The friend zone has been taken to a whole new mechanical level.
Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia.
If anything, Hollywood has boiled that concept down to a science over the past few years, as this film is basically a summary of everything that’s wrong with the industry in a neat, 148 minute package.
It thinks it’s meta and self-aware by pointing out how cynical and cheap franchise filmmaking is.
That might sound similar set-up as 22 Jump Street, but this film proceeds to be cheap and cynical itself without saying anything substantial beyond its own set up, so it embraces what it’s trying to criticize.
Everything in this movie is structured as an excuse to show stuff you’ve seen before, there are little to no original concepts or ideas that push the franchise in an interesting direction.
It’s mostly a rehash of the first film (mixed with some stuff from Reloaded and Revolutions in the second half), except the action isn’t nearly as good, it’s more predictable and convenient, the performances are nowhere near as memorable (that’s what you get from replacing your 2 best actors), it looks uglier and more synthetic, the pacing isn’t as tight, and it’s a lot more dull because of how much it overexplains itself.
It also ditches the cyberpunk aesthetic, and replaces it with something a lot more bland and boring, stripping the franchise from a lot of its personality.
It’s honestly quite an accomplishment when you think about it: the original is one of the best, most successful, big budget films ever made that still maintained a strong artistic and alternative impulse.
This, on the other hand, couldn’t be any more lowest common denominator if it tried to.
It’s a parody of itself and modern blockbuster filmmaking.
I suppose that was Lana Wachowski’s goal to some extent, but it isn’t very compelling to watch.
3/10
This is one of Marvel Studios’ riskier projects, the hyperlink structure combined with the villain being the main character immediately makes it stand out in the genre. It’s because of those two aspects that the film works as well as it does. Thanos is a great character with an interesting motivation. The animation is so detailed and lifelike that it never fails to bring out the emotion, in fact I’d argue that the scenes between him and Gamora have the most emotional punch (courtesy of Zoe Saldana and Josh Brolin, who both put in a really solid performance). The balancing of all the different plot lines is also quite well done as there’s a relevancy to each one, nor does the tone feel too disjointed at any point. Some transitions or the sudden pop culture riffing during serious scenes can be awkward, but it’s handled about as well as it could. The exposition is handled tastefully and kept to a minimum, it instead chooses to focus on unexpected interactions between characters from different branches of the Marvel universe, which is the more exciting part. I’m less into the action and filmmaking, however. Not a lot about the camerawork or score jumps out to me, I feel like what little vision the Russos brought to their previous MCU projects is completely lost here. The washed out colour palette (which for some reason is slightly more vibrant during scenes in space) and obvious music embellishments don’t evoke all that much. The staging and editing of the action is a little too quick for my liking, the moments that are meant to be memorable don’t leave much of an impression because the editing doesn’t take its time to punctuate the stunts properly. Some of the CGI also feels a little weightless, for example Stark’s suit looks and feels like its made from paper. The resulting scenes, such as the final battle on Titan, feel more like small scale, digital mush than the big epic scenes they’re aiming for. Once the film decides to slow down for the dramatic conclusion, I find its intent to be manipulative and disingenuous. I felt that way after watching it the first time in the cinema, and after every ‘death’ in this movie having been retconned in one way or another, it turns out I was right. Even in its riskier films, Marvel will find ways to take most of the edges off. Overall, it’s still decent but it’s lost a lot of its flavour for me over the years.
6/10
While still funny and immensely entertaining, I confess I was a little disappointed with Deadpool. With this character, they had an opportunity to make a completely ridiculous and nonsensical superhero movie, and what we got as another generic plot following the tired origin story / damsel-in-distress formula, with a bit of crude humor and 4th-wall breaking mixed in. I almost wonder if that was the cost for finally getting this movie made.
The Imitation Game was a fairly typical and good biopic, even if it did stray a lot from the reality of the events. Turing definitely wasn't the lone wolf who single-handedly cracked Enigma he's portrayed as being, and was in fact supported by thousands of people, with many playing integral roles that don't even get mentioned in the movie. Most of the dramatic conflicts in the movie are just completely made up, with the real Turing being well-liked by his colleagues, not being so in the closet, not having issues with his superiors, never being threatened with getting fired, having entirely different bookends to his relationship with his fiancee and a far less "simple" end to his life. In fact, Joan Clarke never experienced such pressure from her parents and women in Bletchley Park outnumbered men four to one, so a major part of her role was practically fiction and just "hurr, women had it so tough back then" which, while it was indeed the case, isn't something that this particular story should be representing.
