestle since the beginning and flourish as the film goes on. It’s creative gore was unique and never overdone. Just the sight of these android humanoids chills you to the bone, and the end game teased throughout the movie is brave and bold – altogether creating a horror flick that would be remembered for a long time if it weren’t for its poor, poor foundation and promotion practices. It’s not a movie that should be a part of the Michael Myers collection, nor should anyone say it’s a witch movie either. It’s simply a decent movie that has no real title in my books. Check it out and let me know what you think!
If i had rated this movie immediately after leaving the theater it would have elicited an 8, or 9 because it is a well crafted film. But after doing some research into Christie Marston's claims regarding the film I have to knock off several points.
Very little of it is true, from the dynamics of the relationship to the origins of the comic publication. Christie Marston maintains that Elizabeth and Olive were not lovers (Christie had a strong relationship with her grandmother, Elizabeth, who apparently was quite forward thinking about any sexual activity done by consenting adults, and quite open to talking about her views, and never gave any indication to her family that she and Olive were lovers). It was also Elizabeth who suggested that Marston write his comic with a female lead, rather than being skeptical about his being able to get it published.
The movie also makes Bill Marston out to be a besieged hero, keeping his family together in the face of society's disapproval, and maintaining the integrity of his comic creation in the face of moral guardians. At the end we are told that after his death, Wonder Woman lost it's sexual component, and the character lost her powers. Well yes that is true, but the adoption of the Comics Code Authority was 7 years after his death, and the "mod era," of Wonder Woman was 21 years after.
This film goes a little too far in the amount of creative liberties I'm willing to accept.
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
Cons:
6/10
Most of the fiction I've been exposed to involving Puritanism and witchcraft has revolved around the idea that the hysteria surrounding witchcraft in the New World birthed a greater evil than any actual witchcraft ever did. What Robert Eggers' debut film does so masterfully is blend the human frailties that come to the fore when witchcraft-related hysteria emerges with a palpable, thick and dread-filled evil that soaks into the entire film.
Much has been written of the lengths Eggers and his crew went to to ensure historical accuracy and they certainly do a magnificent job of creating an ambiance that never allowed me to relax while watching. The characters speak in quasi-Biblical tongues, their hair lank, their countenances sullen. It's a hard life they've chosen for themselves and it's made all the harder when Samuel, a baby, disappears.
The titular witch is used sparingly and two of her three appearances are images that will stay with me for a long, long time. Eggers does well to find a balance between not showing too much and showing enough to suggest a horror beyond what's shown directly: blood and fat, pale moonlight on gnarled skin, a weathered hand.
The cast are all extraordinarily committed and I admired just about every performance in the film. I was especially impressed by Harvey Scrimshaw - he perfectly plays a young man on the cusp of adolescence, questioning himself, his religion and the environment around him. The ensemble scene around him while he suffers from possession is the high point of the film and this is in no small part because of his staggering performance, veering from thrashing in the throes of a fit to religious ecstasy.
There was one point in the film where I was given a fright outright but what's so effective is the atmosphere of dread that's slowly and carefully increased throughout. I've been thinking about the film for days, and I'm sure I'll be thinking about it for a long time to come. Many commentators, on the site and others, were sorely disappointed that it didn't reflect the more prevalent trends in horror at the moment but I'm glad that this film has carried on a tradition of horror that seeps its way into your consciousness and stays.
Knives Out perhaps is not the best written movie out in this year, but surely it is one among the most entertaining.
Saying the film is predictable is not wrong, but it is missing the point. Just toward the first halves the film dropped plenty of clues toward pointing the suspect of the crime, but the point was not about "who did it", but "how and why it was done." Indeed, perhaps in the first half audience is intentionally misled to get the impression of typical murder mystery through Knives Out stylistic "who did it" fashion, but as the film goes it shows that there is more to it especially since what and who cause the murder is already revealed in the middle of the film.
If one pays attention to the details. audience have been invited to ask ourselves about the mystery of the process of the murder - on the continuously shaking legs and the barking dogs - and even the especially charming Daniel Craig asked us, almost invitingly, who really hired him and why? The twist and turn is not about the result; but the process.
And doing that, Rian Johnson is still able to slip a neat "moral of the story", with a rather bittersweet moment when the truth is finally revealed. "You're a good person who follows your heart" might be one of the most repeatedly cliche, but taking a backdrop of distrust and money in a family drama, Johnson's words spoken through Craig's character with his characteristic accent made the delivery much more impactful. The slick cinematography and excellent music directing in the whole movie supports this perfectly paced murder mystery.
There is a notable questionable holes that may push you from your suspension of disbelief, but still: a delightful Christmas story to end the year; Knives Out is one film I'd recommend to get you absorbed to its intricate details.
What a treat! No One Will Save You is a dialogue devoid, tension soaked thriller with an understated backstory and a great presentation. Employing my favourite style of storytelling by showing rather than overtly telling, this deeper-meaning alien thriller is decidedly something special comparative to the other streaming movies that get dumped onto their respective services each week. Surprised this one didn't get a run out at the cinema, I think it would have benefitted from the theatre experience. That's to say you should give this one the setting it deserves. Turn off the lights, crank up your sound device of choice and let this one thump and thrill you for 90 minutes. If you're willing to give it your full attention, I think you'll be greatly rewarded.
Much like all of these post/elevated-horrors, many of the elements are metaphor-laden and hold deeper meaning past the usual surface layer. The aliens in this scenario embody the feeling of anxiety, dread and guilt that is currently holding Brynn hostage in her own home. Unlike everyone else in the rest of the world, who let this anxiety and dread wash and takeover them, Brynn has decided after years of solitude and self-hate that's she's going to stand up and fight back. My read on the ending is that Brynn, who we now know killed her best friend in an accidental retaliation during a childhood fight, has now processed that guilt and stopped it from "consuming" her. We see that everyone else has allowed the alien parasite into them and are now living life with the motions, while Brynn actively fights off the possession and kills many of the aliens trying to force it upon her. Now she has faced the guilt head on, she can live her life free and unburdened, as we see her going about her daily tasks and being accepted by the possessed town that once shunned her.
