Ava

Man I love every time an action movie comes out that reminds us the genre can have depth and themes and true character work. That there can be style and practical effects and grounded action. In the wave of the MCU this is such a breath of fresh air. The action is slick but the drama and characterization work in tandem with it to create something truly special. It's a film that is inspirational not in spite of the history but because it acknowledges the history and transforms it and finds a way to make it resonate today. It shows the strength of these women and the culture while not shying away from its flaws. These black women are put up on a pedestal and asked- if not demanded- to stop feeling, that it is weak, a dereliction of duty, and the film gradually repudiates that while never denying their strength or more importantly their humanity.

And the cast gamely rises up to what they're given. Davis obviously shines as the centerpiece, putting decades of experience into a performance that is stoic, aching, charismatic, and raw in equal measures. Some of her delivery and expressions, from a wry smirk to a fond and exasperated roll of the eyes, are so good at grounding Nanisca and making her really feel like a person, just one from a different time. And while I had mixed feelings about Underground Railroad, Mbedu was never one of them, and she shines here as well. The things she can do with her eyes alone are captivating. And Boyega is charming while being hard and pragmatic enough to still keep you guessing where he'll fall. But in a cast of greats, Lasana Lynch still stands out. The charisma she has on display here makes me baffled she hasn't led a franchise yet, put her in everything.

This film is a celebration of black women while never dehumanizing them. It lets us be strong and vulnerable, stalwart and hurting, devoted and loving, in equal measure. And it's a tight, fun time to boot.

Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.

Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.

(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).

This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).

8.5/10

I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.

It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.

Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.

P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie

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

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

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

5/10

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

The first 90 minutes of this movie are absolutely fantastic. They build up Marla as such a despicable, horrid creature that I was actively begging for the Mafia to get sick revenge on her.
​
The last 30 minutes are Season 8 Game of Thrones level of terrible and ruin what was about to be one of my favorite movies this year. The steps they want to strain credibility were insane. Firstly her surviving after being drugged and put in the water were questionable. The mafia failing to kill her girlfriend was just...how in the world did they fail killing that girl?

Marla just fell in the water (and I'm not going into the 3 minutes she was able to kick in a glass front window underwater and maintain holding her breath), but she still has her wallet to buy things at the convenience store. She gets to her girlfriend literally just before the place blows up, which she had no control over because she literally waited for a taxi.

They complain that they have nothing left but the diamonds, and but they also apparently have a handy wig, a taser, some morphine knockout drugs to pull off some James Bond type of killing of Peter Dinklage. And then when Dinklage survives, he agrees to be her partner. Look, I get she's smart and was gonna kill it with the mafia. But the shit she did was unforgivable, and it strains my belief that Dinklage wouldn't just go out and torture her the first chance he gets. They did not present him as being a "money first" guy, so him overlooking the mother being thrown IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD is nuts.
​
Look, I enjoyed 70% of this movie. It was an excellent horror thriller to that point. I would've loved if this movie went the route of Dinklage and the mob being mostly outsmarted by the crazy, maniacally, absolutely dastardly woman. But that movie NEEDED to end with Dinklage personally killing Marla. No if, ands or buts, anything but that ending ruins the point they spent the rest of the movie going for.

It really hurts me to trash this movie, because Pike was fantastic again in her role as a villain and Dinklage really made me want his character to succeed. But that ending was the worst type of cop out possible.

i don't know what to say, other than i love this goddamn movie. i can truly say that my experience was enhanced by the fact that i'm not straight, as i definitely feel like this was a movie made for people who are struggling/have struggled with coming out. that's not to say it can't be enjoyed by a wide demographic of people (as it obviously can and has been), but i definitely feel like they got the "gay high school experience" down to a t in a way that it makes it all the more enjoyable if you've been through it. all of simon's mannerisms are incredibly relatable, and the dialogue is especially touching and well written (i cried buckets). their tagline, "everyone deserves a great love story" pretty much sums up my feelings, and not to be dramatic (too late), but it's a rom-com that i can really connect with on a deeper level and for that i'm grateful.

in addition to literally everybody, i encourage any lgbt+ people to see this if you're struggling with your identity or the fear of what others will think, or even the fear that you'll never find anybody to love or that loves you. this is truly a movie that you watch and think, "this guy gets it".

