The key takeaway of the film, to me, is its subtle offhand remark of American yuppie culture; the tasteful thickness of the way they jab (okay I'll stop) at how everyone is trying to be like everyone else - "trying to fit in," in Bateman's words - that everyone mistakes someone for another and someone like Patrick Bateman can get away with murder.
The whole film is about him needing to fit in but at the same time stand out.
The film toys with the idea of the murder scenes being an imagination that all happened in Bateman's head, but I say the line is only drawn when the things get more ridiculous. It's even earlier than the one they displayed in the third act - when the ATM shows the message to feed it a cat - but when Bateman started hanging out in Paul Allen's apartment. An investigation was going on: why would Bateman intentionally spread their fingerprints all around? Partly perhaps he did want to get caught - the desire to find out who he really is beneath the mundane sameness of corporate life - as the conversation with the lawyer suggested. Partly, however, is his active imagination playing bigger and bigger role as he descended into madness in this third act, as you can see that right after that scene we get the ATM scene and the car explosion scene where even Bateman himself couldn't believe it just happened.
The director did admit that the ending give viewers a wrong impression of what really happened in the course of the film - so I'm basing my comments on that. The surreal last act seems to be ambiguous, but when you consider the change of demeanor from the realtor in Paul Allen's apartment (and the all-white, recently painted rooms) and the lawyer Bateman talked to, that should be telling of the point of the third act. The eerie interaction, tense acting, and the music really made the last act as the best of the film.
Even when the film is intended as a commentary of 1980s hedonistic yuppie culture, I can still see it being relevant today. The consumerist, "getting into the fad" corporatist culture endures even into the culture of Silicon Valley workers. Patrick Bateman is a that obnoxious guy who really likes to hear himself talk - the kind of Twitter people and YouTube video essayists with celebrity syndrome - and the whole Pierce & Pierce young executives competing against each other to sound smart and look posh are just your typical tech workers taking a jab at politics. Their understanding of the events are just skin deep, but they want to look like the best among themselves. This is why the film is great even in 2022 and I think it will stay great at least in the next 10 years.
I am a HUUUUUUUGGGEE MORTAL KOMBAT fan and I have never thought they have done a good film (except Scorpions Revenge), but this film is so close to being the perfect Mortal Kombat film but a few things let it down.
So let's start with the good, I actually think all of the castings is perfect as I felt everyone embodied their characters perfectly with the standouts being Hiroyuki Sanada (Scorpion), Joe Taslim (Sub-Zero), Mehcad Brooks (Jax) and the best being Josh Lawson (Kano) who just plays Kano in such a way that he makes he almost makes scenes that can be generic even better with his great one-liners and great comedic but scum bag timing. Also, you can see the passion for the franchise from the cast and crew because they nail references and also many different things like fatalities which feel sooooo good when it happens.
Now here is where I say the negative, whoever edited this film needs to be supervised better because some of the scenes are edited so poorly but especially the fight scenes which you can see they shot the actions but they use quick cuts which ruin some of the fights in the film. Also, though Lewis Tan (Cole Young) grew on me I feel like it would have been easier to use a character from the franchise already though he wasn't bad in the film just a little bit generic and they spend too much time on him and not enough on the other characters like Scorpion who you would think according to the trailer he would be in it more.
Anyway, if you are a Mortal Kombat fan I feel like you will enjoy it and I give it a 7/10 because they have shown they care about the fans but as a film, it isn't great and I wouldn't recommend it if you aren't a Mortal Kombat fan.
A more family friendly Max film. That is pretty much Max and Peter Pan’s Lost Boys teaming up. The last action scene does at least feel like Mad Max.
I find the film entertaining. Even if the middle doesn’t make much sense. With Max being mistaken for a pilot and worshipped by a young tribe.
I love the film though since with Tina Turner in the movie and doing the soundtrack. The movie feels more pure 80’s than the other films. Acting wise, I have seen people say she can’t act. I think she makes her villain character likable. What she has to do in the movie, she does quite fine.
It is weird that Bruce Spence is playing a pilot but not the same character as he did in Road Warrior. It should have just been the same guy.
There’s too much complaints that this isn’t enough like the others. I would dare say there’s more plot to this than Fury Road had. The movie smartly builds it’s way up to the usual Mad Max style car chase scene.
Sadly the critics got this movie better than normal viewers. It is still a post apocalyptic film. Still very much a Mad Max film, stop whining.
"Accept the pain you have wrought. Greater delights await. We wish to see you proceed."
Well, it looks like I am the odd one out here, but I liked the new Hellraiser much more than the original. It makes the wise choice of not copying too much of the original by being less erotic but a much darker version. The puzzle box acts like a puzzle box rather than a genie lamp, where one rub summons the cenobites.
I just felt that I got more out of this one.
Rather than the usual leather costumes that the cenobites wear, this time it's another layer of skin to appear as if they are wearing an outfit. The designs looked Gothic, sickly, and fantastic. The leader of the cenobites, the Hell Priest, aka Pinhead; this time played by Jamie Clayton, who I am happy to say brought her spin to the character. I thought she knocked it out of the park. Incredibly creepy and almost hypnotising to watch. You get the impression that these cenobites are more unforgiving and do not play by their own rules.
David Bruckner, in my eyes, is a horror director who can do no wrong. Some dreamy and often other-worldly visuals here, which at times reminded me of ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’. There has been some talking about remaking ‘Elm Street', and I think Bruckner would do an excellent job judging by this movie.