It's amazing to read other reviews where people are completely slamming this movie for "not making sense". I think this movie is a good litmus test for people who actually pay attention and those that have made doomscrolling on socials part of their movie watching experience. Without things being overtly spoken through dialogue, many are missing this movies well conveyed story, and it's pretty depressing. Hope the industry keeps giving movies like this the time of day, they're the kind of movies that really remind me why I love this medium and the places it can take you.
[8.2/10] It’s easy to become desensitized to violence on the screen. Superheroes can pummel hordes of faceless bad guys, or each other. Jedi can leap into lightsaber fights from hear to the edge of the galaxy. And slapstick comedy can turn events that would cause untold pain in real life into cartoony hilarity.
But we don’t tend to think about when people become desensitized to violence not because of the images they’ve seen or the context in which they’re presented, but rather because it’s an everyday part of their lives, something they don’t enjoy or relish, but no more question or find out of the ordinary than they would bad weather.
I, Tonya, then, is a film about what it is to expect abuse in your life, both physical and emotional, to the point that you no longer question it, or even fully recognize it. It depicts Tonya Harding as someone who has heard so many times that she doesn’t measure up, that she isn’t good enough, that she’ll never amount to anything (often with physical reminders to accentuate these put downs) that she accepts any abuse in exchange for even the prospect that someone will appreciate her, will respect her, will love her.
The most devastating line in film comes in one of the montages about the early tumult in the marriage between Tonya and her husband Jeff, where she rationalizes his domestic violence away by reasoning, “My mom loves me, and she hits me.” It’s a sad, but understandable equivalence from someone who’s known nothing else, going from one abusive family relationship to another.
The grand achievement of the film is the way that it manages to approach these dark events in a manner that’s both incisive and funny. It doesn’t skimp on the ridiculousness of the world of professional figure skating, or on the shaggier side of this collection of nudniks each trying to conquer the world in their own way, but it doesn’t shy away from or compartmentalize the darker underbelly of all that lunacy either.
Part of what makes it stomachable is that we get most of the film in the form of cobbled-together recollections from Tonya and the other players, with plenty of fourth wall-breaking commentary and voice over to add a layer of cutting or knowing commentary onto these events. That device allows the film to be at a remove when it needs to, giving the audience a chance to reflect on what’s happening rather than forced to be a part of it.
But when we do feel it, it’s through Tonya’s eyes, and for Tonya, violence, disappointment, and shaming are a matter of fact thing. That’s the soft tragedy that winds its way through the film. Horrid incident after horrid incident befalls Tonya, but she seems to take it in stride, because it’s all she’s ever known, until those moments accumulate and accumulate until they’ve taken away the thing she cares most about, the thing that gave her a chance to escape that life.
That shame is personified by Tonya’s mother, LaVona, a profane battleaxe who browbeats her preternaturally talented daughter deeper and deeper into the sport. It’s a powerhouse performance from the inimitable Allison Janney, and character aided both by Janney’s stellar acting and some choice moments in the script.
It would be easy to make LaVona a pure monster, with how she degrades her daughter at every turn and resorts to physical violence and cruel stunts when she doesn’t get her way. But in scenes where she tells Tonya that she sacrificed their relationship to make Tonya great, she becomes comprehensible, though not laudable, as all great villains should be. And there’s that twinkle in Janney’s eye, that sincerity she can muster, that gives the audience just enough to wonder if LaVona means it when she tells her daughter that she’s on her side, even when she’s surreptitiously recording her in search of a scoop.
That moment is a the whole film in microcosm, a story of people seeming to welcome Tonya, to give her the attention and affection she hopes for, only to tear it away from her. The film’s nod to this is a tad overwritten, but those are also the terms in which it interrogates celebrity. Beyond LaVona, beyond Jeff, Tonya wants to be embraced by the world, and for one shining moment, her talent makes her the darling she always wanted to be.
But then, the scandal hits. An incident she may or may not have been involved with comes to consume her career and reputation, and after coming so close, after having her all-too-brief moment in the sun, she becomes a laughing stock and a punching bag, in a country of late night comedians and tabloid headline writers who help set the stage for people to either groan or titter when hearing her name. The world acts as her mother and husband did, however unwittingly, with her desperate for approval and appreciation, and chasing it until she’s smacked down into her place once more.
That sense of Tonya having overstepped her bounds is also a palpable theme in the film. There’s a steady sense of how a combination of classism and sexism hindered her at every turn. Skating is (or at least was) a sport where women were expected to act a certain way, where competitors were expected to uphold a certain spirit of grace and genteelity. Tonya met none of those criteria. She was more athletic than graceful, a woman of poverty rather than refinement, and the way the staid gatekeepers refused to let her in for this is one more misfortune visited upon her.
This all makes I, Tonya sound far more grim that it is. There is a Coen Bros. quality to the film, where a bunch of small time, bumbling crooks try to pull off a caper and fall on their faces, while laughing at the absurdity and darkness bundled up with that. The script is smart and funny, with plenty of razor sharp lines and wry observations that work on multiple levels. And the shots and sequences of Tonya’s performances on the ice capture the sense of power and achievement, using the camera as her dance partner and greatest champion, showing a talent that cannot be denied to witness, even if it can be denied on score cards.
And after all of that denial, all of that rejection, all of those painful stumbles, the final scene highlights her brief but headline-grabbing boxing career. After all, that sort of physical violence is all she knows, the irony being that she doesn’t even understand the outpouring of support when Nancy Kerrigan is “hit once.” After her lifetime of violence, Tonya is too desensitized to it to comprehend what the big deal is, or where the similar sympathy is for her when all manner of authority: from her mother, to the powers that be of the skating establishment, to the police, don’t seem to care.
