This is the Unforgiven of superhero movies, a brutal yet tender portrayal of former heroes growing old. Logan is tired and world weary, waiting for death to take away his pain. Charles is 90, riddled with drugs to mute his mind, his "super weapon." Despite their friendship their relationship is fractured. Into their lives comes a new mutant and a road trip begins.
I don't want to say much more, having given away a little of the premise already explored in the films trailers. This is a tough, violent and sad film with few moments of humour. There is action but not of the blockbuster kind, one key car chase is like something from a 70's thriller.
This is the swan song of Logan and Charles, both actors giving it their all in their final performances as these characters. To bring them back after this film would undermine their work and the story here.
The film is brilliant and I can't recommend it enough - don't expect a traditional X-Men movie and you will be blown away. If the film itself were a mutant I would say its genes had been spliced with Mad Max and Shane, with a little bit of Children of the Corn (and I mean that in a good way). Excelsior!
In Captain Marvel, I didn’t like the main character, but I thought the movie around her was quite solid.
Black Widow is the exact opposite: I quite liked the two leads, but the movie surrounding them doesn’t really work.
Pros:
- Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh are easily the most entertaining part of the film.
- I liked the first act. It feels like Cate Shortland is trying to do an impression of a Jason Bourne movie. It’s fairly humourless, the cinematography is bleak, and the score is intense. It has a tone that no other MCU film has.
- The action (minus the final battle) is fairly well done. As per usual, less editing would’ve made it better, but at least it feels weighty.
Cons:
- The story itself isn’t that interesting. The themes and main mcguffin are oddly similar to Captain Marvel, though it’s not executed as well. The villains also fail to make an impression.
- This movie really loses its identity as it goes along, to the point where it turns more into a generic Marvel movie as it goes on, and eventually a generic action blockbuster by the third act. Everything gets way too big and bloated for its own good.
- Not a fan of the Russian accents, they sound very tacky. Just let everyone speak with a normal American accent, I can look past the fact they’re Russians. Besides, they even had a story based reason to ditch the Russian accents entirely.
- I found David Harbour quite cringeworthy in this.
- The main characters are protected by strong plot armour. Most characters should’ve been killed 3-4 times based on the things that happen during the action scenes. This isn’t even a ‘suspend your disbelief, it’s an action movie’ situation, it gets really ridiculous, to the point where it’s almost Fast and Furious level.
- The pacing is a bit inconsistent, you really feel it slowing down during the second act.
Finally, I want to address that I already find the use of Nirvana songs in movies like these quite distasteful, but the cover that's used during the credits literally sucked all the life out of the song.
4.5/10
Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
Cons:
6/10
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.
Wonder Woman is... well... wonderful! This movie is a true representation of the characters I have grown up with and loved from DC comics and the justice league animated series. This movie is about how Diana the princess of Themyscira becomes Wonder Woman, a classic fish out of water tale of innocence and heroism.
The chemistry between the two leads feels so natural and it is because of this chemistry that Steve's sacrifice is so heartbreaking . While the movie may not be as layered or multifaceted as other DCEU offerings such as Man of Steel, making use of a more classic 'by the numbers' superhero formula, it is undoubtedly a more meaningful movie. It shows us the true nature of humanity through the eyes of an Amazon who has no preconceptions or history with our species. It shows us the ugliness of mankind, how cheaply we value human life with the wars we create, and how stereotypical gender roles have been/are to the detriment of women without bashing us over the head with a heavy-handed feminist agenda. On the other hand, through her eyes, we also see the things humanity is capable of through the power of love.
Despite the importance of this movie, Wonder Woman doesn't depress or bog the audience down. It conveys these important messages within the context of an uplifting film filled with fun, action and romance.
Critics have voiced their approval for this movie, but that shouldn't make fans of the DCEU fearful. Wonder Woman seamlessly fits in with the DCEU, making use of similar colour palates, action direction, and story telling. While this is a movie all little girls must watch, it is truly a movie for everyone... it is simply... WONDERFUL!
jock lead, check
hot girl with all-time perfect makeup and visible rack cleavage for male gaze, check
nerd guy with glasses, and curly hair, check
nerd girl also with glasses, shorter hair, childish clothes, trying to show "female power" but failing anyway, check
the movie is riddled with clichés and tropes. every scene, moment a child can predict. cliché!!.
it has released much early in my country by the way. and I don’t think anyone cares for a SPOILER in this movie/franchise??. but you’ve been warned none the less
u almost think. oh wow, I did not expect that to happen. good work. NOPE SURPRISE!!! that’s exactly cliché thing which was supposed to happen.
some dumb person smiling and being happy that he escaped a dino. nope he will be EATEN!!!!.
every henchman in the bad guy's team was an animal cruelty symbol. u know so that we would try to root for the poorly written "so called" good guys I guess....
the dialogues are also cliché. "holy shit" "you have to see this”. we have all heard this before.
it was like this movie was written with a book of cliché’s nearby. I don’t get it, this is a sequel right? so why can’t they do something new. carry things on. why do they have to have the very same moments throughout all the series. it’s almost like they are welcoming "new audiences" to the franchise. and so there u go: here is 1 unrelated guy eaten by a huge dino. here is a scene where someone barely escapes. here is a classic "safe" dinosaur with relaxing bg music for all chars to see. typical Jurassic movie tropes here.
and to fill things up they also had some horror tropes for no reason. even some non dino ones!!. like a little girl scares her nanny. and we as audiences have to witness few seconds of a scene where it felt like we are watching a murder movie.
the characters are horribly written.
why are we supposed to root for Owen (Chris Pratt) again? he seems like a jerk. who doesn’t care for anything at all ever but himself. Claire breaks up with him every time for some reason... (but its ok because they will get back together of course, because... movie). he had abandoned his care for dinosaurs. and we never know why. pretty ex gf just guilt trips him over one beer and he is ready to join the adventure. WHY??? WHAT CHANGED HIS HEART? WHY HE BECAME ASSHOLE IN THE FIRST PLACE??
and oh btw. it happens in the cliché scene again.
where they wait for him at the plane runaway. and oh nooooo he is not gonna come :(.