Also, without spoiling anything, the ending surprised me with how layered, compelling, and mature it was. The scene does not have any action set piece or a bloodbath, but a lot happens. The most striking thing about it is how the worst torture that any human being could experience is to live with the pain of grief.
Just watched and I really like it. i just love the cenobites designs, but i think some just looked like "plastic skin".
The story is "ok" to be fair, the first movie has a better "motivation" to drive the story forward ( the love of a woman to a man who has been taken by the cenobites and was willing to do everything to have him back ). This movie has a similar story, but i think it lacked more development from the brother.
It's EASILY the best one so far after the original one.
and oh... the last scene where Voight is skinned inside the leviathan to become one of the cenobites is awesome! that gives some backstory that I really appreciated. I just wish that the scene was longer and more detailed, like showing other cenobites or a "supreme" cenobite performing the procedures to turn voight into a cenobite.
about the pinhead controversy.. it doesn't affect the movie at all. it was great to see a new design! I don't see the "sex" of the cenobites, just see them as "beings" the body is irrelevant to them, they just want pain extracted from the flesh and that's it. pinhead is a result of that, not a he or she.
Never been a fan of the Hellraiser franchise watched the original a few years back and thought apart from the practical effects and Cenobites it was boring as hell (pun intended). Now this is something that's not boring as hell I had a good time lots of gore, the box makes sense for once and we get to see the Cenobites for more than 2 minutes. The Cenobite costumes are eye candy so much attention to detail I had to put it on pause a few times to get a better look at the costumes. Pinhead looks like a horror icon more than ever! Couldn't see any fails in the CGI they did a good job with that. It feels like a slow burn in some parts but when there's action it's quite effective and entertaining. My favorite scene was what happened in the back of the van.
On the other hand the acting is questionnable, the characters lack depth and the movie went on for 30 mins too long. Also I have to give it to the original the gore and practical effects were on another level it was so much more effective and gross.
Overall this left me satisfied and I would definitely like a sequel.
“Can you guess what every woman's worst nightmare is?”
You know, I find it genuinely concerning that some people are angry and upset over this movie. I mean, just look on IMDB. Film is subjective and it’s OK not to like this movie, but the thing I don’t understand is why certain people are upset with the themes this movie appropriately presents. Even through deep inside I know why. If it scares them, good, because they deserve to be scared.
‘Promising Young Woman’ is a rare revenge movie that crosses several genres with one sharp sweep. Some parts are funny, other times it’s romantic, but it can get DARK really quick. I thought the way it was executed was creative and interesting. It shocked me at times with its twist and turns, even though it shouldn’t be surprising. The world can be so dark and treacherous that being surprised by its twisted ways is a bit foolish. Certain elements felt realistic, while other elements of the movie felt...well, like a movie.
It’s nice to see that Carey Mulligan’s career is getting better and better. In this movie Mulligan delivers an amazing performance that was captivating to watch. It’s difficult to imagine an actor playing a character who is dealing with so much emotional baggage and vulnerability from past events in her life, but tries her best to conceal it, but Mulligan manages to find the right balance. She can be extremely funny, emotional, and really intimidating. Her drunk acting deserves some praise as well, because within the movie her character pretends to be drunk in bars or nightclubs, to trick “nice guys” who want take advantage on her intoxicated vulnerability, before she drops the act to scare them enough to teach them a lesson. The transformation from drunk to sober was nothing short of impressive.
I was surprised to see Bo Burnham here and it’s great seeing him getting acting roles. He is a man of many talents; comedy is one of them and in this movie he never fails to make me smile. Alison Brie and Alfred Molina are also in this movie and both did a great job in their small roles.
I give this movie major credit for being unpredictable. I would sometimes try to guess where the story might be heading, to only have the rug pulled right under me.
It was an interesting choice to cast likeable actors in the roles of predators and despicable people. The movie smartly suggests that people like these can easily hide their sinister side through a fake smile and popularity.
Now I’m being vague about certain things because I’m hoping what I’ve said so far might boost your interest in checking this one. I’m starting to do that now, going in blind and leaving impressed (hopefully).
Director and writer Emerald Fennell did a solid job on delivering a fresh and unique take on a brutal topic with extreme care on the subject matter. This is also her direct debut and everything I’ve seen on screen shows great potential for her as a filmmaker in the future. The look of the movie has that candy-like colour to it, which made the movie look visually appealing to the eye. Revenge has never looked so colourful.
Without spoiling the ending for the movie, but the way it concludes is very strange and rare. I was both sad and happy at the same time. However, it can also make or break the movie for some, while I was kind of mixed on it. Some parts of the ending were realistic, as it was a cold reminder for us that sometimes justice isn’t always severed.
Unfortunately, this is where my issues start to come in. When I said some parts of the ending was dark and realistic, well to me it didn’t quite commit to that with the last few minutes of the movie. I just wished they took more of a real approach to conclude the conflict that could be plausible. I also thought the movie was a little on the nose with its social message at times.
And that’s really it for issues. What, you expected more? Surprise!
Overall rating: Revenge is best severed in confetti and rainbow colours.
This film was actually pretty good, very reminiscent of "Dragons - Riders of Berk" in terms of the appearance and personality of the main characters. It was perhaps a little too psychedelic, but that didn't detract rom the film in any way. The plot offered nothing new really, but overall it was an entertaining family film which I and my two teen daughters enjoyed.