There’s a recurring leitmotif in I, Tonya where Tonya constantly denies that anything is her fault. There’s the implication that she’ll devolve into self-sabotage or give less-than-her-best effort and yet pass the buck for any misstep onto a conspiracy or a bias or something else that she’s not responsible for.
And yet, the only thing she publicly accepts guilt for is the one thing for which she’s truly blameless -- the people in her life. When Tonya makes her public apology, she says she had no prior knowledge of the attack, but apologize for surrounding herself with people who did and would. It’s those people -- her mother who derided her and primed her for another abuser like her husband -- who helped shape Tonya into the person so susceptible to pursuing any manner of affection and attention, while not fully comprehending the gravity of the risk and pain to be inflicted on her in the process of seeking it out.
I, Tonya is not your standard biopic. It is dark but funny, sympathetic but not hagiographic, and narrow but fulsome. It presents the story of a young woman so inured to abuse, so used to its awful presence, that she hardly recognizes it anymore, until it keeps from the things she wants most.
Pros
+Looks Beautiful and Ugly at the same time (Ugly as in portraying the ugly circumstances of the war)
+The way it is shot is incredibly fluid, it's very much a long shot movie but there are maybe 5 actual like hard cuts in this and the hidden transitions are seamless. It really feels like you're walking alongside these messengers while still also giving the viewer an impression for how much time is passing in the story.
+Characters were all believable and likeable. There's some funny banter, there's some emotional release, a bit of fear, some kindness, and it's well acted so it gives the viewer a good impression of who these men are and it makes you want to care.
+Music and general sound design was nearly perfect
+ The story in general is solid. There are some things that I feel won't please everyone (which I'll mention) but I think overall it's a good story. The beauty is kind of in the simplicity. It's all about getting from point A to point B, but having it be that simple it makes room for the viewer to appreciate everything that happens in the journey.
+ You've probably guessed it from the things I've already said but the overall atmosphere is great without feeling like it's up it's own ass
+Very purposeful film. Lots of efficient scenes which seem disconnected at first but end up communicating an aspect of why the messengers are doing what they are and reflect the importance of this mission and/or increase the urgency of what is happening.
Neutral
*The movie is partially about will power and the main character's name is Will lmao
Cons
-I think Tommy's death happened too soon I understand not wanting to waste too much time but I feel like just a few more scenes would have done a lot for that part of the movie. (FYI this is not a big criticism I kinda knew it was going to happen since the trailer had so many scenes where Will was alone but it didn't quite mean as much as I would have liked)
-Predictable. This isn't honestly a criticism for people like me who don't really need any twists but I feel like some people would be bored with how straight forward and unapologetically predictable it is.
- in the German trench it says on one of the rafters "I <3 Elsa" a clear anachronism since Disney's Frozen (tm) had not come out in time for WWI soldiers to be fanboying Elsa smh btw I'm joking lol but I did see that in the trench
Definitely worth a watch
The problem with coming to a popular film like this later on is that hype gets in the way. With no awareness of the brand or comic, yet having been told numerous times how great this is, it is difficult to approach this in the right manner to review. There is no doubt that it is a lot of fun and a large part of this is down to Pratt who nails the lead, Quinn. Its bright and colourful (a welcome change to the lived in feel of many other sci-fantasy films) and confident in it's execution. Yet equally it is part of a Marvel formula that started to wear thin after the first Avengers movie - for all the talk of how different this film was to the usual Marvel film, it's only real surprise is just how tied to the Marvel template the film is - everyone trying to get hold of a MacGuffin of unspeakable power, culminating in a large scale battle and fight scenes that unfortunately lead to very little of consequence, with all our heroes surviving to fight another day and a tease as to where this is all leading to. Admittedly, the fun here is in the different characters they have created. But If Marvel are serious about creating a cinematic universe where all these stories are interconnected then at some point they are going to have to take a risk in the storytelling - this isn't it!
I watched Annihilation on Saturday after being pretty excited to watch the movie for the past couple weeks as it was coming from Alex Garland, the director of the fabulous Ex Machina. I'm not going to lie though, I was a little bit disappointed in the end. Not because the movie was not good by any means. It was actually a very well done film with stunning visuals and art direction. It's just that I felt like it had the potential to be a "great" movie, and just fell a bit short in the last quarter/third of the movie or so.
I think that opinions on the ending sequence has varied quite a bit. Some people love it and have raved about it. I, on the other hand, felt that it was a just a tiny bit lacking and while visually stunning, not super original or "groundbreaking". I can't quite put my finger on why I didn't connect as well with the final quarter of the movie though (if that makes sense) without spoiling some major parts of the film.
While the movie is based on a trilogy of books (I've heard that it diverges quite far from the books though), the film borrows heavily from Tarkovsky's Stalker (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). The influence is noticeable throughout, not just from both movies having a Shimmer/Zone. If you're a fan of Stalker (1979), I'd definitely recommend checking Annihilation out.
As I mentioned before, the visuals were stunning, and I thought that the set pieces and scenarios that evolved over the first 2/3 of the film were very well done. I liked the balance of the film being a thriller (both physically and psychologically), while adding lots of thinking points and contemplative questions of "who we really are", "what is actual destruction", just to name a few. The cast was well done for the most part, albeit I wish that the characters other than Natalie Portman's protagonist could have been developed a bit more.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a grand visual experience. I was just disappointed a bit perhaps because I was expecting a bit too much coming in, and from what the first 2/3's of the movie set up. Also of note, the trailer definitely markets this film as something like a female Rambo/Predator action flick, which it really isn't. In the end, I think that I would give the movie a solid 7.5/10.