SURPRISE. he is already there!!!.
Bryce Dallas was told to look pretty and act pretty. that’s pretty much it. and she is all "dinosaurs must be free" now.... because...... I don’t know... movie... again. what happened? what changed her mind??. is it because franchise kicked off and we must root for these people now.
why break them up????? why do we get to see their intro all over again. because hey the next time they fall asleep. girl's hand will be all inside Chris Pratt’s shirt. (IT HAPPENS!!!)
is this even a sequel? it feels like a reboot of a reboot. this person was trying to commercialize dinosaurs and was pretty much a huge jerk aunt to those kids (who were so annoying and thus I’m glad they are not here btw)
the "villain" is this guy, who knows Claire from before and he explains to her why they must save the dinosaurs into this new place (oh please, we know you’ll be the bad guy, we have read book of cliché’s too movie)
he ultimately brings the dinosaurs for an auction back to the city.... without anyone realizing anything.... man these guys could run the country if they're so powerful and covert
there are 2 stereotypical nerds. with franklin written so bad that I wanted him dead asap. overacting AF. seriously. if u tell me u like him you are just a casual moviegoer or a troll. I can’t describe him more without the need of punching something.
there is a scene exchange between him and the leader of the capture team. where just within 2 seconds he is taunted "Can u open this door tiger" something like that. and the door like practically immediately opens. and this nerd is like. "there u go, tiger". yeah nice comeback
minutes later they are locked in and this guy acts like he knows nothing now. he keeps being a weirdo and and changes his motivation within seconds of a scene just for weird humor.
horribly inconsistent characters.
during the first encounter with Owen’s friend dino raptor blue. (who also was not a reason enough to come join this mission for Owen, "let them die" he said)
the capture team people go bad. (because cliché) and they shoot blue and Owen. fine.... but now the nerd girl who was 2 minutes ago showing off to this team as a badass girl because "girl power" I guess? is now taking a gun and pointing at the.... ok ... for what.. will u really shoot them? they did not really kill Owen or the dino. how badass are you u want to show??
and they all ready to shoot her too. but due to some illogical argument which I really don’t want to get into. this "Mexican standoff" stops but the guys shrug her off.
there is this little girl's character who is shown to be a complete Mary sue at first. she can go anywhere to listen in on conversations way too smart for her age. she is not afraid. she is a daredevil , not afraid of heights at all. u know what. I’m all cool for powerful child characters if the movie is ABOUT THEM!!. this was really awkward. the worst part like I said how character arcs go haywire. as soon as she encounters her first dinosaur. she is screaming at the top of her voice. and then continuing to do that till the movie ends.
hey u know what, don’t show me a dinosaur loving young girl afraid of nothing at all at first and then since she is a girl, she has to scream unbearably loudly every time something is happening and then keep hugging chris pratt for no reason. instead of probably claire which would make more sense. stick to your character traits maybe...
cliché moments and cliché characters. yes, I am using the word cliché a lot. but that’s what I was rubbed with in my face in few hours ago.
there is an auction going on where they present the dinosaur in the huge case which I am sure pretty much hides all the bidder to the auctioneer. but movie!!!
lot of moments of story did not make sense. and I don’t want to spend more time for them.
the cinematic moments like the dinosaur roars and everything were same old same old. so, it’s a dino fatigue at this point. nothing new and fresh for it. I was seeing in this Imax and wanted to be blown away and scared probably. but it did not happen. it’s really like they are catering to a fresh new audience rather than people who see and remember movies, like the first parts!!!!
The set pieces although feel fantastic at first end up being anti-climactic. The whole third act takes place in that huge manor where the auction takes place. After which there are teases for the sequel. Why does every movie want to be a franchise so badly? First be good and people will throw themselves over your movies and wait day by day for sequel. Me included. But this shove in your face teases after your average movie makes me want to punch someone!! “The dinosaurs are free in this world now. So get ready for awesomeness you wanted in this movie, in the next part!!!” Yeahhh!! F***!!!!!!!
Jeff Goldblum was shown in trailers. and thats exactly how long he will stay in the movie, couple of minutes. why show him in your trailer and ruin a cool surprise which could have saved this movie otherwise marred by cliche's and average writing.?? and if you show him like that. maybe use him much more in the plot......
I really enjoy movies and am more than happy to suspend my disbelief as much as possible. but it was not possible here. so, I’m not thrashing on this movie for no reason. it really was bad.
that being said. few positives here are:
the special effects are spot on. couldn’t really complain here. it’s sad how much potential can be wasted.
also, I have nothing really against the actors. I am sure most of them were doing their best and are talented. the writing and the direction lead to this mess.
the sound and music were decent.
if you are a casual audience this movie is perfect. you will NOT be disappointed. but if you are an avid moviegoer. tired of tropes and repetitions and also somewhat of critic. get ready for a lawsuit because you would have punched someone sitting on your side or front.
definitely won’t be watching this again even if I have time and money to kill. not even years later on streaming I think
enjoy!