Of course, this is a dramatic movie so it does make sense to have some artistic liberties taken but at this point the entire movie's "based on a true story" only so far as its plot synopsis is accurate. In adapting it to a movie, there were also a number of unconvincing contrivances and convenient coincidences to move the plot along, with your typical chance happening causing a eureka moment, as well as entirely downplaying his homosexuality, presumably to appeal to a larger (older) audience. Now, excusing all the historical inaccuracies and keeping in mind it is meant to be just a movie, it's still enjoyable. Cumberbatch is fantastic, even though Turing's personality is largely exaggerated, and the rest of the cast are good too, even if the story doesn't care about any of them. Desplat's score's great as usual and there was a surprising number of comedic moments which I wasn't expecting at all from the promotional material. There was too much repetition of aphorisms and wink wink casual mentions of things that had happened earlier in the movie which all seemed pretty forced. If you're okay with biopics completely misrepresenting their historical figures, it's a pretty good movie.
As someone who actually lives in Mexico, and has a 12-men strong Policias Federales group parked just outside my office with machine guns and a freaking tank (yes, a small tank with 2 50mm turrets), and my fair amount of dead bodies seen around in Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Sonora, many kidnapped (and lost forever) friends, this movie is one of the best I've ever seen about the War On Drugs. The third act is too constrained, but understandable as this is a movie made for an American audience. I wonder if you guys can tell the difference between Mexico City (where most of the Mexican scenes were shot) and Ciudad Juarez or Nogales, because you can't film there at all. The situation here is worst than anybody can imagine, and I just have to look outside my window. I'm looking forward for the next movie with Del Toro's character.
Knives Out perhaps is not the best written movie out in this year, but surely it is one among the most entertaining.
Saying the film is predictable is not wrong, but it is missing the point. Just toward the first halves the film dropped plenty of clues toward pointing the suspect of the crime, but the point was not about "who did it", but "how and why it was done." Indeed, perhaps in the first half audience is intentionally misled to get the impression of typical murder mystery through Knives Out stylistic "who did it" fashion, but as the film goes it shows that there is more to it especially since what and who cause the murder is already revealed in the middle of the film.
If one pays attention to the details. audience have been invited to ask ourselves about the mystery of the process of the murder - on the continuously shaking legs and the barking dogs - and even the especially charming Daniel Craig asked us, almost invitingly, who really hired him and why? The twist and turn is not about the result; but the process.
And doing that, Rian Johnson is still able to slip a neat "moral of the story", with a rather bittersweet moment when the truth is finally revealed. "You're a good person who follows your heart" might be one of the most repeatedly cliche, but taking a backdrop of distrust and money in a family drama, Johnson's words spoken through Craig's character with his characteristic accent made the delivery much more impactful. The slick cinematography and excellent music directing in the whole movie supports this perfectly paced murder mystery.
There is a notable questionable holes that may push you from your suspension of disbelief, but still: a delightful Christmas story to end the year; Knives Out is one film I'd recommend to get you absorbed to its intricate details.
If last year's Top Gun Maverick gave everyone the slightest bit of hope in regards to films that click with the general audience and blow up at the box office, this is the kind of film that'll make any self-respecting film fan lose all hope. Here's the deal: kids will pretty much like this by default, adults who are looking for validation of their childhood obsession will like it, and people who show up to see an actual movie won't. It's pretty much the blandest, calculated, do-nothing film they could've made out of this material. The animation is devoid of style and looks like it was originally rendered for a Dreamworks project back in 2008, the voice acting is mostly ass, it triggers the nostalgia & reference button way too often, the story & characters are watered down to a point where they're almost non-existent, it's not funny and its boomer rock soundtrack choices make absolutely no sense. It's irredeemable trash, like every product that rolls of the Illumination Entertainment conveyor belt. Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that due to the large fanbase of the IP, this will be one of those films where in the short term some of the discourse will insist that "some people/critics don't know how to have fun" or "it's made for the fans" (only for those same people to deny ever liking it in the long haul, of course). Here’s hoping Illumination doesn’t listen to those voices in the same way that DC did after the release of Suicide Squad. This is not a foundation to build a franchise on.
