Just what we can expect from the police these days (actually always, just disgusting). This documentary was okay but left us with more questions. It triggered some things for me, so if you're an assault victim, be careful watching.
Who were the other 2 guys they heard? Who was the main target? There are rumours out there the actual target was Andrea, the ex-girlfriend, to push her back into the arms of a cop, with whom she's currently married. She won't speak. Is this really true? Then why did Muller take Denise anyway even though he realised she wasn't Andrea. Makes me believe he would always do what he did and his stories were bullshit. He had some near misses in the years before, so...
Who was the person who ordered the hit? I would look really hard for those person or persons. But again, the police won't investigate further even though they heard 2 other men talking. This case isn't closed in my mind, more shit will come to light, as it always does and it wouldn't surprise me if more 'men in service' will be associated.
I think Muller actually was a real sadist, because he made Denise complicit in her own rape, which is evil on another level. She had to endure every second of that, without even having the escape of disassociation, just because he wanted the 'girldfriend' experience. Again, sadism on another level.
I truly admire her strength and want her and every assault or rape victim to know they did nothing wrong. We just follow our instincts and survive or die. Whether it's freezing, complying, fighting,... There is no right or wrong way to act in these situations, your gut feeling and sometimes sheer 'luck' will dictate all. And even then, you might not make it out alive.
And people please, just stop believing what the media or movies portray rape to be and how victims act. Like the lawyer said, this is real life and everyone is different and reacts differently to life altering trauma.
If you want more info, there is a book Denise and her husband wrote. They really deserved more than those measly few millions that probably didn't even cover their legal fees and loss of income and there are several episodes about this case on Real Crime Profile with interviews from them and Misty.
Time for some eyebleach now.
Nope is a movie of two equally great but disparate halves. The first is a harrowing examination of what we do when faced with ‘bad miracles’. Keke Palmer’s effortlessly charming Em wants to get hers, get the fame and money and recognition she and her family have fought for by explaining the terrible unknown. Perea’s Angel just doesn’t want to be left out of something this big. Steven Yuen’s Jupe is haunted by one from his past and looks to wrangle a new one as a way to understand and come to terms with it, give it meaning, And Daniel Kaluuya’s OJ does what black people have always had to do; weather the storm, stare it down, and know when to Nope the fuck out. This first half sets up that while Get Out reckoned with the horrors of the past that reverberate, and Us dealt with the monsters within us, especially the ones that don’t look like we expect, Nope will tackle the horrifically miraculous. The one in a million, can’t be explained but must be lived through natural tragedies.
The second half is a thrilling spectacle, a homage to both classic Spielberg fate like Jaws and old school schlock in the best ways. It plays like a fusion between a monster movie and disaster fare like Twister. It’s a heartening example of what blockbuster films can be with a director who truly has a vision and is allowed to execute it, as opposed to the ‘house style’ of the MCU.
Again, both of these halves are good, great even. And they are of equal quality. But they don’t quite mesh into one complete film like Peele intends. Still, it’s impossible not to recommend. The cast is fantastic. The things Daniel Kaluuya can do with his eyes are still unmatched, and Steven Yuen has a stare that feels nearly as impossible in length as it does masterful in conveying his character. Peele has fantastic shots, the naturalistic design of the monster unsettling while keying in on the core themes of the movie, and it has Keith David! It feels like a nod to one of Peele’s biggest influences, John Carpenter, cause there’s a good amount of overlap in theme and motivation of The Thing and the creature of Nope. There’s two great halves of two different movies that had they been paired with their matching half, could’ve created an amazing one. But it’s still no reason to Nope out of seeing this one.
I stand no chance of articulating my feelings towards this movie to the same high standard as some have already in the comments, but if you're not a fan of deeper readings, metaphor and underlying messages in your movies, steer clear of this.
While it should be par for the course with a Peele movie (given the majority of Get Out and Us are equally entertaining for their deeper meaning), I'm noticing a lot of takeaways from this movie being negative because it's only being taken at face value. The surface story here is very flat once the pieces are on the table, but if you read past it and figure out what the movie is trying to say, you'll pull much, MUCH more from this movie. Please read Andrew Blooms post in this comment section for a full dissection of all the themes presented and the overarching message here. Then again, if subtext and movie dissection aren't something you find enjoyable I guess this movie won't ring as loudly with you as it has with me.
Personally, I think I enjoyed this more than Us, but less than Get Out, but I haven't seen Get Out for a while so maybe that'd be different now. I'm just glad we've got someone making original horrors in a world of Disney and Marvel overload. Please never stop Jordan, you're doing great work.
Bloodsport: “Nobody likes a showoff.”
Peacemaker: “Unless what they showing off is dope as fuck.”