Can somebody go and check on Jared Leto?
His performance in this is so fucking funny to me, I’d be surprised if this isn’t a shoe-in for a Razzie nomination.
Every artistic choice this guy makes has to be the most overblown and ridiculous thing ever, whether that’s in his acting or his music.
I wonder if he’s still capable of delivering a good performance when he doesn’t get to hide behind make-up and eccentricities.
Not to say that the other actors are faring much better, pretty much everybody sounds like they’re doing a parody of an Italian accent, it sounds ridiculous.
Some sound like they’re trying to imitate Mario, it’s that classic “ah, mamma mia, pizzeria” shtick that everyone does when they make fun of Italians.
The only problem is: this isn’t a parody film, and the only actor that seems to get that to some extent is Adam Driver.
You’d assume that most of these conversations were in Italian in real life, so nobody would care if you’d ditch these accents in an English language film, because it isn’t going to be completely realistic anyway.
I just don’t get creative choices like this, especially from a legend like Ridley Scott, who seemed to understand this idea in his last film, which came out only 2 months ago.
As for the film itself, I’d advise anyone to simply pretend that this is meant to be a campy comedy, because it’s not that good as an Oscar drama.
Just watch Succession if this seems intriguing to you.
Such a mess of a movie.
I didn' t expect much and haven't watched the trailer before but apparently this movie is focusing on the younger audience only and not on the people who watched the first movie back in the day. It's one of these moments when you realize you get old.
Way too young cast, a dumb plot, so no-one needs to think about anything, degrading this movie to a shut-your-brain-off popcorn flick/time waster you forget instantly after leaving the cinema, clichès as far as the eyes can see, cringe dialogues, incredibly studid decisions by humans and aliens.
Liam Hemsworth is the actor to draw in the young audience and a total miscast for this kind of movie but he fits in with all the other young actors who are out of place as well. But that also means he will be the more or less tragic or cool hero and "win" a gorgeous woman at the end of the movie. How could it be different?
Hemsworth's literally horny sidekick is annoying the moment he appears, throughout the whole movie and is the deliberate comic relief and simply hateable as his character is written so blatantly obvious and without any care. You instantly know what trope his character is and what role he will have the rest of the movie.
You are in the alien ship and he carelessly jumpscares you: haha, how funny!
He's talking loudly, called out on it to be quiet and keeps going being loud, endangering all of them: haha, how funny!
He is fawning over the beautiful, "unreachable" daughter of the chief in command on the moonbase we all know he will get later anyway for no reason other than "we went through this sh*t together": soo original.
Liam Hemsworth is peeing in front of the aliens to distract them: haha, how funny and mature.
...and the aliens even fall for that crap.
The whole movie could only happen in its entirety because of the first major decision that was made for no other reason than plot.
Levinson is some kind of an authority when it comes to aliens but he is ignored to enable the movie when he says not to fire at that spherical spaceship, that looks so difficult to the others and behaves totally different as well. That appearance wasn't even foreshadowing, it was an obvious spoiler to how they would be able to win this time against the aliens and took out any kind of suspense there could have been from the get go.
The movie is predictable all the time and doesn't even try to avoid (or hide) it, ultimately leading to me not being entertained at all.
Recurring actors were all a total waste, except perhaps for Goldblum.
Brent Spiner, who plays Dr. Okun, was additionally unbelievable and simply unnecessary.
Using a poweroff button as sign for the resistance against the aliens was preeeetty lazy as well in the design department.
Easy cash grab movie. I have no doubt the next ID movie will be even worse. Here goes my hope for a good Stargate reboot down the drain. I hoped it would give the franchise a possibility to relaunch a series or so but I heavily doubt that now.
But to not only say negative things about this movie: the CGI effects weren't bad.
The most boring, formulaic storytelling ever! This movie doesn’t indicate Hollywood is dead, instead it shows we are way beyond the grave and are just staring at the lifeless corpse of Hollywood cinema being pulled by strings. I don’t know who Wonder Woman 1984 was made for. Is the target audience kids? Because this felt like a children’s movie.
When Anna Banerjee said American superhero movies are blatant propaganda. Wow, SO true! I expect nothing less from a movie that’s an American perspective on the Cold War. Damn, communists! Damn, Russians! 90,000 years later Americans are still psychotically obsessed with the Russians. They are the only villains in US movies nowadays as well, so by that you can’t say in which year the whole movie takes place in, the only thing that pertains to 1984 are the clothes.
There was just so much wrong with this movie:
Gal Gadot is a very beautiful woman but my goodness, she cannot act even a little. It's hard not to think she was chosen only because she's a pretty model type, because it certainly was not due to her acting skills. And does she even have enough lines to justify being the leading character?
Pedro Pascal’s character is the same villain you’ve seen before in every film ever made: business man is overwhelm by his own greed. Oh, and his dad yelled at him for wetting the bed, so.