Jaw-droppingly intimate and sensitive. Be prepared to be wrecked - the whole theater was shaking with sobs at points.

Beautifully and specifically queer. I've never on screen seen gay sex that felt this much like gay sex. The texture of it. There's a brief, funny, inter-micro-generation terminology convo that if you are LGBTQ of a certain age, you've had. There are two coming out conversations with lines that I swear are plagiarized from my life. There's a delightful subversion, in an early scene, of cruising, that achieves a cocktail of funny and sweet and sad that returns throughout the film (most notably in a moment where a 48-year-old Adam climbs into bed with his parents wearing a 12-year-old's pajamas). The exploration of how things can be so much better than 1987 but still not fine, and the ways the not-okayness of 1987 is still with us, especially in the psyches of folks that were there… so relatable and such a rare and subtle theme.

There is a final twist that, while devastating, does some real damage to Adam's character and, in my opinion, the emotional impact of the movie. Investing incredibly deeply in a fantasy of a relationship with a neighbor that didn’t happen is creepy where imagining you can talk to your dead parents again is sweet and sad. We know early on that the interactions with Adam’s parents aren’t a part of conventional reality and that doesn’t diminish any of their emotional impact, but the romantic relationship being unreal cheapens it.

This last emotional gutting felt unnecessary and unearned to me: it makes me hesitant to recommend the movie, despite how much it affected me, despite the impeccable execution. A friend who saw the movie with me and didn’t personally relate to as many of the queer culture touchpoints felt emotionally manipulated, and I get that. But aside from the last few minutes, my experience of the movie was near-perfect.

At this point, Damien Chazelle’s career trajectory is one of upping the amount of Oscar bait with every new project.
And I get it, what happened with La La Land at the Academy Awards was most unfortunate, but this film should even be lucky to get nominated, because it's not going to be remembered beyond that.
It’s essentially an exhausting, empty, 3 hour mess that thinks it’s a lot deeper than it is. Lots of fancy camerawork, lots of showy acting, lots of coke and nudity, lots of scenes where it’s clearly trying to be Boogie Nights, but it does not stick the landing at all. Showing excess can be fun and interesting, but combined with the cocaine fueled, Michael Bay-esque editing style it ends up feeling more like Scorsese for the inattentive Tiktok generation. It also leaves you on a note that I thought was incredibly indulgent and pretentious, which soured me even more on the whole experience.
It’s not even one of those films where you need to have a critical eye or a good understanding of cinema in order to get why it’s bad, it’s pretty upfront right from the start. It fails with a lot of the basics, such as plotting (which is incoherent), pacing (which is all over the place) and music (which is incredibly annoying). I wish I could at least praise the acting or characters, but it’s all so over the top in the most annoying, unfunny way. I like the cinematography and some individual moments, but that’s kinda it. The whole film starts with an elephant taking a shit into the camera, so at the very least Chazelle seems to self-aware about what he has delivered here; a massive turd that doesn’t play to his strengths as a filmmaker.

4/10

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!

some things of note because i've made it a habit to point out things that half-assed critiques get wrong before saying what i actually think about a film:

1. this was not directed by jordan peele. he produced it. nia da costa directed it, and it has very much the same feel as her overall body of work. comparing this to get out and us is unfair to both peele and da costa.

2. the original candyman was a social commentary as well. a lot of slasher flicks are social commentaries with regard to topics aside from historical racism like disabilities, socioeconomic disparity, and mental illness. if you don't like social commentary in your horror? your horror options are pretty limited.

3. my advice is always this: if you can't enjoy a movie because it tackles subjects of inequality and oppression, then that's a you problem. it's a problem worth working through, all the same.

anyway, i loved this. so glad it was my first movie in theaters again since the pandemic started, it was highly worth it. the score was unsettling and stressful in just the right way, and fuck if the progression of the bee sting wasn't the most disgusting thing i'd ever seen. also: those of you who get really grossed out by trypophobia might want to avert your eyes a little in the church scene. the pattern is uniform, not irregular, but it's still real fucking weird.