Saint Maud joins the ranks of Hereditary, Midsommar, The Witch & The Lodge; a movie that is primarily a chilling drama with shades of horror throughout, a formula which has shown to be exponentially more frightening than the cheap thrills of yesteryear. Rather than easy scares and loud noises, Saint Maud focuses on the realism of it's protagonists struggles to paint a more horrific reality than any prosthetics or high decibels could create. If you are a fan of the new wave of horror, Saint Maud is unmissable. Rose Glass has easily secured herself amongst the ranks of Ari Aster and Robert Eggers in the horrorsphere with this beyond impressive debut. I look forward to whatever she works on next.
Musings and details I enjoyed [SPOILERS BELOW]:
The lighter is foreshadowed throughout the movie, from Maud idly playing with it along the sea front, to the party guest helping light the candles at Amanda's party. Every side character in this movie also smokes, something I'm struggling to land the exact symbolism of outside of the mentioned foreshadowing of the lighter.
Maud/Katie's descent into madness is shown via spirals/whirlwinds/tornados throughout the movie. Water is shown swirling down the plughole multiple times, a tornado appears in Katie's beer at the bar and obviously the opening in the sky during that scene.
Maud/Katie's past life and current life are kept very distinctly apart until the final scene when her ex-colleague comes to check if she's OK. We then see, as Maud/Katie looks out the window that her eyes are now different colours. Does this portray that her Katie and Maud personas are now one and she's fully succumbed to her religious delusions?
The movie flips the usual trope of women being objects of desire and sex by having all male characters be literal sex objects. Katie gives the guy at the pub a handjob, she sleeps with the guy who's beer she knocks over, and Amanda only has her male friend over at the start of the movie to drink and sleep with. Cool subversion of older tropes which isn't pointed to or overly highlighted.
The movie solidifies that all of this is a delusion in Katie's head with it's harrowing finale, but other details shown throughout also confirm that this is nothing more than a coping mechanism. For example, when God speaks to Maud, it's in a foreign tongue that I initially mistook for Latin, but it is actually Welsh. The actress who plays Maud is Welsh so it's not much of a stretch to assume that Maud herself is Welsh, confirming that God didn't actually speak to her, she was simply speaking to herself.
The movie asks a lot of questions about the validity of religion, as well as the support structures available to those who live through traumatic life events. It's terrifying to think that people out there could suffer with PTSD and have no one to turn to. Maud (like many others in real life) fell into religion as a coping mechanism for her pain. This movie is horrifying in the sense that I could see this really happening to someone. Being unable to deal with a life changing event, and instead projecting a higher purpose on yourself to try and run from the problem, ultimately leading to the destruction of others and yourself.
I enjoyed the parallels between Maud and Amanda's characters. Amanda has been told her life is abruptly coming to an end, while Maud is struggling to find any reason for her life to go on. Amanda is leading a life of frivolity and recklessness in a final blaze of glory, while Maud is attempting to lead a life of conservatism and modesty. Great dynamic to have, especially seeing as where the story takes these two characters.
Man, this movie has so much to unpack considering it's fairly brief 84 minute runtime :laughing:
This great piece of Sci-fi movies shows us a society engulfed in the power of genetics, Everything you do must have an absolute perfection to it. This movie show that the way society achieves this bij geneticaly enhancing its members, Children born without genetic enhancements are excluded from the higher achieving ashalons of society, one of these children "Vincent Freeman",played by (ethan Hawke), however takes it to another level when he decides by taking the identity of Jerome Morow (Jude Law), a genetic altered human who rents out his identity because he has fallen from grace by a personal tragidy (accident), he suffered. Vincent is hell bent on trying to cheat the system and show its flaws. By becoming a pilot for the saturnus mission. Cheating the system however isn't as easy as it seems, The film explores humanity and its many inperfections and in Essence what it means to be human.
The movie was nominated for an Hugo award, personaly i think its realy oscar material. The great acting of (law, Hawke, Uma Thurman). makes for some enjoyable viewing, with of course some smaller roles for "old school" actors like (Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal,
Although The Movie did receive positive reviews it wasnt a box office succes, it also sparked some discussion of genetics and discrimination in the common day world. The film however manages to achieve cult status amongs sci-fi viewers. and is an absolute must see for Sci-fi Fans
If you love Deadpool 1, you WILL be disappointed! But otherwise . Good movie on its own
Unless you are a fanboy(i mean this without being rude). its ok if you personally love it. But yes it is not as funny as Deadpool 1, full stop.
Deadpool 1 had a simple plot a simple storyline, simple budget. And so they killed it in writing, the jokes 4th wall breaks were off the chart. It was character driven story.
Deadpool 2 is a plot driven story. and the plot is just weak. The plot center is this kid Russell who is not well written and turns out to be annoying and not worth it honestly. But to each his own I guess.
Deadpool himself kills it and tries to carry it throughout. If you can love the movie solely on that. You will enjoy it.
Lot of jokes may not pander to international audience easily. I had hard time understanding few lines. But I can imagine they are funny. Will see it again with references
Cable was good, but underused in my opinion. I was expecting him to blow Deadpool's mind and imagining them to be each other's throat throughout the film.
That does not happen. The plot shifts. Cable joins deadpool. actually saves him in the end. while the villain is juggernaut. xmen 3 last stand memories anyone??
I saw DP1 again recently before seeing DP2 and I was laughing out loud at most stuff and the movie kept me hooked. DP2 does not do that. There are scenes in which I was waiting for things to move along.
It also suffers from the "trailer" effect. You know where you have seen most jokes and cool stuff in the trailer itself. And then in the movie you expect more but end up with nothing.
One awesome joke I found in trailer was Deadpool saying to Domino that YESS XFORCE IS DERIVATIVE!! . They cut it for some reason. He simply ignores her and says NO ONE ASKED FOR UR OPININON PETER. I mean why??
Some humor felt forced dare i say. I mean too much MCU and DC remarks.
but some humor really kicked ass.