I hated Kristen Wiig’s character. She is the nerd with glasses that nobody helps but we got a "makeover" scene where she becomes "pretty" because she … takes off her glasses! And then everybody totally falls for her. Gal Gadot was like, "Where is your kindness and humanity, girl?" But Kristen Wiig was like, "Lol stfu bitch, I’m doing hot girl shit now." It’s basically an endorsement of the Joker thesis that it's always the socially insecure outcast who will eventually pose the greatest threat to humanity. But now people don’t have a problem with it because it’s women, so :tada: diversity. :tada: You people will gobble up any "diversity" scraps the Hollywood toss your way.
Other tropes are so cliché are well. The "hero losing her power" - women can only be strong and powerful or have love, never both, or the "using kindness to save the world" – this really is a movie about how we can solve international war and terrorism through … forgiveness. :laughing:
Everything in this movie is black or white, so naturally, we got the "every man is an asshole but we aren’t going to have a real resolution about that" theme. Guys in car nearly kill jogger lady, bad guys want to throw kids to death in a mall – who acts like that?
The dialogue is a hokey displeasure to listen to - "Scientists don’t wear heels" "Some do", "I can save the day but ~you can save the world".
All in all, the plot is so riddled with cliches and idiotic ideas, the characters are either boring or stupidly written, the writing is complete garbage. The movie tries so hard to be relevant and relatable. I don’t have a high tolerance for overly cheesy movies, and I don’t think superhero movies are for me!
Ridley Scot is back! After some less interesting movies he succeed to make an great one again! It isn't the greatest movie I have ever seen but I couldn't recall one fault or issues with this film. The acting was great especially with his carry Matt Damon! The rest of the cast did fairly good. Matt Damons character stranded on Mars and wants to find a way to survive until he is rescued. This is the main part of the film which was surprisingly funny. Mainly due to the optimistic attitude that Matt Damons character had. It was even funnier than some comedies I have seen this year. Besides that there are some really suspenseful scene with are handled very well by Ridley Scott. He build the suspense fairly slow but great. They also created a great setting of Mars, it really felt like a place which was gorgeously filmed.
Overall I would gave the film a 8,5 but unfortunately Trakt would allow me to give that many hearts so I rated it a 8. Simply because I liked my 9 rated films more than this one. Nevertheless I had a really good time with this entertaining, greatly directed and interesting film.
Like the last four Transformers movies, The Last Knight is over-long and overstuffed. While screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (Batman & Robin, Lost in Space, The DaVinci Code) who came up with the story added some DaVinci Code like subplots to the film. Which has Anthony Hopkins sending Mark Wahlberg's character on a quest to find Merlin's staff.
The upside is that there's some nice visuals and set pieces. All that seems wasted on films that don't add up to much. Sarcastic Spoiler Alert: They all have pretty much the same ending for movies that are so epicly long. "My name is Optimus Prime and I will always fight for humans and their planet....blah blah blah."
Michael Bay, before the start of some recent movies at theaters bragged about testing the limits of IMAX for the viewers. Yeah when he did that, he let the writer of Batman & Robin worry about the story. The film looks great but is it great ? No.
There's some laughs and cool new Transformers and robots but the movie is so long with a scattered plot that the good points don't save it . You also have Josh Duhmel back and chasing Wahlberg and the Autobots throughout until he's suddenly not.
Plus why are the humans even still after the Autobots that saved them four times and are their best defense against the Decepticons ? That's something for example that makes the film a mess. Bay hasn't learned from making any of these movies. Never takes notes from a bad review and just presents similar movies each time.
It's like "screw you, I'm Michael Bay and people will keep seeing these movies. So I will make it longer, louder and add more explosions!!"
I thought the movie really underdeveloped the world, and didn't take advantage of all of the cool possibilities. Other than The Shining none of the references had any impact. Mark Rylance was the only actor to make an impression. I didn't even like the narrative of the book that much but I thought Stephen Spielberg would improve it not make it worse. The plot holes were huge especially in the third act ( How did Art3mis just walk into his office, walk out without anyone seeing or hearing her, and just walk out of the IOI headquarters ). It felt like a lot was cut for time, or they spent so much time on CGI sequences they forgot to make anything real, but what they cut were the parts that made the book interesting. You could ignore Ernest Cline's narrative and plot struggles because he made the characters slightly interesting, the challenge seemed difficult and all encompassing, and a lot of the references were actually relevant to the story. Every time they got a key it was a huge deal in the book, here I totally forgot it even mattered because it was so glossed over even from the beginning ( Really a race? ) and the real world consequences also didn't matter, so the whole thing felt like it was hitting the classic sentimental Spielberg movie moments with nothing to back it up.
I am a huge fan of the inventive yet simple first film. It is a guilty pleasure of a film that includes giant robots and monsters, but has enough development of characters that I have something to latch onto. It also helps that Del Toro's imagination helps build not only some fantastic beasts, but a great world to have the action focus on.
This sequel, while almost stand alone, doesn't have as much in any of those departments. The characters are pretty flat. The relationships between the characters are barely developed (like between Pentecost and Lambert, or Pentecost and Amara). The film lacks any heart or soul to it. Yes, there is lots of action, lots of Jaegers fighting Kaiju, but it almost feels rote. While the fight scenes in the original film are masked in night and rain, the fight scenes in Uprising take place mostly in the bright day light. I figured that would make for something exciting, but the action mostly falls flat. Maybe, it's because there aren't any memorable touches in the fight scenes like the original such as the Newton's Cradle or the funny items falling out of cargo containers used as weapons.