What really saddens me is the horrific homophobic bigotry from most of the people commenting on here. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your pathetic gay hatred that is evident from your comments. There is no "woke agenda" or forcing any LGBTQ+ equality or sexual scenes upon the viewers in this film. Disney, in a very tasteful and mild way, was simply portraying a very common everyday occurrence - two teenagers being in love with each other, and so what if they were the same sex? It clearly didn't matter to any of the characters in the movie, even his overly macho, egotistical old grandad. If Ethan's love interest had been female then their relationship almost certainly wouldn't even have been mentioned by any of you in your comments. It didn't matter that it wasn't instrumental to the plot. Plenty of other films, whether or not they're Disney animations or live-action productions by any studio, have characters who are in open relationships, where the relationship itself isn't part of the plot, other than trying to portray a bit of realistic backstory to the characters, and it doesn't detract from the quality of those films. It's fairly safe to say that at least 90% of Hollywood blockbuster films have overt heterosexual activity in them - the protagonist (most often male) either saves a 'damsel in distress' and then ends up 'sleeping' with them, or else they're already in a heterosexual relationship, and they are very frequently shown to be hugging and kissing, or even more. Would you say that these films are "forcing a heterosexual agenda" on their viewers? No, of course you wouldn't. None of you making these homophobic comments have called out any of those other films because they've had a protagonist (or antagonist) in a non-essential-to-the-plot heterosexual relationship. Which is total proof that your comments DO stem from your own hypocritical, bigoted personal opinions. Trakt is not the place to air your closed-minded prejudices; the comments are for balanced reviews of films and shows. If you can't keep your hateful bigotry out of the comments, don't comment in the first place.
Like it or not, same-sex relationships are part of real human culture and everyday life (as they have been for centuries) but as of the last 20 years or so in the entire western world, they have become perfectly legal and fall under the same levels of acceptance as heterosexual relationships. Therefore, their portrayal in an everyday life context in films is merely a reflection of modern society. There is globally a huge problem with teenagers - as they realise when they go through adolescence that they're attracted to the same sex as themselves - committing suicide because of homophobic bullying and intolerance from fellow schoolchildren and even their own parents. With that in mind, perhaps the portrayal on mainstream films and TV shows of same-sex relationships as a completely normal, acceptable thing just like heterosexual relationships is actually a good thing, because it helps to normalise them without it specifically being "an agenda" or some nefarious plot to "encourage/convert children into becoming gay" - which is a massively ignorant and ridiculous viewpoint anyway, as someone's sexuality is no more a choice than their skin colour or eye colour. Why don't all you homophobes try to convert your sexuality for a week or two to being gay or lesbian? No? You'd find that disgusting, or simply couldn't do it because you're inherently heterosexual? Well, that's exactly how it is for someone who's gay or lesbian - they find the idea of personally engaging in heterosexual relationships equally repugnant, and conversion to heterosexuality equally impossible. So perhaps practice a little bit of 'do as you would be done by' or, in other words, "only ever treat others as you would have them treat you".
Purple Hearts certainly is a movie. And I have thoughts. Very unstructured thoughts, so I apologize.
The movie is relatively comoetent acted I give it that. The leads don't have much chemistry though. It is also way too long for its own good and tries to cram way too many issues in instead of focusing one and doing it right.
The initial idea of making the whole scam about Cassie's diabetes and actually addressing the healthcare issue America is was interesting and should have been the main focus here, but no it also had to be about drug money. And sadly that tired cliche turned out to be a bigger issue than the actual interesting social commentary.
Then there's the issue about the war and military. The film tries some half-assed "war bad" commentary (in the most shallow way possible) before making a basic 180 and being more "yay 'Murica" as it goes on. Again, why not focus on the fucked up healthcare system that literally makes it impossible for people to get life saving medicine? Who knows.
I didn't know Nicholas Galitzine before and he was fine, if a little bit stiff but his character didn't offer much to go for anyways.
Then there's Sofia Carson, whom I enjoyed in other movies, but she was stuck with such an irritating character that even her charme did not work. And look, I know she can sing but girl, why choose this breathy style and swallow up most of the words? I'm sorry to say it, but I didn't enjoy one of the music performances in the film and it was si silly how she got literally everything she wanted without facing any consequences.
Now, here's the deal. Cassie had a valid reason for her scam, she literally needed it to survive but this should've been addressed in the court scene, not just Luke being the martyr and going to jail while she got a record deal.
Also, did they really have to kill off the most likeable character in the film for no reason?
So yeah ... didn't really like it.
An astonishing love story that seems directly handed down by an inhabitant of ancient Greece.
Elio (17) and Oliver know each other by chance, but it is immediately as if they knew each other for a lifetime: Guadagnino establishes a secret connection between the two, which the viewer grasps thanks to the subtle expressive nuances. They start to prick themselves, to test themselves, to tease themselves intellectually. And it is a very strong bond, because Elio speaks 3 languages, plays the piano, discusses philosophy and Bach, aspects that Guadagnino does not put in the background to give the idea of the boy's mental freedom. Although Oliver is older, he plays with the senses of Elio in a tender and never oppressive way. When this bond manifests itself, it immediately assumes a very strong erotic charge, that will be the key of the film. The director takes this metamorphosis almost by accident: the best scenes (like the scene in which Elio tries to masturbate with a peach and then is discovered by Oliver, which makes Elio burst into tears) seem to play on a thin thread. They could end with a great emotion or with a great laugh of the viewer, and the former miraculously happens systematically.