In short I may not want to see it again on theaters. Deadpool 1 I could have seen it over and over agian.
Many people may disagree. I write this objectively.
Good Luck.
UPDATE:
went for it the second time. (because i had time to kill and i was nearby).
i do not want to redact anything. i stick by my comments and score. "you can enjoy this. but not as good as dp1"
there are lot of referential humour instead of contextual ones so some jokes will be hard to understand as i said before.
I was really looking forward to this movie, even though I am not the greatest Thor fan. However, the trailer looked interesting, I love the 80s style with the colours, it promised to be a wild movie with a great antagonist - I mean seriously - what could go wrong with Cate Blanchett, and even better in a dark gothic look?
Well, I was absolutely disappointed. Seriously, what where they thinking when shooting/editing this movie? There is no plot, the story is totally random and has no meaning at all anymore. It's just like a bad 90s sitcom that is progressing from one joke to the next, and this time it didn't stop at anything - stupidity, slapstick, vulgarity, we have it all, and without any style or niveau. I mean seriously "Oh, I'm drunk, I will just fall down" (as an entrance of a new and important character), "oh, I just saw hulks penis", "now we'll have to fly into the anus", etc. What's the target audience of this movie, childish boys in their puberty? I think even for them this is rather embarrassing than funny....
Epic, dramatic fighting scenes, e.g. when Hela defeats Asgard are equaly destroyed by stupid jokes as are emotinal scenes. Someone died? Just make a joke. Haha, and let's go on. Due to this, this movie wasn't exciting to me at all, it wasn't emotional, it was just dull. This movie is so jokes-packed, that even after the first three minutes (and did they really just do the stupid rope-joke in the introduction three times?! It was hardly funny the first time, it was annoying the second time, and the third I was angered, because obviously the director must think I am stupid), I had enough. And that is somewhat sad, because in the mass of stupid jokes there are some moments that actually where pretty great and that would have functioned superb in isolation. Take Jeff Goldblums character that is refreshingly eccentric and funny. Or Korg - great humoristic character. But having a more than 2 hour sitcom, this doesn't work anymore, even if it's good.
I do believe the story had potential, I mean they had a great soundtrack, stunning visuals, perfect CGI, absolutely gorgeous colours and scenes, a really great cast, I already mentioned the great Jeff Goldblum, who I found ingenious. Cate Blanchett is always a win, and she could have brought so much to this movie. And Tessa Thompson also stuck out to me - great charisma, interesting character. But none of them gets enough chance to really portrait their character, none of them gets any dept. Especially Cate Blanchetts talent is totally wasted - she could have been absolutly evil, strong, powerful - the perfect villain. But she isn't - the antagonist is (as with so many comic movies these days) a joke and a total disaster. There is hardly any substance, much to short screen time for character develpment, for backgrounds, for some seriousness. Nothing.
Seriously, I wouldn't have been surprised if there was laughter from the off.....
4/10
Most of us have come to expect alot from the Marvel Universe. After all, with great power does come great responsibility. However the latest installation of Thor leaves something to be desired.
beginning right away, the musical score attempts to mimic an 80s style scifi feeling. It actually makes many of the important scenes in the film lose their actual significance.
Worse than the music though, is the lackluster script. If you took Scooby and Shaggy in a room they most likely could have created a better dialogue than what is seen in Thor. The actors themselves even seem to have trouble delivering the lines and a sense of boredom is felt through the screen. there are many reasons for this, one of the main being that most films today are filmed almost exclusively in chroma key rooms. It can be very challenging at times, even for the best actors, to adapt to this style and successfully bring a fully realistic sense of feeling to the screen.
All in all, while the graphics are somewhat decent (aside from a few glitchy distance shots and such that can be found in any film regardless of age) the film is a gross failure of the Marvel Universe. Even the star studded cast couldn't save this film from it's multitude of flaws. It makes Thor, god of Thunder, seem like Thor, dworf of the puddle.
Ray Kroc was probably one of the most unlikable characters there were who was leeching of other peoples ideas and screwing them up all over the place. That can be said about many successful businessmen. The only argument one could make that without him McDonalds might never have become what it is. Personally I found him despicable.
So, why watch the movie ? Well it sets the record straight about what happened and how he got to it, because I´m sure many of us probably didn´t know the story. It´s not totally accurate but from my understanding the general outline is about right. The movie is driven by Keaton who makes Kroc the unlikable guy he was in the story. Unfortunately, due to the facts there isn´t a happy end. But that is how it was. The production of the movie is really good, it looks and feels the part and the lenght of the movie is OK.
It isn´t a 100m $ blockbuster movie and you won´t watch it repeatedly because once you know the story there is no point. But it´s a good piece of filmmaking and if you are interested to know how McDonalds came to be you might give it a shot.
This critically acclaimed mystery drama’s heart and soul undeniably comes from its eponymous protagonist: Charles Foster Kane. As we watch this renowned individual, through superbly innovative filmmaking, be literally plucked and tossed from his euphoric childhood into the depraved world of newspaper journalism, we come to understand and empathize with his persistent attempts to protect the forgotten man as well as his eventual transformation into a symbol of the very corporate power, greed, and arrogance that he initially fought to vanquish. But although Kane’s immoral actions slowly began to grow and rob the best of him, what remained through every secret affair and yellow headline of his was his “Rosebud”, so to speak. What others saw as an autocratic magnate who objectified the populace and libeled his way to royalty was truly no more than someone robbed of a free, youthful innocence and warped into an inexperienced money-making Rupert Murdoch; this was the reality Kane became aware of and wholly embraced upon his the muttering of his final words, “Rosebud”, the name of the favored sleigh from his childhood. Screenwriters Welles & Mankiewicz toss conventional narrative aside in favor of an endlessly complex introspection of a morally pure soul struggling to sustain against the descending darkness of shady corporate interests. Their purpose is not to entertain the masses, but rather have them contemplate their own flawed existences, remember their invaluable capacity for good, and encourage them to spread that goodness in any conceivable way, so as to promote a philanthropic society instead of one ruled by power-hungry mercenaries.