Even with this said, I did enjoy the film for what it is, a film that aims high, but falls quite short of its original. The film is carried by John Boyega whose charisma makes the film very watchable. The casting of newcomer Cailee Spaeney was also great, she has a future ahead of her. I didn't much care for Scott Eastwood who doesn't emote anything other than "stern" or "annoyed".
The story for the film was pretty thin, except for the twist which sets off the big fight in the third act. I actually thought the twist of flipping Newt to be the bad guy was brilliant since Newt is the last guy I would think could be a bad guy.
I do wonder what happened to some of the other characters that survived the original film. What happened to Raleigh Becket? How come he's not with Mako Mori who shows up in this film? How come Herc Hansen is not leading the Shatterdome? And where in the hell is Hannibal Chau? The script doesn't bother to fill us in on these interesting characters from the first film.
The score was taken over by Lorne Balfe and was fairly forgettable until he uses Ramin Djawadi's original Pacific Rim theme in the third act.
Having the unique crowded style that is Robert Rodriguez's flair, this movie suffers from two great creator's tales forming into a clouded mess. James Cameron, known for his epic scales, and Rodriguez's small budget work don't mix well here. In fact, if it wasn't for Rodriguez's understanding of the importance of the world here, it might not have worked at all. But with the fluidity that he brings to the streets of Iron City, it breathes life in a chaotic marvel of special effects and set design.
Which is the standout aspect of this movie, the world design. Crafted with care as you can see this is a story that the creators want to be told right. Unfortunately, it left the characters and plot short. The environment is a lovely thing to admire, and to wonder about. But once again, it is sad to see the wonder be all that you get.
This film is a build up that never completes itself. Sure, Alita has an okay arc, and other characters have some motivation. But it falls flat when you build and build that you don't focus on this story as it's own, and instead let it be a setup film for potential sequels. It has great ideas and wonderous action. However, it leaves ideas behind as fast as it gets there. Built up to be a big thing, but then getting a tangent to something else. Leaving me feeling unsatisfied. Though, the main moral fixated with Alita is actually quite good and gives that unsatisfied feeling some meaning, but not enough to justify it.
Alita is the best character here, I found no others to be compelling enough to care for. This may be a factor of pacing shifting too fast or slowly in many cases, as I don't get the feeling enough time was spent with the right characters. Doctor Ido's arc is completely finished by the first half and is left behind for the remainder of the film. Others are just there for filler and have no impact on the story.
Alita: Battle Angel is good for action, as it is directed decently and has little to no shakycam. The main character is a strong female lead and has a very unique world and backstory. If a sequel does happen, I only hope they make it a contained film and actually give us a fascinating plot.
5/10
You have to be in the right frame of mind for this. It isn't a heroic epic where everything turns out all right.
It is a graphic and real depiction of the horrors of war from the eyes of those fighting on the front lines in ww1. It is meant to make you question the motives of leaders. It is meant to make you think about how much the normal people putting their lives on the lines to kill each other, actually differ from the ones they are killing. And it's meant to show you/make you viscerally feel the shift that happens when you move from only hearing the media/govt rhetoric - to seeing first hand the conflicts of interest / cruelty in your own / illogical decisions - to finally becoming a numb, automaton following orders blindly to stay alive.
It is a very well made film. You care about the characters. You feel the emotions. You really understand the implications of the fruitless efforts at the western front. You end feeling how tragic it was. I ended feeling anger for how people were treated like throwaway chess pieces. You've got to be in the right frame of mind!
The flaws of the previous sequel are more readily apparent here as the focus shifts to the “real” world which is populated largely with uninteresting characters that were poorly developed in the previous film. As before, the film is stronger when it focuses on what is going on in the Matrix and Neo’s own struggle to understand his role and the fallout from his discoveries. It is a shame then that most of the plot centers around a large scale assault on Zion that quickly becomes tiresome as characters who we care little about face off against an overload of CGI machines that really needed cutting down. That the film grinds to a halt in its biggest action sequence says a lot about how badly thought through this part of the film was and without the juxtaposition of scenes within the Matrix that made the “real” world sequences bearable in the last film, it never really recovers from it, even if it does improve slightly as it shifts its focus back to Neo. It doesn’t help that whereas in the last film plots elements from the “real” world were rushed, here it’s the elements related to the development of the Matrix that feel rushed and forgotten about for large parts of the film which make the final sequence difficult to care about. It’s not unwatchable by any means, but as the culmination of a trilogy it can’t help but disappoint.
Almost the whole time I was watching this movie (including the bath-scene with Margot Robbie) I felt like the biggest idiot on the planet.
I'm not a numbers guy nor do I know all the terminology in American banking and mortgage systems and most of it looked like watching some kind of alien language. In the end though I knew what happened, I saw people warning us for what was about to happen and watched it all crumble down when it did happen.
All in all though it's an excellent portrayal of a system that is quite frankly a big con, stripping away money from those "below" with people at the help that don't really know what they are doing. An intricate web of rules, regulations, lingo, faces and characters who don't know the full picture. I think the movie quite nicely mimicks this chaos in the way it is set up, the catchy camera movements and often loud and noisy environments the scenes play out in. Here's a famous face that will teach you plebs what it's about, "let's simplify this for ya" so you're lured in.
Despite it's dry subject, the vast amout of stuff I personally didn't fully grasp it is a very enjoyable movie that will keep you hooked till the end.
Oh and it took me about at third the movie to realize Brad Pitt was that one guy.