Maybe I just haven't been perceptive enough or maybe they did a terrible job of marketing but I was under the impression that this was the final movie in the series. I based this idea off the fact that the final book is called "Allegiant" and they didn't put "part 1" or anything in the movie's name. I walked out of this movie feeling completely underwhelmed. The movie ended with zero closure and it answered no questions the viewer may have. The entire movie seemed like an awful setup movie for a movie that I didn't know existed. It took several google searches for me to even find that there is a movie following this one. Overall I thought it was a pretty weak attempt at the book series. Even when I try to keep this review based on the movie as it's own separate entity I can't say it was a very enjoyable. There were a couple neat little things like the small drones but other than that the special effects sucked and the movie was boring. I hope the next film can recover for me a bit of the (granted, little) respect I had for this series. I don't usually walk into these movies expecting much, I just go to be entertained and try not to over analyze but I really didn't enjoy this movie.

Do not watch this movie. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone definitely make a cute couple. They should just produce a romance with them. Wait for that movie instead of watching this now.
The characters seem to loose dimension. The plot between Peter and Gwen is basically:
"I am going to go." - "No don't go." - "Yes, I will go." - "Don't go away", etc. Who wrote that?
And then there are the two villains... Electro is a laughably 1 dimensional character that is simply ridiculous when he is still a human. As other form, he can atleast fight, kind of. The action scenes were actually so bad that I wanted to watch the whole "I will go to somewhere else" thingy Peter and Gwen got going on.
The green goblin is not too bad, however there are so many enemies in the Spider-Man universe, I don't think they should've brought one of the few back there were in the original trilogy. However, I already should've stopped watching when Electro first appeared, so what does it really matter anyways.

In conclusion:
- Weak characters development from the first movie "simplified", terrible dialog, missed potential, laughably terrible villain
+ Cute couple, 1 villain that is not complete %$§&
Do not watch this movie.

I actually liked the first Sing because it felt so sincere from the characters' perspective (not Moon's, I still hate him). But this film just throws it all out the door aside from Johnny and Ash who have somewhat interesting personal stories but feel like rehashes from the previous one.

Sing 2 is great when it comes to its colourful visuals and of course the musical numbers. But falls flat in the story department and especially in its villain. It is just the first movie over again but with the villain just one-dimensional. There is no effort to even try to have the villain be slightly compelling or relatable to any degree and doesn't add any motivation besides typical greed. Boring.

While I did say the visuals are colourful and great, it lacks any creativity like any Illumination film with how it uses the shots. It feels so flat and relies on the characters to tell the story as it doesn't show. But like I said, the first film managed to do a good job with characters and their perspectives. Here it can't juggle all the plotlines going on. Even with it being so simple.

This movie is not good. But Taron Egerton is just superb in his role as Johnny so I can't fault it too hard.

4/10

When did you last go to a movie in which the audience applauded as the credits rolled? (It is not a typical Canadian response.) Behind me, a young female law student was weeping. As I sat there, I was deeply and intellectually moved by the power of this woman's life and the subsequent effect she has had on our lives, on my life, and I had been totally unaware of her. Let me put that in context. Although I am 20 years younger than RBG, her litigational years were my culturally maturing years (college, university and entering the work force). That was the culture of my years, her years, and I thought I knew the seminole personalities of my time but I had never heard of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, until these past two years (in which she has gained a rock-star like celebrity) I had no idea of her influence on my life. This movie (and the excellent documentary, RBG, which, on the recommendation of other movie goers last night, I watched as background for this review) have now convinced me that I would not have been allowed to be the person I have become had she not addressed the legal restrictions of gender in the law of the United States that undermined a global sense of personhood. I am Canadian, so these were not my laws she changed, but the culture of the civil rights struggle in America was not lost on us. My maturing personal ethic of the time, cradled by my faith in a just God and a loving, growing relationship with Jesus, was not of feminism but of the rights of every person to live under a judicially just system and in a compassionate and culturally rich society. I appreciate now that this was the justice for which RBG challenged her legal system. Thank you, Mimi Leader and Daniel Stiepleman for telling her story. Now, concerning the merits of the movie, itself: The cast is superb and the performances of Felicia Jones and Armie Hammer were deep and warm. I was also impressed by how the role of young Jane Ginsburg, adeptly performed by Cailee Spaeny, gathered in the emotional climate of the time. Wonderfull cameo performances. The cinematography and soundtrack brought a sense of grandeur and the costumes a sense of style and subtle class. I give this movie a 10 (important) out of 10. [BioPic]

Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson. Now, this is the type of movie that I'm comfortable recommending to pretty much anybody. It has a perfect blend of humor and emotional relatability, with enough accessibility to appeal to the average film goer, and enough style to appeal to the average film critic.