But the hidden gem of the film is another: the relationship with parents. Elio, despite being a boy of refined culture, is still a naive teenager in love: the father also takes on increasing importance, as he senses what is happening between the two; it can be said that it grows with them. The passage in which Elio understands that he must not hide or be ashamed is so natural that it seems to be accidental in the plot.
The melancholy envelops all their actions: the love story seems obvious should not last, but it is as if Nature conspired so that it does not go like this, following a course of their own and detaching the two from the world and elevating them to Gods of Olympus, then returning abruptly to the earthly world in the end.
Guadagnino studied for months the homes, the customs and the practices of northern Italy in 1983, to perfectly recreate a warm and welcoming setting, perfect scenario of pure emotions: in the ending the main character cries with a close-up shot for a few minutes, outside there is snow and we listen to the crackling of homemade fire.
8.5/10
LIFF31 2017 #2
"Nature has cunning ways of finding our weakest spot."
There is no doubt how incredibly beautiful "Call Me By Your Name" is. Putting aside your age and sexuality, the film offers more than romance. It's not sad or tragic, but a peaceful one. It's all about falling in love. What's been said by many will be repeated here, so none of this is gonna be new to you, because it's all true.
Armie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg, and newcomer Timothée Chalamet all deliver terrific performances. Not a weak or unconvincing actor in sight. All of them were perfectly cast in the roles and there was no shred of doubt during the emotional parts. Especially Stuhlbarg monologue towards the end is as moving as anything I have ever seen.
The way Luca Guadagnino manages to play on your emotions and present gay romances is really mesmerizing. The warm and summer spectacle of Italy makes you want to be there. With the scenery, sunny waters, and the food which look so good, all through Sayombhu Mukdeeprom brilliant cinematography. It's paradise.
Even the sexual tension never once came across pornographic. I don't mind sex or nudity in movies and people seriously just need to stop being so sensitive about it. Ever thought that making little things a huge deal only makes it a huger deal. Or your sloppy description.
The sexuality in this film is more of an emotional connection you personally experience through the characters. And you don't have to be gay to enjoy those scenes. It avoids the typical tropes you find in movies that isn't as perfectly presented as this.
This is a truly special movie that I easily got lost in.
Do you guys think I enjoy disliking these movies? 'Cause I don't. I swear, I go into every one of these hoping I come out having had a good time, laughing and enjoying watching superheroes do marvelous things. But this is the third time this year I've been disappointed by a Marvel movie. I just don't get it anymore. Is there something wrong with me, or am I missing something in this movie? I really don't know. But as I was watching, I didn't laugh once, but other people around me were laughing, at presumably all the right points. I could tell when a moment was supposed to be funny, I could tell a joke was being attempted, but I just kind of sat there, not at all convinced. A lot of the humor just feels so flat, or simplistic. I didn't think any of the jokes were clever or original. Just like awkward dialogue or callbacks to previous Marvel movies. I think I only half-smiled at two jokes in the entire thing. One was at Steven Strange's place, where Thor puts his hammer (disguised as an umbrella), in an upstairs umbrella rack. At the end of the scene, he's downstairs ready to leave, he puts his hand out for his hammer to come back to him, and you just hear in the background glass shattering and things just getting destroyed. After a couple seconds of it, Thor just half-heartedly says sorry. At least that joke had a little bit of set-up to it. I know there's another one involving a callback to Loki and Hulk's encounter from The Avengers, but I don't consider it clever. Most audiences won't get the joke unless they've seen that scene from that movie. The only other scene I kind of smirked at was the Hulk bouncing a giant ball across the room and back, like that prison scene from The Great Escape, and I thought that was just a nice little touch. But outside that, none of the humor landed with me. I don't know where people are getting at that this movie is like hilarious and easily the best Thor movie. I mean, yeah, it's the best Thor movie, but is that saying much? The first two Thor movies were total garbage, and I actually think I'm not alone in saying that. The story in this movie could not get anymore cliche, with it's hero's journey arc. I think it's definitely the laziest written Marvel movie of this year. I wish we actually learned something about Cate Blanchett's Goddess of Death in this movie. There's like a half-explained backstory that she was banished or something and all traces of her and the real history of Asgard was erased, but that's about the extent of her character. Also, we don't know enough about her powers and her abilities. What weakens her? How powerful is she? We don't know. Check out this little scene from her introduction:
She's brought up to be like this ultimate powerful being that shocks audiences. I can hear the people watching the trailer now screaming, "Oh my god, she destroyed Thor's hammer! How's that possible?!" Yet, when we see the whole movie, the actual confrontation is very underwhelming. And we never really understand what can she do and can't? I'm still like confused on this. I get that she's more powerful than Thor, but is that it? I don't even know what kills her at the end of the movie. Getting stabbed by that fucking huge flaming monster? There were a few moments of a flashback we see of her fighting the Valkyries, and it's got this renaissance-painting like look to it, similar to the storybook in Wonder Woman, but that's really it. OH, and when she first arrives in Asgard, she murders to people guarding the gate, but randomly decides to spare the janitor that's standing by. Oh, and the guy states he's a janitor in a fashion I assumed was meant humorous, but it wasn't. But she spares him and makes him her executioner... because janitors make really good executioners, I suppose. And he just kind of like awkwardly follows beside her, and I'm still really fucking confused why she kept him. She's the Goddess of Death. Why does she need a fucking executioner? He does nothing the whole movie, and she could just do his job, as she shows off early in the movie. But his whole arc amounts to nothing. I don't even know if we saw him in the final scene. The whole movie just has so much lazy writing. It starts with Thor in a cage talking to a skeleton we see off-screen, but I was just thinking the whole time, "The only reason he's talking to this skeleton is so the audience can get caught up in why he's in the situation. When has Thor ever talked to inanimate objects like that?" It was just something I noticed. And the scene after that has some of the worst CGI I've seen this year. The flaming monster of whatever had terrible animations, it just looked so jarring whenever they'd cut from him back to Chris Hemsworth's live action footage. It even looked like the chains Thor was in was CG, maybe it was the lighting. Now, now, I don't have ill-will towards the director Taika Waititi, I've yet to see his previous movie, so let me list off at least a few positives. And that's the direction the movie sometimes has. At times, there are some really impressive elaborate shots, like the previously mentioned flashback sequence. And there's one scene with Thor and his hammer flying away from a giant serpent monster that was nicely put together with the silhouette lighting and fast movement. But at other times, the movie looks like hot garbage. I don't have all the footage at my disposal, but just for example at some of the bad direction, check out this clip:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw1T6KYM_4I
I swear, the blocking and camera choices are straight out of Attack Of The Clones, with that scene of Anakin and Obi-Wan talking in the elevator. As much as I like that film, same shit. But you know what's really funny, is I found Waititi actually admits the direction is lazy:
I love how he finds a hard time saying positives in that sequence. Just pointing out the background is all CGI. Something that's clear as day obvious. There's actually a lot of bad green-screen in this movie. One was so bad, I swear, I almost started laughing in the theater. It's when Thor's running down the bridge towards Asgard and I swear to God, I could see the black lines around Chris Hemsworth.