I looked forward to this not because I've been blown away by the recent Marvel films - by the time Endgame arrived, I was past humouring the franchise if I'm honest - but because Scarlett Johansson deserved a standalone film before her time was up.
The worst Marvel film so far for me was Captain Marvel. Just tedious, inconsequential, Marvel-by-the-numbers. This is now 2nd on their list of piss poor films.
The opening 20 minutes were really good. Setting a scene that could have rivalled Winter Soldier - for me, the best of the franchise so far. But once the sisterly reunion was over, it went downhill fast. I think it was the cumulative effect of so many ropey accents. Even cockney geezer Ray Winstone shouldn't be given a role if he refuses to do voice lessons... Quite unforgivable.
I liked Olga Kurylenko, as always. I disliked that her stunt double was clearly a man for the first 2/3 of the film. How is that meant to be ratified by the viewer?
I thought the constant humour was an effort to be Thor Ragnorok-like because, you know, "all Australians are funny"... but that didn't work. And jokes about involuntary hysterectomies don't fall right 99 times out of 100, I'm guessing.
The plot was staid. The action generic. The script fine, I suppose, had it not been for those dreadful accents throughout. And the confinement of the time line needing to fit in with the rest of the franchise meant it was always going to end at a point we all knew it needed to. So the ending really was a damp squib.
5/10
PS. One thing that irked me a little was the unnecessary complaint by SJ during press for the film about feeling sexualised (though I don't recall where in the myriad plots) . Clearly the director and her had an agreement to do tracking shots of her arse several times during this film. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. For a film this average, I won't be holding a grudge though as I won't remember a single thing about this movie tomorrow.
I haven't seen this movie for a really long time and just bought the new restoration from a 4k master on blu-ray and was happy to watch it. I thought it wouldn't be as good as I remembered it, because most of the time you realize that movies you liked in your childhood weren't actually that good.
That's however in no way true for Rambo (the German title of "First Blood" which is why I always got confused in the past when I heard the original title and thought that it was a part of the franchise I hadn't yet seen).
The restoration looks really good (except for some scenes that stand out because of their worse quality (mostly due to bad lightning in the original movie, I guess), and besides that, the movie is still really captivating, though it is in no way over the top. The car/motorcycle chase for instance - how unimpressive was the car flip or Rambo falling from the motorcycle? Still it was more captivating than a lot of modern movies with so overrealistic and fast paced cuts, that you just stop caring all together.
Also I totally forgot how funny Richard Crennas persona was: "God didn't make Rambo - I made him. I'm Sam Trautman - Colonel Samuel Trautman. I came to get my boy" - what an introduction :D And then follows a dick-measuring contest between Will Teasle and Sam Trautman. That is great acting. As is the acting of Brian Dennehy as the dislikable villain character - and of course we cannot forget the actin of our main character, portrayed by Sylvester Stalone - I also forgot how extremely moving the last scene was - I remembered that there was this critical moment when Rambo finally opens up to Trautman, but I forgot just how intense it was, and how unexpected it came. It feels somewhat displaced in a movie that builds up as an action movie with the underdog fighting the bad guys who unfortunately have the law on their side. And at the finale all of a sudden this change of tone - that is really bold, it's both strange but because of it strangeness so much deeper and better - as you are simply not prepared to what is going to happen. I always remember to feel sympathetic towards Vietnam veterans even though I am and always was a pacifist. I guess that is an impression that this movie left with me when I saw it the first time at my earlier teen years.
Last but not least I also really liked the sound track and the setting and locations are also really great. All in all a pretty good movie and factoring in that this movie had me so interested even though I've seen it a couple of times in my youth, and feeling that though it is so 80s it is still a movie that could captivate so many young audiences who have never seen this movie before, I am inclined to give it the best rating possible.
And because I mentioned the new blu-ray release: this is really worth a buy. There is more than 1,5 hours of extras, and these are pretty mixed - from the classics like interviews, making-ofs, trailers and featurettes to two serious documentaries, one on the Vietnam war and the other on the training of Green Barrets, as well as a fitness training featurette from the personal trainer for Rambo, there is a lot really interesting and unconventional ground covered. And the steelbook artwork looks just stunning as well :)
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
It's a testament to the quality of this film that you soon forget what a technical marvel these ape characters are and become much more focussed on the story. Caesar, once again, is at the forefront of this film, and the exploration of the ape community is fascinating to watch. Yet rather than simply focus on Caesar, Reeves is more interested in showing the fragility of peace between the human and ape communities, the distrust and hatred that can develop between two opposing factions and how easy such emotions can tear down any attempts to bring an end to hostilities. It's as relevant an issue that you could find to explore in modern society and it works wonderfully well here. Although the human characters are not as well developed, Reeves doesn't rush the story and the tentative steps to building trust between the two "families" in the opening half are beautifully played and help to ensure that the audience has some investment in both sides when all hell breaks loose. And whilst there are no real surprises in where the story is going, it is this focus on the characters like the previous film that help to make the action sequences tense and exciting to watch, even if the finale strays a little into CGI overload.
Although it was a little slow to begin with, I was not disappointed at all by this film. As soon as I heard there was a new one, I kept an open mind and told myself that: "If it makes me laugh as much as the first and second, then I will be happy", and thankfully, it certainly did! If I was going to pick between the three, I'd still slightly prefer the second one, but I don't really think we should be comparing them. Why not enjoy them all? I certainly have.