2.5/10
Lost in Translation was a slow but beautiful movie. It's pretty understated and subtle, with very nuanced performances by Scarlett Johansson (whom I don't usually like; apparently she was 19 when she made this) and Bill Murray. Probably one of the best romance movies I've seen, though definitely not for everybody.
Lost in Translation was a slow but beautiful movie. It's pretty understated and subtle, with very nuanced performances by Scarlett Johansson (whom I don't usually like; apparently she was 19 when she made this) and Bill Murray. Probably one of the best romance movies I've seen, though definitely not for everybody.
[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.
I absolutely loved "The Witch" and was excited to see what director Eggers could do with two great actors and his great attention to detail and obvious talent.
Well, turns out - not much.
"The lighthouse" has fantastic cinematography, set decorations, costumes, and Dafoe and Pattinson are really digging into the material with gusto. The problem is that there's no discernible plot, nothing that happens on screen is particularly interesting, and it builds up to nothing.
Probably the most disappointing movie of the year for me. I hope for his next movie, Eggers pays as much attention to the plot and story as he does to veracity of the setting and the characters.
7.5/10. Dan Harmon, creator of Community is known for several things -- his trademark bottle of vodka, his tendency to spill his guts to audiences full of strangers, but also his story circle. The story circle is a device that Harmon uses as a blueprint for nearly any story he writes or supervises. It offers a series of steps to telling a story: 1. A character is in a zone of comfort; 2. But they want something; 3. They enter an unfamiliar situation; 4. Adapt to it; 5. Get what they wanted; 6. Pay a heavy price for it; 7. Then return to their familiar situation; 8. Having changed.
Brooklyn is basically Story Circle: The Movie. Eilis may not have the best life in Ireland, but she is comfortable there. But she hopes and wants for a better life than she can expect to have in the Emerald Isle. So she moves to Brooklyn, a situation whose unfamiliarity is hammered home from the first Irish immigrant she meets on the boat, to her fellow boarders who snip at her a bit, but also guide her through her new surroundings. She slowly but surely grows accustomed to her new home, with its different social mores and customs. She eventually has a good job, a future in accounting, a boyfriend, and the good life her sister wanted for her when she helped send Eilis to America. But just as she grows comfortable in that new life, she pays the price not being able to be home for her sister's funeral or to comfort her mother in person. Eventually, she's able to return home, but as the film makes clear in its third act, she is much different person now then when she left it.
That's not meant to be a criticism of the film. That type of adherence to story structure does lead to a film that feels conventional, and in truth Brooklyn is a feel-good story that is as interested in a film experience that feels like slipping into a warm bath as it is in proceeding through its simple-but-sweet coming of age tale. The notes are familiar, but the melody is beautiful, and the audience goes home happy.
At one point, Eilis offers her beau, Tony, an adjective to describe herself -- amenable. And it's the perfect way to describe Brooklyn It's a very amenable film, happy to lean into the soft hues of the past to tell a love story, and immigrant story, and a bildungsroman, in gentle tones that provoke smiles and sighs as Eilis finds happiness, love, and fulfillment despite her initial reservations and homesickness.
If I have a criticism, its that Eilis's journey is almost too successful. For all the accusations of unrealistic perfection leveled at Rey in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Eilis is a paragon of good fortune throughout Brooklyn. Nearly everyone she meets in Ireland and in Brooklyn short of the prickly Miss Kelly likes her and helps her to feel more comfortable in whatever her current surroundings are. To boot, she becomes successful at nearly whatever she sets her mind to, from working at the department story, to courting, to her burgeoning skills as a bookkeeper.
But that's not to say Eilis does not face challenges in the film. Hers are challenges of conscience rather than the standard plot obstacles we expect our cinematic protagonists to leap over. The crux of the film is Eilis returning to the land that she thought had nothing there for her, and finding that she was wrong, that there is good work, and friendship, and family, and a nice boy with a good future. Suddenly, the life she forged across the pond, the one with her husband, and her studies, and seems distant, something that unexpectedly has to compete with the renewed comforts of home. The choice the film stakes out -- whether to take the stronger, more confident persona Eilis has built back to Ireland and start a life there better than any she hoped to be able to enjoy, or return to the place that made her into that stronger person with the man she pledged her love to.