A struggling writer (William Holden) on the run from creditors turns into the driveway of faded silent movie star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). She hires him to live with her and write her next screenplay but her disconnect with reality quickly becomes apparent.
The popularity of silent films is often forgotten with time, but it’s key to remember that at the turn of the 20th century the stars of cinema were the most famous people walking the earth. They accrued power & wealth to an extent that is unmatched today in the entertainment business, despite the celebrity-focused culture we live in.
It’s equally important then to think of the impact audio had on the industry. We may see it as something that changed the medium but it was more than that; it split the art form cleanly in two. It’s like comparing a book to a painting - they both might involve forms on a page, but otherwise they are worlds apart.
The result of course was a subset of society that remained richer than almost anyone else yet in the public eye had fallen completely off the face of the earth. The extremes of fame and obscurity provide fascinating material for Wilder to dig into, and make a commentary about the industry that remains relevant to this day.
Gloria Swanson’s story in real life matches that of her character. She was a huge silent film star, whose career almost ended with the advent of dialogue. It is not easy to say how much her situation influenced her performance, but there’s no doubt that in Sunset Boulevard she creates one of the most memorable characters ever put to film.
Wilder constantly cuts to shots of the door handles in her house - all missing on advice from her doctor to ease her psychological woes. This makes the house a slightly surreal place to be - it’s grand and it’s lavish but it’s just a little off.
Swanson manages to mirror this in Norma Desmond. She still has her charm and beauty but she yearns to be young and relevant to the point of madness.
She’s a force to be reckoned with in this film, but she also gives off a subtle understanding of the reality of her situation. It’s an extra dimension to the character that makes her more interesting, and ultimately more harrowing because she appears to have made a concious decision to choose this lifestyle.
Holden fades a little but serves as a shoe-in the door for the audience. It can’t be easy to come up against someone like Swanson, who is clearly the centre of attention. He does succeed in making a good down-on-his-luck noir character and gives us a well grounded point of view.
One other stand-out performance is Erich von Stroheim who plays Max, Norma’s ageing butler. He’s stern, mysterious and fiercely defensive of the film star. There’s an odd relationship at play there and sure enough as the film goes on we find out that he was an old director on a few of her films. Not only that, but he was her first husband, and has been writing fake fan mail for her to read every day.
Again this is an auto-biographical character - von Stroheim was once a great director in the days of silent cinema.
The house serves almost as a character in itself. Holden’s character likens it to Mrs. Haversham, grand, old, classy, but stuck in the past and in need of care. Wilder cleverly points to this in subtle ways. We see damp in the background, cracked walls, torn curtains; anything that is not in use looks worn out. It’s yet another reflection of Norma Desmond’s state of mind.
Sunset Boulevard is a masterpiece of satire with an unforgettable central performance, held together by a director absolutely at the top of his game.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/07/31/sunsetboulevard/
When the past meets the future, conflict follows. When the grandiose meets the mundane, absurdity follows. And when isolation meets exposure, tragedy follows. The Last Emperor anchors itself on the convergence of these disparate forces, and looks at the ways, both striking and subtle, that the fallout impacts the protagonist and the world around him.
Those inflection points are the most interesting narrative elements of the film. The most captivating portion of The Last Emperor is it's first third or so, centering on the young Pu Yi's time in the forbidden city when he was being educated but also cowed. There's a great deal of irony and absurdity in those moments, but also pathos. The film's most memorable scene involves the three-year old king at a very solemn and important ceremony of coronation, wandering around and acting silly in the way that any young child would. The difference is that, as emperor, Pu Yi cannot simply be shushed or corrected. He is to be venerated in his every step by the grown men and women who look after him.
What kind of a person would emerge from that sort of rearing? That seems to be the question the film is most interested in, and the answer is sad and surprising. There is a pure humanity in that joyful kid who wants to run around the forbidden city, but also just wants to go home. There is an understandable ignorance as to how the world works, one that his tutor, Mr. Johnston, aims to account for. But that early part is an interesting character study in what being enabled at every turn does to even the most kind-hearted children.
At the same time, the films takes pains to explore the idea in which Pu Yi lives in a gilded cage, and highlights the irony that the boy who is, at least nominally, the most powerful man in all of China, is actually powerless to decide the course of his own life. He isn't allowed to leave. He plays a game where he feels his servants through a sheet that symbolizes his separation and yearning for real human contact. He is, as Mr. Johnston puts it, the loneliest boy in the world. Here is a young man who seems to have everything he could possibly wish for -- his every whim attended to, his every need met. And yet he is bound by tradition, kept in the dark by those who wish to protect him or live off his largesse, or simply stymied when he tries to stray from what is expected of him. The film devotes much of it runtime to establishing this gorgeous playground for Pu Yi, and then emphasizes how it's as much a prison, albeit a comfortable one, as the one he finds himself in by 1950.
But the film embraces a bit more complexity than that as well. While it invites you to pity Pu Yi despite his luxurious surroundings for how isolated he is, the crux of the film centers on how insulated he is. While Pu Yi resented the things that were kept from him, the way he was not able to leave to go to the West or experience more of the world beyond the gates of the Forbidden City, he realizes how much he has been shielded from. He sees the tragic events that have happened an in and around China during his lifetime, of the world that existed beyond those doors, and he blames himself for it. The thing that truly changes Pu Yi, that changes him from the son of Heaven to a humble gardener, is his realization that so many suffered under his watch, that rather than being a puppet or a mascot, he could have done something to prevent all this, or even help, and that he did not. The trajectory of The Last Emperor is one of a great leveling, and the epic scope of the film draws out the journey from god-king to peasant in an engaging fashion.