As with all of Rowan Atkinson's comic creations, Johnny English is a hilarious character who can simply be funny in an empty room. So many people discuss his physical ability, which is of course outstanding, but even his ability to phrase words for comical effect can brighten anybody's day. There are so many subtle gags in this film, it's unbelievable.
I loved the return of Bough as his sidekick. He plays an excellent part in both the first one and this new one. His character is equally as brilliant as Johnny English himself.
A wonderful film, filled with brilliant comedy, and there were moments when I didn't think I'd be able to stop laughing. It was fantastic!
This film was a head scratcher for me. It was a novel concept - to tell a story of heroism casting the heroes to play themselves - but it just didn't work. Not that the heroes didn't bring good first time performances, their contributions were natural and convincing. But the story wasn't big enough to justify a full length feature treatment. So, what we got was: Part 1 - a looooooong first hour to establish basic character points (during this hour I repeatedly asked the questions, "Is this a Clint Eastwood production? Have I mistakenly gone into a low budget, single concept, student film?); Part 2 - A travelogue of Europe to establish the context (that erased the notion that it was low budget, those were lofty locations); then, Part 3 - the act of heroism, itself, worth telling, but it only takes a few harrowing minutes. So, not a documentary, not a movie. Perhaps, a short live action would have worked. Because, the kernel of this film is a story deserving to be told, I give it a 6 (fair) out of 10. But as a feature length movie I would give it a 4 (poor) out of 10. [Reenactment of a true act of heroism]
It's a first effort at adapting Star Trek to the feature film format, and it shows. Pacing is very slow for most of the film, only picking up near the climax. The slowness is not helped by long, drawn-out shots of the ship—leaving spacedock, exploring new environments, etc. At the time, I suppose, the audiences probably loved getting to see such views of the ship they'd known up until then only on small television screens, but that's the only purpose these…let's call them "ship porn" shots…serve. Dramatically, they belong on the cutting room floor (or, more accurately, should never have been shot, given how much of the $43 million budget effects shots consumed).
There just isn't enough plot to fill the runtime of this film. It feels like a standard one-hour TV episode script stretched to fill 2+ hours with eye candy. Presented as an episode of the original TV series that ran from 1966-1969, the film's plot would likely have been quite at home. As a full-length feature film, though, it felt like a slog. For the first 90 minutes or so I found myself often checking the playback position, the movie-watcher's version of constantly asking Mom, "Are we there yet?"
That's not what you want your viewers to do when they watch your film.
Update from the future: In summer 2019, TrekMovie interviewed Douglas Trumbull about his work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture, as a lead-up to the film's 40th anniversary and Trumbull's first appearance at a Trek convention. Read it here: https://trekmovie.com/2019/07/26/interview-vfx-pioneer-douglas-trumbull-on-how-it-took-a-miracle-to-complete-star-trek-the-motion-picture/
Flying high off the back of Casino Royale, Daniel Craig and co. return with this poorly-titled, somewhat short entry into the annals of Bond history.
The most glaring sore point is the weak, badly executed plot. We follow a businessman backing a Bolivian coup in return for the nation’s water supply. It seems like something for a larger authority to get involved with rather than a semi-rogue super spy. This feels like a real MI6 operation, and a dull one at that.
Quantum of Solace was made during the writer’s strike and Craig himself has admitted that he had to co-write much of it with the director, the two making it up as they went along. This is a reasonable excuse but obviously it doesn’t make it a better story.
There’s a lot of action packed into the film. None of it really serves any real purpose other than to distract from the fact nothing is happening; but some of the sequences are really quite entertaining so in a way this tactic pays off! The opening car chase is a like-it-or-loathe it pastiche of a Bourne film; it’s a brash start and at least it tries to make some sort of statement. There’s just something missing there though and things quickly become confusing instead of enthralling.
The opera scene is also noteworthy, it’s a cool idea and Craig’s smug superiority fits the moment. As he uncovers the members of an illegal organisation one by one, it’s satisfying to see they have been rumbled. Unfortunately like the rest of the film it starts with a bang and ends with a whimper, the scene not really going anywhere.
There are some good central performances as usual. Daniel Craig has successfully put his own spin on Bond now and makes you want to see anything he does. Judi Dench gets a little more to do than last time. Olga Kurylenko is exotic enough to fit the bill but doesn’t actually get anything to do. It’s a shame that the only Bond girl who doesn’t sleep with Bond should be so wishy-washy. Gemma Arterton suffers a similar fate although she does manage to give some extra depth to her limited role.
The same can be said for the villain, who is so unremarkable it’s hard to remember what role he actually plays. The idea is supposed to be that Bond is up against a ‘normal’ bad guy, which is ‘real’ and therefore scary but it doesn’t actually make it any more menacing, just boring.