James Gunn recently said in an interview that he finds superhero movies “mostly boring” right now. Anything ranging from safe and boring or technically well-made but disposable, at best. Gunn received at bit of heat from fans for those remarks, but in some sense, he’s not wrong. Because sometimes following the same formula will eventually wear fin and more risk taking needs to happen.
And here we have ‘The Suicide Squad’, the soft reboot to the 2016 film, but this time directed by Gunn himself, where he delivers a highly entertaining movie that is bursting with creativity and ultra-violence. James Gunn once again shakes up the superhero formula with a slick style. I’m just glad DC is finally letting directors have a voice and a vision, and I hope it stays like that.
The first 10-15 minutes tells you exactly what the movie is going to be.
I just can't believe we got something like this. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes long, but it's always on the move. It’s bonkers from start till finish, and I enjoyed every minute of it. This is probably one of the best shot movies in the DCU. The soundtrack is great as well and used effectively. The action scenes were insane and made the overall experience one of the most fun I had at the cinema in a long time.
A massive improvement over the 2016 film, AKA ‘the studio cut’, is that the movie doesn’t look ugly and isn’t chopped together by trailer editors. The movie is vibrant in colours that made it look pleasing to the eye. The structure at times is messy, and yet strangely well-paced, as there’s a lot going on.
Did I mention the movie is very gory? It’s cartoonish violence, or what people call "adult superhero movie", so it's not for kiddies or for the faint of heart. You would probably guess that not everybody on the team is going to make it to the end credits, so deaths are to be expected, but how certain characters “bite the dust” are so unexpectedly gruesome and brutal, it took me by surprise each time. The marketing for the movie was right, don’t get too attached. As I said before, James Gunn had complete creative control over the movie, and he doesn’t hold back on what he wrote and show on screen. But then again, it's a movie, it's not real, the actors who die on screen are fine in real life...I think.
All the cast members have equal amount of time to shine, and you like these super villains this time around, as each character had wonderful chemistry with each other. John Cena plays Peacemaker, who can be best described as a “douchebag version of Captain America”. An extreme patriot who will do the most horrific things for liberty. John Cena excels in the deadpan line delivery for comedic effect, but surprisingly enough, worked well in the serious moments. Looking forward to the spin-off show ‘Peacemaker’.
Margot Robbie once again nails the role of the chaotic but gleeful Harley Quinn. While the character isn’t front and centre this time around, more of a side character, but whenever the character is on screen, it’s instantly memorable.
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport, a contract killer who’s doing time in prison after failing to kill Superman with a kryptonite bullet, while also dealing with family issues, especially with his daughter. While the character may sound like Will Smith’s Deadshot from the 2016 film, but trust me, the execution here is much stronger. This is by far Elba’s best work in a while. Charismatic and a strong leading presence.
Polka Dot Man, played by character actor David Dastmalchian, a socially awkward, weird, and lame sounding character that has some serious mummy issues, which has a funny running visual gag throughout. However, because of Gunn’s writing and Dastmalchian's performance, the character is more than a joke, but a unique character to watch.
Ratcatcher 2, played wonderfully by Daniela Melchior, who brought so much warmth and heart to the film. I loved how they tied in her tragic backstory into the finale, as it honestly made me cry. And let’s not forget the king himself, King Shark, voiced by Sylvester Stallone. He stole every scene he’s in, because he’s so adorable and has such kind eyes, but when he’s hungry, he can be a killing machine.
The rest of the supporting cast, even in the smaller roles, still manage to stand out amidst all the chaos. I liked Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flag a lot more this time around, because the actor was given more to work with in terms of good material. Viola Davis is brilliant as the cold and ruthless Amanda Waller. And Peter Capaldi is always a pleasure to see. Also, I like the character of Weasel, who I can describe as a unholy offspring of Shin Godzilla and Rocket Racoon. He may not be beautiful to look at, but he's beautiful to me.
Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, the movie has a lot of heart and I like how they took certain characters, who on page sound stupid and ridiculous but are handled with such love and depth, while also being self-aware of its own characterization.
You can literally watch this as a standalone movie and you won’t be lost or confused, as you don’t need to watch 22 other movies to understand it. This is by far the strongest entry in this jumbled mess of a cinematic universe.
Overall rating: Nom-nom!
THE WACPINE OF ‘AVENGERS: ENDGAME’
WRITING: 9
ATMOSPHERE: 10
CHARACTERS: 10
PRODUCTION: 10
INTRIGUE: 9
NOVELTY: 10
ENJOYMENT: 10
The Good:
That cold and harrowing opening of Endgame takes us right back to the silly ending of the preceding Infinity War.
All performances are great but Robert Downey Jr is absolutely fantastic, particularly during the last few moments.