It is generally a very well-liked movie and that's not a bad thing.With this being his film that he made directly after Fantastic Mister Fox, I can't help but wonder if his work in stop-motion inspired him to want to create similar cinematography in live action, because a lot of it feels very similar but there's enough different about it, that it doesn't exactly feel stale.

The movie features two new child actors, and a couple of familiar Wes Anderson cast members, but this time, we get to see Bruce Willis, who's actually acting and playing a character? Haven't seen that in a while. This is another well made movie with Wes Anderson really defining his style with a well shot and acted movie.

Anyway, if you want to see a quirky comedy that doesn't use its quirkiness to hide behind a lack of talent, I would suggest checking this one out.

Maybe as some of you said it all at first, not your demographic.
Don't know, what one can expect watching something, that usually or definitely isn't our liking (gender, actor, etc) PLOT.
I'm not really into this kind of movies, either won't consider watching. From the plot seemed it was a 'cliche' over dozens of these kind, added with geographical topics!' (when watching, thought , well could be worse, luckily was the obvious.
Must say another surprising movie from Fanning, mostly the reason this was on my watch list. Wasn't the worst nor the best history wise,.. It had some parts that surprised me, weren't pointed or left to open ending when could have serve as what did a difference. My thoughts. Also, I think I may not be into the demographic. Who knows or it really matters? Many movies get lost for passing them on on thinking those things, trailers n critics.
Anyways... Nice to catch it, it got weird to watch Elle younger (even not that much) after being a huge fan of The Great. That was weird lol (and old cliches on Polish people, well I guess over this new world of last and this year, could have been worse. Not decided on what's less dumb. The SO OLD and completely out of the modern times ones, or the obvious CONTEST WINNER.

The anti-war novel "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque was required reading at school. Despite the fact that I could recall many details, I decided to reread the book and watch the previous adaptations for the first time in preparation for the 2022 film. The 1930 version was released only two years after the book, and even World War I was still relatively recent at the time. The fact that not just some historical material was adapted here but a current event makes the whole thing even more interesting. Due to the year of release, obviously, the later experiences of World War II could not have had any influence on the film.

What is noticeable right from the start is that director Lewis Milestone decided to tell the story chronologically. This is one of the few deviations from the novel that I disliked. You follow the protagonist, Paul Bäumer (Lew Ayres), and his classmates, who volunteer for the war and go through basic training. All of this is taking a tad too long for my liking. But once we get to the front, everything moves quickly. It also looks spectacular. This is especially true given the year the film was made. There are certainly only a few more than 90-year-old films that are still so easy to watch today. On the western front, Paul and his comrades finally meet other key characters from the novel, including Stanislaus Katczinski (Louis Wolheim), Bäumer's closest friend in the novel and all adaptations. Wolheim's interpretation of the character is perfect. He plays the role almost exactly as I imagined it while reading.

The actual staging of trench warfare is appropriately claustrophobic. You get a very good sense of how pointless this war was. It was a dulling experience for the soldiers involved. For them, life was really only about the next meal or the next fight at that point. Again and again, comrades die one after another. With increasing pragmatism, the protagonists accept their fate. The longer the war lasted, the clearer it became that a "lost generation" was fighting there, with no idea why. But they were well aware that the "enemy" in the opposing trenches was no different. The tone of the book is perfectly captured. The film also still works with a modern eye—it's one of the most important movies of all time.

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).

I like the craft a lot, this might just be Wright's most well made film. You can also feel that he's challenging himself by stripping away a lot of the humour and irony that's found in all of his previous work. However, I think that this exposes a lot of his weaknesses as a writer. For one, the logic of the plot doesn't make a lot of sense and the plot twists are very predictable. The characters and dialogue are so one dimensional and on the nose that it reminded me of 80s teen horror flicks. It's probably intentional, and I get that most of this is directed from the perspective of the protagonist, but it doesn't make her more interesting or likable. On top of that, the horror elements feel tacked on and goofy, it's almost like Wright briefly forgot that he isn't making Shaun of the Dead here. As the film goes on it starts to embrace its Argento influence, which is an interesting experiment, but the execution of the tonal shift isn't smooth. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the sequences taking place in the 1960s. The constant switching between Eloise and Sandie is a nice visual cue and the soundtrack picks are amazing. The theme about romanticizing the past is handled pretty well, more so than its commentary about gender. It's a masterclass in editing and pacing, as expected from Edgar Wright. Lots of inventive cuts and great scene transitions. Overall it's alright, but it does show that Wright's style is at its best when he fully embraces the cartoony and ironic nature of his scripts.