But, ugh, I don't really know what else to say anymore. Marc Ruffalo has almost nothing to do in this movie except spout jokes at times towards Thor, there's more comic relief characters, just like what you'd see out of Guardians Of The Galaxy 2, and Jeff Goldblum doesn't have as many scenes as I wanted. He was one of the better parts of the movie. I want to see more of him in future movies. I gotta admit, I got a kick out of seeing Doctor Strange again. Benedict Cumberbatch is always a treat to see, even if he didn't do jack shit in this movie and only served as a cameo. Also, they play Led Zepplin's Immigration Song twice in the movie. Why? I don't know, because Guardians of the Galaxy changed movies forever. And before people tell me it's Waititi's style to put jokes in serious moments, fine, but I don't think so. I've seen Marvel do this before, making a potentially dangerous and tense sequence silly. Not once was I on the edge of my seat during this whole thing, and I never feared for the main characters' lives. Even when Thor's home planet, Asgard, is blown up to smithereens, they make a joke about it.
I'm so not looking forward to Infinity War. I just don't get it anymore.
Firstly I do have to say how does this film get so much love out in the world? Is it because the genuine nice chap Keanu Reeves is in it? It mystifies me.
I don’t like action films. So when I saw the first John Wick I was amazed I liked it so much, it was action-packed but John Wick was just good at his job but got hurt and if he had a weapon he used it and though patently daft it was not that daft. It was certainly entertaining and different enough for me to enjoy it.
Then we got John Wick 2 (QPR 3) which was ‘quantum baby’. It was ‘very silly baby’ if I’m honest, The preposterousness of it was cranked up to 11 and it was beginning to look like a superhero film rather than a tough assassin gig. A bulletproof jacket, more baddies CGIing to death, in fact more deaths than World War 2 it seemed. It wasn’t good.
Now we get the last-minute equaliser, John Wick 3 (QPR 3) and if you are a football fan it felt exactly like a last-minute equaliser, upsetting and putting a downer on your day.
In what seems almost a parody we get nearly everyone in world being a member of the assassin’s guild, except how did they get to be the these assassins as they are all to a man and women completely crap at killing people. I mean really bad. None of them can kill John Wick, he’s only one man and most of the time he has little in his armoury and is wounded. Then again John is indestructible as shooting him, stabbing him, throwing him into walls or through glass hardly breaks his stride. Even running him over has no effect. It’s is silly but in fact, in reality, it is pathetic, Is it a kid's film/story? I sincerely hope not because more people die anonymously and willingly too (they are after all working for the ‘Guild’) than have done in any film I think I’ve ever seen.
There is barely a story but mainly loads of excuses for action set pieces which after the first one you’ve seen them all and tend to blend into the same thing. It is truly tedious – and it does not need to be as the first film ably proved.
The film reminded me of watching a video game walkthrough with actors cameoing their way through cut-scenes. I like video games, they generally do not make good films, with a few exceptions. Some of the next ‘baddies’ for John Wick seemed all too reminiscent of next level bosses it was that poor.
I know being green is an admirable and sensible thing in the world today but did the makers of John Wick 3 need to recycle so many set-pieces and action farts? There is a feeling that the ideas well is running dry.
A lot of the acting is a risible with Halle Berry clearly feeling that that next Raspberry could be hers, either that or she just could not be bothered. Jerome Flynn, why is he in this? The boss of the Guild pointlessly lives in the middle of a desert, I could not figure out why he was boss of the Guild it does not even make sense if you run it by your brain for a few scant seconds.
John Wick 3 might appeal to action junkies who are not worried about story or realism but I feel even some of these people might get quickly bored and frustrated.
For me John Wick 3 is where this little foray into killing scores of people for no real reason should end. I feel there will be many more victims in the near future. Mind you why would you work for the Guild? If the John Wick franchise is anything to go by you are definitely going to die and not necessarily in a quick or pleasant way.
Guess what? I did not like John Wick 3 in any way shape or form.