Unfortunately, much of the middle of Pu Yi's journey, the points between when he is a coddled and caged young boy and when he is a broken and wistful old man, tend to sag. The beginning of the film takes time to explore Pu Yi's development, slowly and measuredly, and the while the end moves much quicker, it dives into the man's changes of heart and realizations. But the big middle of the film gives in to a rush of check-the-box history lessons, full of exposition-filled events and stodgy character introduction that cause the movie's momentum to stall out and which make it feels as though it's trying to pack too much detail and too many steps into an already long tale. Pu Yi's adulthood, particularly his first tastes of modernity in Japanese-controlled Manchuria, are important to the story, but often feel rudderless and empty as compared with the beginning and ending of the film.
Thankfully, even when the narrative of the film is running on fumes, the visual splendor of it can still enthral. Director Bernardo Bertolucci takes full advantage of this film being one of the first Western productions allowed to film in the forbidden city. He and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro absolutely fill the movie with wide shots that encapsulate the scope and beauty of Pu Yi's ornate but suffocating residence. They contrast the grim bleakness of the Red prison with the lush, endlessly colorful people and settings of China during Pu Yi's reign. Everything from the gloriously intricate costumes, to the vast array of monks, servants, and functionaries creating a sea of color, to shots like Pu Yi under the sheets with his wives that convey sensuality in a tasteful manner and echo his prior hope for human contact while a fire rages outside, the aesthetic qualities of this film are unimpeachable.
In the same vein, the film's score serves it well. Ryuichi Sakamoto, Cong Su, and The Talking Heads' David Byrne find the right blend of diegetic traditional Chinese music and a more traditional orchestral store that nevertheless takes into account the film's setting and heightens the emotional resonance and atmosphere of the film.
There are several repeated motifs in the film: Pu Yi seeing his wet nurse and later his wife taken away and demanding that the door separating he and them be opened; the young Pu Yi wandering through the crowd of colorfully dressed individuals bowing at his coronation and the old Pu Yi wandering through a crowd of colorfully dressed Maoists; and of course, the end-of-film reappearance of the cricket he received at the beginning of the film. All of this conveys the idea of a cycle, that changes are made, that those in power are ignorant and oblivious, and that good people are hurt or squelched in the process. The Last Emperor shows Pu Yi breaking out of this cycle, with slow but incredibly growing pains, and finding solace in a humble life. The scattershot historical completionism of the middle portion of the film, in addition to a few odd diversions, keeps it from being truly great, but the story at the center of it, of one man's steady breaking and awakening, framed with visual virtuosity, still makes The Last Emperor compelling.
I liked it, but I felt like I missed too much in the translation of the subtitles. I will probably have to watch it in English and then revise my 7/10 rating accordingly. There were parts that did not make sense, like it jumped around, and the blue X's didn't make sense until they were explained way too late. I will revise my rating once I see it again, if applicable.
edit 2018-02-06: Watched this at the cinema, and I indeed bumped my rating up. I initially raised it to an 8/10 as I understood the events in the first quarter of the film, but as the nuances of the various friendships and how the social structure worked in 6th grade and how it shifted in 11th grade, as well as seeing more of the sisters' relationship, it's a solid 9/10. It's not as great as solid 10/10's I've heard it compared to, but it has amazing standout moments, like when she says I'm trying the best I can and he can't understand her, but we in the audience could understand her perfectly. Or pretty much anything she says, for that matter. I think what keeps this from reaching 10/10 quality is that perhaps it should have been a series. I felt like we needed more time with these characters, and more time for their relationships to develop organically on screen. What we have feels rushed. But still, for all that, it's a great movie.
I think you can only appreciate this film if you know what to expect. It's not a block buster, it's definitely not dialogue heavy (far from it!) and I have to say it's not a movie you should expect to like. I think this is a great piece of acting, direction and story line given the setting - a stranded sailor in a boat doesn't give you many possibilities for a story arc but what it does, it does extremely well.
I don't think you can allegorise this film too much either, it is just a view into one period of someone’s life. I also think if you look at the beginning and the end you may not take from it what you expect. Just my view but I think you could view it as he didn't actually survive, the opening dialogue suggests this and the end could be taken as a dream. Or is it just the contents of his message in a bottle at the start?
Overall though I admire the film and will watch it again. Do I like it? I'm on the fence with that one, it has many laudable qualities but do I like it? I'm not so sure.
This movie was a suprise to me, because I haven't heard of it before. Even when you spent 2 or 3 evenings a week at the cinema, there are trailers and movies that you do not find any advertisement for. So when this movie started I did not know what to expect at all.
Only as the movie commenced did I finally get that this must be the story of McDonalds - a story I did not know anything about, so it was pretty interesting. As I am no fan of fastfood, I probably wouldn't have watched it, if I had known about it exsistance, but watching it was great. The story is interestingly told, we have a great cast and we have Michael Keaton who again plays ingeniously good. Even better than the so acclaimed Birdman. I really loved his play, the way he deals with his ups and downs and the turn from being a likeable fellow who you feel for, to turning out to be a person you dispise, yet find somewhat disturbingly understanding in his situation.
Additionally I love the 50s and 60s flair of the setting and the cast is great (Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, B. J. Novak - you cannot go wrong with these guys). I was considering 8/10, especially as it is probably not a movie that you will rewatch often; but taking into account that there was not a single minute in this movie that I wasn't captivated, I think the little more outstanding position is justified.
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).
Just to preface this, I thought A Force Awakens was emotionless trash that undermined the entire purpose of the original three films.
Rogue One was the opposite.
The best thing about this movie was the emotional impact. It underlined the sacrifices made to make the original trilogy possible. Some people have called it long, but that helped build up characters that you actually felt for, and who weren't carbon copy ripoffs (cough cough A Force Awakens). The final scenes as the two main characters face their fate, recognizing that it was worth it, gave such a high emotional payoff. Each major death scene actually made you feel something.