5.5/10

[5.0/10] Green Book is quaint. It is the cinematic equivalent of a Hallmark card on race relations, there to make you feel good, reflect the real world in only the vaguest, gentlest way, and then be quickly discarded and forgotten. It is thoroughly lacking in incisiveness or genuine insight, and its take on race and overcoming divisions is about as deep as a thimble. The film’s perspective is limited and provincial, when it’s not out-and-out troubling, and at times even insulting, in its oversimplifications.

The movie tells the story of Tony Vallelonga, a hearty spark plug of a man from The Bronx, who drives Don Shirley, a cultured piano player, through the South on the latter man’s music tour. Green Book is founded on the tension between Tony’s salt-of-the-earth, profane, and uncouth manner, informed by his working class Italian upbringing, and Dr. Shirley’s mannered, measured, and at times aloof bearing, informed by his position as a black man who has to operate in white circles. Along the way, the two clash and come into conflict, but inevitably find common ground and camaraderie through their shared experiences.

That in and of itself is not a bad premise for a film. There’s pathos to be wrung from the intersection of a man kept on the fringes of society because of his class and one ostensibly welcomed but always held at arm's length because of the color his skin. There’s a common understanding that can be established between one man who holds prejudices until he’s forced to confront real people and not just abstractions, and another who looks down on those less devoted to dignity until he learns to appreciate the heart that persists even where manners are lacking. And there’s catharsis to be had from the shared realizations of someone who is the master of his own circle but ignorant to the realities of the wider world, and one who’s seen the world at a distance but comes to know the greater warmth of community and family.

Green Book just doesn't actually achieve any of that. It tires. God help it, the film tries. And if you squint, you can see where the movie gestures toward these ideas, and in exceedingly rare moments, even grazes them. But those noble efforts are lost in its crayon-sketched characters and events, its rampant clichés and archetypes in lieu of depth or complexity, and its bent toward reassuring its audience of who’s really good and who’s really bad rather than confronting the gray areas or the systems that reinforces the types of bigotry the film seems to shake off so easily.

Some of that could be forgiven if the movie, for all its attempts at feelgoodery and humor, were more pleasant to watch. It’s characters are, at best, difficult to like. Even setting aside Tony Vallelonga’s racism -- the fodder for his “I’m a real boy!” transformation over the course of the film -- the character is mostly obnoxious. He’s a pale cross between Tony Soprano and Homer Simpson, with an Olive Garden version of the former’s bearing and perspective, and charmless version of the latter’s doltishness, loyalty, and appetite. He is, even at his best, a large foul-mouthed toddler, always having to be told not to give into his worst and easiest impulses. I’m a firm believer that characters need places to go, to grow, in films, but Vallelonga is annoying for too long in the film to find much merit in that approach here.

While Dr. Shirley is, at least, not so eminently grating as Tony is, the film still needs him to grow and change as well, and so makes him rude and condescending for much of the picture. It’s easier to swallow here, since while Don Shirley is occasionally a bit unreasonable, he’s mainly either having to navigate spaces where he’s made insecure or even at risk because of his skin color, or responding to one of Tony’s immature missteps. What’s more, Shirley has the benefit of being played by Mahershala Ali, who deserves better than this film and its script, but who adds layers to Don’s emotional reactions to the different challenges he faces, and breathes life into the relationship between him and Tony that’s poorly written, but nevertheless the backbone of the film.

The best things you can say for Green Book apart from that performance (wasted on a film that doesn't deserve it), is that it’s nice to look at and listen to. Cinematographer Sean Porter not only captures the scenic beauty as Vallelonga and Shirley traverse the American South, but uses a wide shot of Dr. Shirley surrounded by isolated by his possessions to convey his inner loneliness, and communicates Dr. Shirley’s awkward place between white and black society better visually than the film can ever manage with its ham-handed dialogue.