Endgame breaks new ground within the genre. This is real superhero drama, with the focus on the characters and their inner feelings rather than loads of mindless action. It actually allows its stars to perform for real.
Superhero films have never felt this realistic, emotional and depressing. That's the new and fresh side of the film. The rest is exhilarating and exciting, if somewhat convoluted, science fiction and action.
I do like how the Russo brothers twist and turn the script so that they allow secondary characters to shine (such as Scott Lang and Carol Danvers) and mix them seamlessly with the more established heroes.
The time travel sequence is pretty much my favourite sequence in the entire film. I always love time travelling in films even when that messes up the plot. Here it's great to return to past films and see them from new points of view. Seeing these greatest hits of the MCU give me chills after all these years. It's also interesting to see how the events here create plot strands that will play a bigger thing going forward - such as the multiverse.
I love how this film portrays the characters we know and love in new ways. Professor Hulk, a fat Thor, Captain Marvel with a haircut, a worthy Cap - hell yeah!
Despite the drama and tension, there’s plenty of typical MCU humour and lightheartedness here as well, which balances up the darker atmosphere.
Thanks to the ever-evolving plot, the tonal shifts and the shift between the different teams, Endgame doesn’t feel too long. Even though there isn’t much action until the climactic battle, the script is interesting and exciting enough to keep the story flowing naturally.
The Bad:
Despite being introduced in the film preceding this one, Captain Marvel barely appears in the film and only makes a brief cameo during the climactic battle to set things straight.
The Ugly:
I cried a lot.
WACPINE RATING: 9.71 / 20 = 5 stars
THE WACPINE OF 'DOCTOR STRANGE'
WRITING: 7
ATMOSPHERE: 7
CHARACTERS: 8
PRODUCTION: 9
INTRIGUE: 6
NOVELTY: 6
ENJOYMENT: 7
The Good:
Right when the MCU started feeling formulaic and predictable, Marvel Studios dropped Doctor Strange; a film introducing mystical and magical elements to the MCU and offering a trippy and inventive superhero flick, once again reinvigorating the genre.
Benedict Cumberbatch is such a great choice to play the arrogant doctor Stephen Strange that no one else could do it as well as he does. And while Tilda Swinton's Ancient One might not be completely comic accurate, I like her take on the character. She brings much-needed diversity to the cast.
The rest of the cast is great as well. Mad Mikkelsen always plays a villain well, while Benedict Wong has surprisingly sharp comedic timing.
The single greatest thing about this film is the visuals. They're trippy, colourful and multi-dimensional, like the best LSD trip ever. Some of the visual trickery, done with a combination of cinematography, editing and visual effects, is truly wonderful.
The visual style also allows for some genuinely inventive and original action sequences. Despite the heavy use of CGI to create this fantastical fight scenes, they don't come across as artificial.
Strange's cloak is the best supporting character ever. I want a spin-off animated series featuring the Cloak and the Flying Carpet from Aladdin. Greatest love story ever.
The Bad:
Despite all the multi-dimensional and mysterious elements, the script mostly flows like a typical superhero origin story, at least throughout its first half, before turning into a stretched out LSD trip for its second hour.
The Ugly:
Keep your eyes on the road, kids!
WACPINE RATING: 7.15 / 10: 3,5 stars
[5.5/10] It’s impossible to process Justice League without considering Batman v. Superman, the film’s literal predecessor, and The Avengers, its spiritual one. Justice League is so much in conversation with these films, so much reacting to them and responding to them and in the twin shadows of them, that the movie almost doesn’t make sense without them.
It was The Avengers, the 2012 superhero team-up film, and its billion dollar box office take, that sparked Hollywood’s current fascination with cinematic universes and builds to franchise-wide crossovers. It is the seismic event in superhero cinema that moved D.C. from making siloed, solo flicks for its best-known characters, to packing as many recognizable faces and logos into each movie as possible, and promising more interconnected adventures to come.
On the surface, Justice League borrows plenty from The Avengers. Both films feature an alien invasion led by a helmet-horned antagonist who promises to pave the way for a bigger bad to come. Both feature the occasional extraterrestrial cube which some want to use as a power source and others want to use as a weapon. And both feature a collection of heroes who are not on the same page, and bicker and take sides with regularity, and need a grand event to reunite them. Having Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon on board to help pinch hit for Zack Snyder (the director of Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and this film) as needed just reaffirms the inevitable parallels between the first big superhero team up film and Justice League.
But just as Dawn of Justice felt like a reaction to Man of Steel, Justice League feels like an attempt at course correction from Batman v. Superman. Critics complained that BvS was too self-serious, so Justice League has plenty of jokes, light-hearted moments, and the sort of meta winks that have Whedon’s fingerprints all over them. Fans groused about Batman v. Superman’s runtime, so Justice League comes in at a crisp two hours.