Not sure why this franchise gets so much hype.
This particular installment has nothing that makes me go: wow, great action movie.
That's not because there's no action in it. Quite the opposite, yet the action is just dumb.
The dialogues are stupid. There's basically no story whatsoever, no plot other than "John Wick survives the most absurd stuff".
It's very often quite absurd without being selfaware - with a few exceptions, like the opening knife fight. That was entertaining in its hilarious absurdity. That was the only thing entertaining, though.
Fight choreographies are ridicolous overall. You can see the "enemy" actors holding their position, arms, legs, ect. for Keanu to do his part instead of reacting to the actual fight. Most of the time they are simply way too passive.
Maybe that's more of an issue with the cut, though.
Weapons are conveniently unlimited ammo when (film)shots need it, while in other situations Wick loads for example a shotgun with two round but can fire like 5-7 times. Overly brutal killings of enemies with headshots when they are already down. Usually with surprisingly atrocius CGI gunfire. The opening knife fight? CGI and gummy knives everywhere.
This movie is just more of the same without any merits. It goes the same direction as the Underworld franchise.
Just that this movie is quite nonsenical all around in addition. And for what? A fourth installment, of course!
The only good thing for the 4th movie is Wick working with King to bring down this assassin's guild as it seems. That seems to be at least some plot to be had in the future.
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:
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.
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.
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.
***3/4. One of the better DCAU DTV movies I've seen.
The film borrowed a great deal from Watchmen, in structure if not in depth and thematic resonance. Both feature funhouse mirror versions of familiar characters who are, in some way, broken or damaged. Each feature a main mystery plot where heroes and friends are being eliminated and the heroes are investigating. And each feature flashbacks to how the heroes became broken, and reveal that their supergenius friend is behind it all.
That's where the similarities end though. It's a good structure for a superhero story, and I don't mind 'Gods and Monsters' borrowing it. I appreciated writer Alan Burnett's take on the Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman mythos. It was familiar enough to where it carried the weight of the past, but new and different enough that it didn't feel like a rehash or mere fanservice. That was true for most of the world the film established, and it's quite an accomplishment given how much baggage the D.C. Universe has. The three iconic heroes were both familiar and foreign, which is about the right balance for this. Burnett managed to establish them as distinct characters with believable points of divergence from the usual stories, no small feat.
I have to admit, I got a kick out of Michael C. Hall as Batman given his prior role as the title character in Dexter. Dexter himself was often accused by fans of having been essentially turned into Batman by the show's writers in later season. And like Dexter, this version of Batman had trouble connecting to other human beings, had a need to kill but only did so to criminals, and even did some forensics and blood investigation at one point in the film. It's a novel take on the character, and one that I feel worked.
One thing that shined in the film was the animation. Wonder Woman and Orion's ride though Apokalips had a cute homage to Disney's Aladdin, but met its forebearer in the creativity of movement and the colorful backgrounds the pair traveled through. Superman's fight with the Metal Man wrung some creativity out of the old "two flying superbeings collide" routine. And there was some wonderful iconography even in parts of the movie that were much more still: ships in front of planets, friends standing together, and more.
The dialogue wasn't always as inventive or well-executed. One-liners like "get out of my house" and "I bet you taste like crap" feel pulled from the kind of camp of the Joel Schumacher movies, even if they're delivered with more grit. And a lot of the would-be subtext of the film is spoken outright by the principal characters. I suppose it has as much depth as it needs to, but a lot of the writing is very out-in-the-open about what the characters are feeling or what it's trying to say.
And the reveal of Dr. Magnus as the bad guy doesn't help. He's a bit predictable given the economy of characters rule for guessing who the villain is. And his explanation that he killed Tina in a fit of rage over her caring for Batman felt too cliche, as did his grand scheme to "help" mankind with his nanobots.
Still, it's an original story about how the biggest heroes of the D.C. Universe could have been darker, rougher, and almost unrecognizable from the living icons fans know, and how they could also be motivated to be more like their main-Universe counterparts. I liked but didn't love the film, but there's a lot of creative stuff in there that makes it worth watching.
[6.2/10] Great action does not a great action movie make. Sure, it’s a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. John Wick can boast some impressively staged combat. It should with two people heavily involved in the stunt world behind the camera. The film locks in on longer, more creative fights with unbroken shots and a nice combination of shooting, punching, and car-based fireworks to keep the title character taking out his enemies in creative ways throughout.
If all you’re interested in when strolling on down to the theater is seeing some black-clad badass convincingly and creatively knockaround some thugs for ninety minutes, then this is the film for you.
But if you want more than that, trifling things like dialogue, character, story, and other rank indulgences that John Wick has little time or need for, then you’ll be sorely disappointed. The movie largely omits any such minor contrivances to add color to pugilism. (Which, hey, might be as useful literally as figuratively, since much of the film takes place amid either washed out blues or dimly-lit grayscale that can leave the experience feeling like you’re watching the movie through gravel).
The best it can offer is some generic tropes with a few sweeteners. The eponymous John Wick is some sort of mercenary or hitman for hire who got out of the game to enjoy a quiet life with the woman he loves. But then she dies, and some thugs steal his car and kill the puppy that was her dying gift to him, causing Wick to go on a roaring rampage of revenge against them, and the mob boss he used to work for who is, coincidentally, the father of the asshole who murdered his dog.