The second best thing was K-2SO. Very funny, and much needed comedic (but not goofy) relief.
The CGI for landscapes and the world creation was outstanding. When I see a movie like Star Wars I want to be amazed and see things that I haven't seen done before. I want to be impressed and drawn into new, beautifully crafted worlds. In this respect, the movie just kept delivering over and over.
The cinematography was great during the action sequences. The sequences looked epic, and the violence and sacrifice felt meaningful. The Vader fight sequence was intense.
It also had interesting ties to current events with its commentary on terrorism/rebellion/weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the science genius character realizing that he isn't priceless in developing some major device is fantastic. All of the movies with "only so-and-so can figure this out" are very disappointing.
The moral message of the movie was also very clear and well delivered.
I really enjoyed the movie overall and thought that it was a big step in the right direction. It was adventurous again, it was sometimes shocking, original, and most of all meaningful. A Force Awakens failed on all of those points. It's good to see a franchise movie that's taking a bit more risk than average. AFA was just like the new Star Trek films, shiny bling low-impact action movies that just happen to be set in space. Rogue One pushes far beyond to show the what drives the Rebellion in a world we know and love.
Despite the fact that I really liked the movie, it had some flaws:
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the acting in the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the cuts were really weird and the pacing felt off for portions of the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Forest Whittaker just deciding to die instead of trying to escape.
- Tarkin face CGI
- A few unbelievable plot lines (thankfully most were minor). Like Cassian being sent to kill Galen for almost no reason, and then deciding not to for no reason, and then Jyn forgiving him surprisingly easily. How did she even know that he was trying to kill her father?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Does every Star Wars movie need to have a father character die? Why didn't Cass follow orders when he heartlessly killed someone else in his first scene?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Heavy handed political messaging.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Said "hope" too many times.
- Tarkin face CGI
- You can just push Star Destroyers that easily?
- Tarkin face CGI
- The word "Stardust"
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too many random worlds introduced that you don't have the time to get invested in.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too much awkward fan service.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Darth Vader's voice sounded off.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the dialogue was really terrible.
- Tarkin face CGI
Initial Reaction
After two viewings
The Good
• Deadpool himself is as funny as ever. Ryan Reynolds keeps up a fantastic performance and really gives it his all.
• Cable is also really good. Josh Brolin, despite being in many movies this year. Has given a great performance.
• Jokes are really funny when they hit, and they hit hard.
• Secondary characters are also really well done. Some anyway. More on that, below in the spoilers
• It has a true charm to it. Making it more distinct than the first. But not outshining it.
• The action was on point. The director really knows how to capture a great fight scene, and there are plenty here to enjoy and marvel at.
• Villain. This point is actually a fairly good one, but also has spoils. So read below if you really want to know. What I can say is that Ajax is nowhere near as memorable compared to the bad guys here.
• The amount of balls this movie has. It just does things, I would never expect them to do. The first movie gave us shocks at what they could say and show. Now they just go and toy with that to the next level. And I loved it.
The Bad
• Plot. It's not the best. It's also not that simple. The first Deadpool was very straightforward even with the time jumps. Here, it's a bit of a mess. Not to mention it's kind of a rip off of T2. But it acknowledges this at least
• Some jokes don't quite land. They reuse some of the same lines from the first movie, and it feels as if it really is lazy writing. As far as it seems, they are trying to make Deadpool's catchphrases more clear. But to me, it was just annoying.
• The jokes seem to build off the story in this. Whereas the first one felt more improvisational and made it seem like the plot revolved around the humour. Here it just seemed like the comedy was slotted into this action film. But it's not all that bad, just let down the overall tone of the movie.
• CGI is actually pretty bad. It's so distracting, it takes away from the comedy they try to sprinkle over it.
• Wade. He is focused on more than the first. And I just didn't like how they were trying to go about it.
• Along with the focus on Wade, the emotional scenes don't mix that well with the comedy like they did in the first.
Other Things
• You're going to want to stick around for the mid-credit sequences. They are some of the best ever in a Marvel movie, and in movies in general.
• There are two mid-credit scenes (almost back-to-back) and no end-credit scenes.
Spoiler Things
• The X-Force joke is so damn good that I can forgive the lack of build in the team up until the very humorous end. Again such a great ballsy move. Props to the studio.
• The villains in this movie, aren't really present in terms of villains. The first Deadpool had a villain, he had to beat him. Done. This sets it up to be all about Cable, but it actually gives us villains that turn out to be the same as Wade. Which is great for a Deadpool movie to show anti-heroes having a connection with the villains they are fighting.
Conclusion
DP2 is not better than the first. It lacks the simplicity and catchy humour that it had. But, it does grab onto you and takes you on a ride that is not as funny, but is just as enjoyable than the original. I don't see it being as rewatchable like the first. But as its own movie, it holds itself up for a fun experience, wonderful character portrayals, and a damn good time.
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.
Great movie, but what exactly are you trying to say, Peele?
How do I make sense of the weirdness in your film?
Are you trying to say that those who unite to build a wall, those who use their scizzors to divide other people in half, can’t see the light in the ‘US’?
Is the twist meant to indicate that we can’t be sure who’s on which side?
In other words: is this a big political metaphor, a critique against republicans?
Then again, you can also find themes about capitalism and class here, it’s so ambiguous and broad that it’s not being very precise on a subtextual level. Not that a movie has to, but this is a little too broad for my taste.
Still, great craftsmanship, really well acted, memorable, scary, funny, it’s very good.
The whole 300 million people are living underground reveal might be a little too much of a leap, I don’t think the movie was that fantastical up until that point (a similar problem that I have with Get Out, where the brain replacement twist kinda feels a little too out there compared to the movie preceding it).
7.5/10