The problem is that as well as the film sets up that choice, and lays out compelling elements on both sides of the equation, it glosses over the conclusion in a somewhat unsatisfying fashion. While the touch of Miss Kelly's would-be blackmail is nice, it seems abrupt that after all the time the film spends setting up Eilis's hometown as somewhere that Eilis has a place and could be happy, one harsh woman is enough to send her back to New York. There's subtext about an iron fist hiding beneath the velvet glove that's been offered to Eilis since she returned to Enniscorthy, but it's hard to see it anyone besides Miss Kelly, with everyone else in the town seeming a bit pushy and presumptive, but also genuinely enamored with the young Ms. Lacey. Her confession to her mother is a quietly powerful scene, and the breakup letter she gives to her Irish beau feels like too easy way to resolve that relationship, but more than anything, it just feels odd that one mean old crow is all it takes to convince Eilis that she could never have a life in a place that, despite the vows she's tried so hard to put out of her mind, seemed to welcome her with open arms.
Still, the scene where Tony finds Eilis waiting for him and the pair embrace is a sweet moment, even if it doesn't feel totally earned given what motivated Eilis to come to that point. But it's a lovely image in a film full of them. Brooklyn is awash in muted pastels and primary colors, that give the past a gauzy hue that catches the eye and conveys the sense of a sweeter, simpler time. It's also a supremely well-shot film, that shoots Eilis and Jim Farrell at the beach having a conversation with their romantic companions framed in between them in the distance, conveying the subtext of the exchange. It's also a film keen to use subtle touches to show changes in Eilis's mood or perspective, from the simple act of wearing her bathing suit under her clothes that impresses her friends back home, to the letters she shoves in a drawer to signify the way in which she's putting Brooklyn out of her mind. None of these techniques is so subtle that the viewer will miss them, but the film takes the old admonition "show don't tell" to heart, and succeeds well with that principle in mind.
In the end, Brooklyn is a fairly simple story. Girl leaves home. Girl makes a new life with success and romance. Girl returns home, seeing the beauty of what she left behind and has to choose her new life or her old one. But the film's pleasures come from the sweet stillness of the moments in between, of the temping worlds the film creates on either side of Eilis, in the recognizable steps of maturation, of change, that Eilis goes through as she moves past her homesickness, past her reticence, and eventually, past the girl she used to be. Brooklyn is an aggressively amiable film, that breaks little new ground, but covers the familiar territory with such a pleasant, charming air, that it can be forgiven for making few new steps.
This movie has a certain tone and ring to it. It carries the mood through out the story really well. I felt the longing and the pure boredom of being old and forgetful. And I got excited with the possibilities of Frank's robot. It is really well made. If you liked... Safety Not Guaranteed, you'll like this too.. this one's a bit slower. It'll serve you well if you are having a slow pondering day.
I've literally seen this movie decades ago and really enjoyed it then, but during the last years entirely forgot about it - until I saw Split in a sneak preview - when they showed the closing (or after credit?) scene, I was the only one in the cinema hall screaming "Oh my god, this is Unbreakable", while all the other visitors where puzzled. Unbelievable. Even my girlfriend didn't know the movie, so it had to be rewatched, and as "Glass" will be released this month, we finally got to actually watching it:
David Dunn (portrait by Bruce Willis) lives an ordinary life in modest circumstances, working as a football stadium security guy who is estranged from his wife and planing to start anew, when he gets in a train accident which he survives as the only person. He is then approached by the comic book enthusiast and comic art trader Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) who is certain that David is a real life impersonation of all the super heroes written about in comic books. He tries to mentor David who doesn't believe a word...
Being a comic book fan and loving the mid 2000s for all the stunning great super hero movies (Sam Raimis Spider-Man, X-Men, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Hellboy, Constantine, Watchman, 300, Sin City and of course the first MCU movies), I have to say this movie really stands out. It's not a typical comic book movie - it's not based on a comic book, it isn't even seeing itself as a typical super hero movie - it's rather a meta comic book movie, all the while having an integral part of typical comic books and focusing on this relevant mechanism that every comic book thrives on.