At the same time, so many films try to frame a main character as a virtuoso or a talent or a star, and the actual presentation falls flat. That’s a pitfall Green Book avoids entirely. When Don Shirley sits down to play the piano, his performance takes your breath away, and the audience is not only knocked back by the sumptuous melody and talent put on display, but understands how even hardscrabble Tony could be moved by it too. Between the music itself, the masterful playing from double and real life pianist Kris Bowers, and the nuanced acting of Ali, each time Dr. Shirley sits down in front of a Steinway, it’s a treat.

But those gifts are squandered on a story of friendship that’s as predictable as it is unearned. The film is rife with questionable moments. (For example, in one scene Tony cajoles and eventually persuades his African American counterpart on the merits of fried chicken.) Green Book is going for the old chestnut of the prejudiced but well-meaning man with a heart of gold. But it’s take on racism is so archaic, its prelude to Tony’s changes so full of slurs and backwards views and general prickishness intended to somehow be endearing, that when he finally does come around, it’s too little too late. Tony loves his family and eventually does right enough by his partner, but the film gives us too few reasons to root for him, and is often misguided in how it tries to demonstrate his decency or Don’s failings and peccadillos.

There is occasional warmth, and even joy, in Green Book. But in the final tally, it’s a film that seems built for 1989 instead of 2019. Its “can’t we all just get along” and “both sides need to grow” messages ring hollow in the current era where there’s a growing acknowledgment that our cultural ills are neither so simple nor succinct. Even apart from its dime store observations, hacky dialogue, and mealy racial pablum, it just doesn't present much in terms of its story or characters worth investing in. Not every Oscar-calibrated film has to make a truly powerful statement, but it should at least make for engaging cinema, and despite its strenuous and strained efforts, Green Book fails on both fronts.

I think that people are too harsh on this adaptation. I wouldn't say it's perfect, it is definitely not. The adaption itself is the biggest problem in my opinion. But most themes the original musical touches on, are there. They even added a new one (+ a new song) about medication and depression which I thought was also very good. So I think storywise there is almost everything there.

Where it fell short was the directing and in some parts the script I think.
The film feels a little bit loose und somehow unstructured. The musical scenes are sometimes bland and doesn't always fit the music. But I have to admit, that this is also veeeery difficult with these songs.
The songs, while often having an upbeat instrumentation, always have a kind of sadness in them. And I think that "Waving through a window" with a dancing or choreographing Ben Platt would not have been better, at all. At least this way, the overall story and the acting isn't harmed by these musical numbers, because they are so focused on the text and the meaning.
I also didn't have a problem with Ben Platt even though he is a little too old for the role. His performance brought tears to my eyes several times. But that's maybe because I can relate to this real inner self he's hiding because he's afraid that people might not like him a lot.

Also, while Nik Dodani's performance was quite funny, the character lagged the small connection that Conner and he should have had, I think. He really wasn't a friend of Connor here.

Oh and the musical number of "You will be found" could have been the only number with a singing crowd I think. I really wanted to see a choir stepping in and sing this "anthem"! But they instead tried to recreate the way that the musical presented this song. That didn't translate well to the screen.

But overall... In the end, as I said, it brought tears to my eyes. I don't care if it was just the story or the performances and that a lot was bad like most people say. I felt all the things the characters sang about and... that's enough. ;)

Freshmen year of college was great. I really enjoyed the film history class, but there was one disadvantage to the first semester. It took a long time to get through silent films, and frankly a lot of them can be really, really boring in long spurts.

Then we got to (96 year old) Caligari. This movie pulled me in so well right out of the gate. I'm not exactly Mr. Abstract Love, but something about German Expressionism really works for me. I think it is because it always has a direct purpose that I believe is truly planned in advance.

All of the sets in this work so well. You get a sense of a broader set idea, even though it is clearly on a small stage most of the time. The jagged lines, sharp edges, and "color" usage all add to your sense of the feeling in frame.

As far as acting, I love the guy who plays Caligari. Such a creepy old man done so well with his happy little evil laughs. Then when he is pretending to be a civil, high class man he has a great walk and look with the fake attempts. Second, the somnambulist plays a waking scene perfectly. He manages to make a guy opening his eyes to the camera for a long period of time interesting and engaging. That is just amazing.

So yea, going through some boring ones to get to this was awesome. It helps show that silence doesn't make a film worse. Sometimes it can be used for great purpose, and this is a fine example.