Quantum of Solace isn’t a particularly bad Bond film compared to some of the dreck we’ve seen so far, but just when Casino Royale showed us that the franchise was beginning to take a fresh start; this is a step in the wrong direction. It’s a film like no other in the series, and Craig is always a joy to watch, but otherwise this is a forgettable moment in Bond’s history.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/09/26/quantumofsolace/
As an introduction to the TV show, this is a reasonable introduction to the characters which are vastly improved on over the course of the show. However, it certainly doesn't warrant a theatrical release as it does not work as an Episode 2.5 at all with characters like Ventress and Ahsoka involved and the plot is thin stuff for the film to work as a standalone. The decision to join three episodes together also results in a dominance of action sequences, some of which are impressive (the cliff face assault is great stuff) but overall it gets a little tiresome after a while. A whole subplot involving Padme could easily have been cut. The initial signs for the show however are promising - the relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin has developed more into camaraderie that works well in what little is seen and Ahsoka is a nice foil to Anakin and has potential despite occasional poor attempts at banter (this is said in hindsight having seen the development of Ahsoka and Anakin in the show). Would be far better split into the original three episodes and shown as part of the show itself but, having viewed all the episodes of The Clone Wars, as it stands it now feels like a better film that it did initially.
A truly remarkable film. There's nothing wrong with predictable, but it's refreshing to see something that isn't. The two main characters in this film are both rather eccentric. Harold is obsessed with death - He keeps pretending to kill himself, and he keeps attending random funerals. At one of his many funeral visits, he meets a 79 year old woman who is also eccentric. She attends funerals regularly to make herself feel alive. Despite such an age difference, a friendship develops into a romantic relationship. For 1971, this was probably outrageous, but it's actually told in a beautiful and realistic way.
Despite the morbid theme, there are many comical moments, and it isn't all that upsetting overall. Be aware of the morbid theme though, as it may not always be appropriate viewing for anyone who's just buried a loved one. But don't let it put you off watching it. It's one to definitely watch when you feel able to do so.
As a Chaplin fan, I had to admire the final shot, which was very Chaplin-esq (whether intentionally or not.) Towards the end of a few Chaplin films, he walked away sadly, with his back to the camera to show that he was quite upset, but then he would always kick up his heels and continue walking but in a more cheerful way, as if to say: "tomorrow's another day."
In this film, Harold does the same thing at the end. He walks away from the camera sadly, but then kicks up his heels and quickly becomes happy again. It's as if his character has learnt to be positive and not let negativity get him down. We can learn a lot from Harold and Maude.
We all have unique reasons for loving a film. That's what makes cinema so magical. It's personal. You can love the meat of the movie, or you can love the trimmings.
There's a bunch of good stuff here. Most people my age will refer to "Superman" as THE definitive superhero film. None will ever take it's place. A position no doubt dictated by the age we were when first viewing it. As with films like "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark", WHEN you experience them is just as important as HOW you experience them.
As we age, youth's eyes fade. Cynicism creeps in. Experience leads us to see the many injustices this life offers and we become more critical... less likely to accept that which we would rather believe. After all, an adult who clings to the youthful ideals of wonder is simply naive... right?
To this day, the opening title sequence for "Superman" fills me with the same magical joy it did over twenty years ago. Never was a score so perfectly crafted around a film. John Williams and Richard Donner created such an indelible experience that over 25 yrs later, Bryan Synger will use the same music and theme to bring the magic to a new generation of wondrous eyes.
As for me though, this will always remain the best.
I saw this movie way back when, and the first thing I’ll tell you is that the concept is memorable, but not so much the plot. I remembered the switching of the faces, the faceless Nic Cage, but I remember little else. I couldn’t remember how they got away explaining the voice change or really – how putting a face on another man even works. I mean, the bone structure, jaw line, hair line, body weight, chest hair, hair length, etc…differed on both bodies. A simple face switch wasn’t going to work – and not even an “it’s just a movie, relax” explanation was going to cut it…thankfully, there’s not only an explanation, but it shows us everything. It might not be an exact science, but the movie did a good job making it reasonably believable and that’s all that matters.
The story, on the other hand, could use some work. It’s really a very basic cat and mouse tale with generally bland characters. The two leads are different enough from each other in order for them to need to impersonate one another throughout the movie (which was kind of cool), but as far as a colorful background, the characters are simply linked to a family member, but you know little else about them. Instead, it focuses a bit too much on the action and violence side of things. If that’s why you’re watching, you won’t have a bad time. The action, as well as the violence, were both done rather well, and it was mostly fun kicking back and watching the things that happen unfold. If you want to see something meaningful and memorable, I’m afraid a different body switching film may be the opportune choice there.
All in all, Face/Off delivers an unforgettable concept along with all the action and violence a man’s man could ask for, but it leaves out a meaningful plot and offers only half-developed characters. It’s fun, but a bit incomplete. Another year in pre-production could have made this movie a winner.
Compared to the first Star Trek feature film—a first effort that almost felt like watching grass grow—The Wrath of Khan delivers a real Star Trek experience in movie format. Traces of some of the original's flaws remain, but they are appropriately contained in sequences that make heavy (re)use of footage from the first, very sedately paced film.
It was probably inevitable that this second film would make a bigger splash. After all, its very title invokes one of the Trek fandom's favorite villains, and promises to bring him back. And back he comes, Ricardo Montalban performing splendidly—perhaps even better than he did in the TV series episode that introduced Khan.
There's also just more meat to this plot than the first film. It has character development, it establishes additional backstory, and even introduces a new technology (the "defense field") never seen again in a Trek production. Joking aside, Kirk and Spock get to explore real emotion, and we see just how far Spock will go for logic. (Stopping just short of a spoiler here so I don't have to flag this.)
Keep an eye out for an egregiously bad cut near the end—it's notable because it's the only truly bad edit in the film (that I've noticed). I'll say only to keep an eye on Kirk when he's in Engineering—anything more would be a spoiler.