That’s pretty much it. At times, the movie vaguely grazes something beyond these ideas. The closest thing to an arc the title character has amounts to having been out of the game and then deciding that he is, firmly and finally, “back.” The characters loudly announce their motivations in one of Wick’s few genuinely emotive scenes. And there’s some commentary, mostly from the villain’s overblown monologues, about no one being able to escape the orbit of their world, and their misdeeds coming back to haunt them. At base though, all of that is window dressing on Keanu Reeves revisiting his Matrix skillset and punching, kicking, throwing, shooting, and crashing into anyone who gets in his way.
It’s good work though! With an industrial techno soundtrack, and the best dance club action set piece since Collateral, the movie convincingly portrays John Wick as an unstoppable badass. Longer takes, impossible shots, and a handful of genuine struggles between our hero and the hapless mooks unlucky enough to stand between him and his revenge, are enough to grab your attention and mark the proceedings as something beyond the usual undifferentiated big screen throwdown. Even that gets tiring after a while, though, given how little else the film has to offer.
The biggest liability in that regard in Keanu Reeves himself. The best you can say is maybe he’s trying to go for the “dark emotions bubbling under the surface” and robotic tones of grief. There are two scenes in the whole picture where he feels alive. The rest of them feature Reeves at his standard, stone-faced demeanor, ably moving through the action sequences he’s called on to perform, but never really conveying much character, or layers beneath the steely assassin, necessary to animate a film and a script that has little interest in developing story or character.
To compensate for this, John Wick surrounds Reeves with a who’s who of character actors from some of T.V.’s best prestige dramas. Most notably, Ian McShane of Deadwood fame semi-reprises his role as the proprietor of an establishment for cutthroats and hedonists alike with a unique but particular code for how he runs things. But familiar faces from The Wire, Game of Thrones, and Friday Night Lights pop up in roles big and small, and elevate the proceedings with their performances given how little character-focused writing there is in this movie.
They tie into the other major element that adds some spark to John Wick -- the little ecosystem (more gestured to than fully explored) of spooks and assassins that Wick himself is dipping back into. There’s an unspoken past between Wick and his old friend played by Willem Dafoe; rules of engagement that are observed and discarded by folks like a rival assassin played by Adrianne Palicki; and the no-questions-asked establishment owned by McShane’s character, but fronted by a genteel turn from Lance Reddick. The sense of their being small inputs and outputs, intertwined histories and a by-acclimation state of play that provides a backdrop to Wick’s adventures, gives texture and depth to the world the central figure inhabits. At times those glimpses, and the opportunity to spend more time in that world, are more intriguing than anything anchored by Wick himself.
That doesn't stop the film from loading for bear with boastful but wistful villain monologues, the standard “haunted by dead wife” backstory with a slight embellishment, and sequence after sequence of deadly action that neatly walks the line between realism and fantasy. In some ways, John Wick feels more like a T.V. pilot: dutifully but able explaining the protagonist’s motivation, gesturing toward a broader world for future adventures to take place in, and providing a demonstration for curious viewers what the “show” is capable of providing in terms of entertainment.
Despite its sequels, however, John Wick, is not a television show. It is, nominally at least, meant to be one complete story. Taken as that, it comes off like a generic contract killer revenge tale, bolstered by some unquestionably stellar combat set pieces. The film provides no shortage of exciting scenes of people being kicked, punched, shot, and otherwise beaten down, but never rises above the generic and expected when explaining why we should care about who’s doing the beating and who’s receiving it.
John Wick’s creators hope that “Keanu Reeves = ultimate badass” will be enough on its own. Given the film’s success, they aren’t wrong. But some folks still ask for more from their favorite beat-em-ups than just the beatings.
LIFF33 2019 #2
Time to spill the beans…’The Lighthouse’ is a masterpiece! I loved loved loved loved it! I loved every minute of it. One of my favorite movies of 2019 and I honestly don’t think anything can top it. A slow descent into madness that creeps into your subconscious and won’t be leaving anytime soon.
From the very first frame, I immediately knew this was going to be special. I was hooked throughout until the end credits.
Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson both deliver career defining performances. They play off each others insanity beautifully. I could tell just from the accents and dialect that plenty of homework went into making an authentic portrayal of the time.
Robert Pattinson is fantastic as a quiet and private lighthouse keeper that witness the madness slowly unfolding, but also feeds the audiences curiosity on revealing the strange happenings on the island. Pattinson is a chameleon when it comes to portraying characters.
Willem Dafoe, on the other hand, was mesmerizing as the old sea dog captain with a love for farting. His long and insane monologues are the main highlights, because it was so electrifying to watch it was hard not be captivated. He’s strict and often unpredictable, but once you see it, you won’t forget it.
I hope Robert Eggers continues making horror movies in the future, because right now he’s one of the best living directors working today. The slow-burn tension and lack of conventional scares seems to be his trademark so far. Every choice he made was so carefully thought out and the results is masterful. According to Eggers, they actually built a lighthouse from scratch and everything we see, including the weather, is genuine. Even if some tricky was used, it was so seamless I couldn’t tell what was fake.
I loved how the movie was shot; the dim black-and-white with the claustrophobic aspect ratio, giving it the appearance of a silent film born like a German expressionism - something you would’ve mistaken for a 1920/30’s horror folklore. Perfectly captures the time period and the overall dread. You really do feel cut off from the outside world and abandoned on this spectral-like island, and this black sheet of cloud strongly looming over the two men. A dark force in all directions, unseen but very eerie. The cold and heartless weather is a character itself. A big bully with salty intentions.