And yet, this attempt to imitate the movie that started it all, and course correct from the predecessor that disappointed audience, just leads Justice League to make its own, brand new mistakes, which will no doubt be fodder for some third new direction in the next DCEU team-up film.
The most tangible of these issues is the awful CGI. Steppenwolf, the film’s computer-generated antagonist occupies an entirely different world than the flesh and blood characters in Justice League, and anytime his pre-rendered domain intersects with the nominally real world, there is a sharp dissonance that takes the viewer out of the picture. Everything from the villain’s uncanny valley visage to the fact that the climax of Justice League takes place an off-the-shelf Playstation 2 environment signals phoniness to the audience and makes all the action feel miscalibrated and inconsequential.
But the deeper problem is how underdeveloped most of the characters here feel. One of the advantages of the first Avengers film is that four of its six heroes had already had their own introductory films to establish who they were and what they were about, and the other two had played significant roles in those films. That meant that a handful of scenes to reestablish everyone was all you really needed.
Justice League, on the other hand, has only really introduced three of its characters in prior cinematic outings, and one of them spends most of this movie in a box (the film opens with the equivalent of a Superman flashback). That means Justice League’s hurried attempt to reintroduce its crew in the first act has more work to do, on top of introducing the major conflict, themes, and villain. Only Wonder Woman’s intro can coast on having a full film’s worth of exploration and coast on a thrilling action set piece. That leaves Aquaman to make abbreviated sarcastic comments to Bruce Wayne; Flash to have his entire situation explained in exposition by either Batman or his dad; Cyborg to banally brood in shadows and middling graphics, and for Batman himself to skulk around a cutscene from Arkham City. The result is that only Diana feels fully realized by the time they’re all ready for a team-up.
It also means that everyone comes off caricatured rather than developed. There’s not time in Justice League to really tell Cyborg’s story, so the film ups the brood factor to try to compensate. Flash goes from being the compelling, untested kid finding his way through all of this to being just a superpowered Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. And everyone, but especially Aquaman, starts spouting catchphrases and rejoinders so cheesy, I half-expected the King of the Atlanteans to blurt out “Cowabunga!” There’s interesting threads of stories for each of them, but it’s all either rushed or discarded as the film plows forward.
Despite those mistakes, Justice League finds its own unique, laudable moments, which are entirely separate from its predecessors. The peak of these is the “save one” sequence, where young Flash starts to get cold feet when things start to heat up in terms of the big fight. Batman tells him to simply save one person, and let it all unfold from there. It’s a simple idea, but one that blooms nicely as the sequence goes on, and provides the optimistic bent that had been so demanded in an organic way.
And as much as it follows the Avengers blueprint, Justice League also finds ways to distinguish itself. If there’s a single self-contained arc in Justice League, it’s the same one the Marvel equivalent had -- that these superheroes could be a powerful force for good when working together, but that they needed something important, something that was missing, to unite them. For The Avengers, that was a major death, but for the Justice League, it’s a resurrection. needed a death to reunite them. For the Justice League, it takes a resurrection.
To that end, the film manages to make good on some of the promise of Batman v. Superman that was lost in execution. In many ways, Justice League is the other half of BvS, the answer to the questions that the prior film was asking, and both films come out looking better for it.
It’s a creditable twist that when Batman seeks to revive Superman, and cautions Alfred to have the “big guns” ready, that saving grace turns out not to be a superweapon or a dose of kryptonite, but simply Lois Lane, there to remind Clark Kent who he is. It’s a clever moment, and an echo of that much-maligned “Martha” scene, which reveals how Batman now understands that the way to get to Kal-El is not through weapons of technology, but through their shared humanity.
By the same token, BvS wondered aloud and often if the world really needed Superman. and the closest thing to an overall theme Justice League has is that the world is broken without him. There’s a conviction in the film that Superman brought the world hope, and without him there’s only fear. He is a unifying, reassuring force, for his mother and the woman he loves, for the team that needs him, and the world at large. There’s new threads to pick up, and future teases galore, but the best thing to say in favor of Justice League is that it takes care to resolve much of what its predecessor set up in a satisfying enough fashion.
The only issue is that in trying to split the difference between its lead-in and its competition, Justice League turns out to be a fine but unavailing outing for what is supposed to be the climax of D.C.’s Cinematic Universe. It is not nearly as fun, enjoyable or clever as The Avengers. It is not nearly as contemplative or thoughtful as Batman v. Superman. Instead it’s stuck in a strange middle ground, taking a team-up that fans have been salivating for for decades and making it into a reasonably enjoyable, roundly generic superhero action flick, rather than the world-beating crossover the movie-going public has been waiting for. In trying to find a middle ground between those two approaches, and those two aesthetics, Justice League comes up with a film that’s lesser than either.