I adored the use of lighting through out, as the only light source is either natural light during daytime or candle lit lanterns, which cast many shadows that adds to the unease. There’s some gorgeous looking cinematography on display here. Seriously, even as am writing this right now I can memorize every single frame of this strange nightmare of a film. Absolutely breathtaking.
While the movie is mainly horror, but there is comedy sprinkled throughout that was actually pretty hilarious. Everything from Dafoe farting and some creative insults the characters would often spit at each other, which would later expand into long monologues that I sat back and watch in awe with a stupid grin on my face, because how something so silly can be so poetic. Never have I seen a movie that perfectly balances more than one genre so fluently. You can laugh at the moments where it’s suppose to be funny, but also take it seriously whenever it’s suppose to be taken seriously, which is sometimes all in one scene. The writing from Eggers is so excellent.
After only one viewing there was a lot I could easily dissect in terms of interpretation. There's masculinity and Greek mythology imagery that demonstrates a striking sense of power. There’s also a certain idea of sexuality being a sacred thing and the frustration it may bring. Or maybe it’s just a simple story about two guys on a rock getting drunk and then getting even drunker while holding each other until they drift off to sleep.
Overall rating: One of the best looking horror comedies of 2019.
This movie shows in a very good way how the next virus outbreak that will be just as big or maybe even bigger as the Spanish Flu is gonna happen in the 21th century. And believe me, sooner or later IT WILL HAPPEN.
I liked the electronic music that was playing at the beginning of the movie. It had sort of an panicked tone to it that together with the people who where getting sick and dying set a thrilling tone to the first part of the movie.
I found the movie to be very realistic. Jude Law character was spot-on. When there is gonna be an outbreak we will see people on the internet (who have no medical training whatsoever) who think they have found the cure and millions of people will listen to them. There will be millions of people who stop going to work, who stay at home and avoid contact with anyone. Others will do whatever they can to get their hands on a vaccination, even if that means killing someone else.
I liked the fact that we got to see the story from so many different angles. It really gave an overview of the entire situation and what the virus had for an impact on all the people involved.
The end of the movie was a bit disappointing. In my opinion that could have been a lot better. But overall i find this movie to be really good.
The season 10 of Friends as a Marvel superhero movie. After all the hype, we knew it was going to be a let-down, we just didn't know it was going to be disappointing.
Compared to Avengers: Infinity War (and how can one not?), in which the multiple character angles were juggled with sufficient expertise, the different arcs were badly botched in Endgame. Minor characters chew up screen time and some characters we were led to believe were major appear so little their absence glows like a nuclear WTF.
And remember how we were warned there wouldn't be any moments to take a pee break? Oh my God, taking a leak isn't the concern, taking a nap is, because the real challenge the Avengers face through most of the film is staying awake.
The first two acts are overlong, with dialogue heavy, self-indulgent information dumps and its only in the tragically short climax that we get to see the sort of action that filled Infinity War from beginning to end.
The bottom line is that The Avengers: Endgame is not just worse than Infinity War, it's worse than Justice League. But of course it will make Disney buckets of money, which is what the studio wants, and fanboys will defend it tooth and nail, which is what they want, so the only ones left out in the cold are those of us who simply want to watch a halfway decent action flick.
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
For a film with a fine cast and a very interesting idea that is trying desperately to say something about the modern world and attitudes to relationships, sacrifice, love, fitting in and some other stuff I didn’t get this film is a disappointment.
As usual like an awful lot of films it is at least half-an-hour too long although the story appears to be good and slightly different, it starts off with good pace and is reasonable funny, different and interesting and then somehow loses its way and becomes turgid and eventually collapses in on itself and ends with a ‘you decide’ finale by which time you are either not watching or no longer invested in the story or characters.
Colin Farrell plays against type and delivers a performance two steps away for Ardal O’Hanlon in Father Ted but only because he and the rest of the top notch cast have been directed to deliver their lines like an emotionless read-through. It’s funny and different for a while and then gets tiring, trite and boring. The humour, particularly in the first ‘hotel’ part of the film is dark but it is funny and makes you laugh but once we get to the woods the film is just darker and the creepy, menacing feeling from the first half of the film changes to ‘unpleasant’ for the rest of the running time. Perhaps this is what the writers and director wanted but it did not sit well with me.
I’ve no doubt that the creators will point at the message they are trying to portray in their wacky way but I can’t help feeling that The Lobster like many weird and wonderful films fails due to the fact so many people will have no real idea what is going on or worse still will fail to care before the conclusion.
Millennium Actress, which is directed by Satoshi Kon (Perfect Blue, Paprika, Paranoia Agent), is without a doubt his defining masterpiece in my opinion. This movie is a complete directorial tour de force and Kon literally blew my mind away with the editing, style and art that he displays in almost every scene. This is ultimately a biographical story about a young girl chasing after her first true love while becoming a popular Japanese movie actress but it morphs into something much more.
Millennium Actress probably had one of the most unique forms of story telling that I've ever seen in a movie. I loved how Chiyoko's story had a dualistic perspective as Kon seamlessly melds together images and scenes from the story of Chiyoko's own real life and from her famous films (which vary wildly from taking place in the Sengoku period to post-WW2 Japan to outer space). These transitions really add to the feeling and intensity of Chiyoko desperately chasing after and searching for her lost love. And you can't help but fall in love with the passion shown by both the main characters, Chiyoko and Genya. Just as Chiyoko says at the end, it was the "chase" that she truly loved and, by god, this film was one hell of a thrilling chase. This is an absolute must-watch for fans of Kon's other works.