All the while this movie is so totally different to any super hero movie you have ever seen. Totally calm, slow paced, no special effects, hardly any fight scenes, all the while absolutely thrilling due to brilliant cinematography, great acting and a killer score. The characters and their relations are as deep as in a drama movie, and nearly the entire movie is a built up to a great finale and an unexpected turn of events. There is no CGI, no action, not even a hero vs super villain showdown. All the while it touches the essence of every comic book story, and does so in an ingenious way.
Because of this, of course not everyone will like the movie - a lot will probably not even consider it an comic book or action hero movie. But it really is a memorization of the comic book genre and given its age, and the fact that it came before the action hero genre took off, it really aged well - even after all the Marvel, DC and independent stuff this movie stands out as a great movie.
And now I am really looking forward to seeing the final movie :)
Jordy comment is exactly right.
For the first part, I was really thinking this was a parody movie. I was expecting something original coming out of it, either as "yeah this Matrix 4 is a pure joke" or something deeper and well thought.
But no, nothing new came out from there. it became an EXACT copy of 1/2/3 but packed in a single movie. From part 2 onwards, you will just be like "wow I remember this scene from Matrix 1/2/3". I think it was intended at being more like nostalgia stuff than anything new really, some dialogs are actually telling you reality :x
Also, my main complaint is, while 1/2/3 were a full circle and left us with a lot of open questions which was up to us to think about and imagine, This 4 fills everything, but in a disappointing way. Leaving a lot of gaps or turning the plot to facilitate the story without really explain where it matters, but explaining a lot where no one care.
I always rate good so 7, but far from amazing
A thoroughly competent, but ultimately flavorless film. The acting is solid, the story is well-paced, and the major characters have defined arcs, but it's all executed in such a generic, perfunctory manner that the entire thing left me cold. The cheesy dialogue and generic archetype characters certainly set the film back, but at the end of the day it's a very solid film that never rises above being solid. It's pablum. The pablum is well-done and it's all technically sound, but it's also tremendously uninspired, checking the boxes for a prestige picture without adding anything new or interesting to the standard tropes it employs. Quite a disappointment for a film I was really looking forward to watching.
A surreal sort-of sci-fi sort-of comedy, set initially in a hotel where single people must find a partner within a certain amount of time or be turned into an animal of their choice. Colin Farrell plays our protagonist, David, who chooses to be turned into a lobster should the need arise.
Lanthimos makes a damning indictment of the current state of relationships in society. Couples can only be together if they have something in common with each other, usually something fairly superficial like a limp, or a love of biscuits. Some go to the extent of faking a trait in order to be with someone. At times things get uncomfortable, at times very amusing.
What could be a powerful, emotional film gets set instead to a dreary, bland background. People talk in a strange, precise yet affected way. The setting is in a gorgeous part of Ireland but it’s grey and lifeless. It’s a really effective hook and it’s what makes The Lobster so unique.
My only criticism would be that it could have been a lot shorter. What is initially really interesting becomes frustrating in the last 20 minutes or so. The film seems to lose its edge, not quite knowing where to go. Lanthimos makes his point but refuses to roll the credits.
This doesn’t detract too much from the film though. The Lobster is a unique albeit slightly dull picture that leaves a lasting impression on its audience. Lanthimos has found a creative and accessible way to make social critique.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/01/14/thelobster/
It's a good movie, but certainly not the RomCom deconstruction that every critic has labelled it.
Not as funny as a film with Jack Black, Owen Wilson and Steve Martin really should be.
Loved it!
Ok... The thing is this: Just forget the stupid story with the dog. No... Forget ANY story - it simply has none. BUT this movie is a piece of art in the category of action movies. Think of Kill Bill without any story and add even more coolness. ;)
Fellt like it stopped halfway through. Not that good.
This will probably be among the most well liked Oscar contenders, it's a very accessible crowdpleaser with clever writing and comedy. The scenes satirizing the exploitation & commercialization of black art are easily among the film's most entertaining moments, but it loses steam whenever it cuts back to the stuff about Monk's personal life (despite some pretty great acting by Sterling K. Brown). I also found the filmmaking pretty average; the locations and cinematography are decent but lacking in vision or personality. The acting's generally pretty good, but it probably would've been better if some of the wackiness remained more understated. It all leads back to the same issue for me; this needed a more experienced director at the helm (e.g. I'd love to see Spike Lee's version of this). The writing carries it a long way but some of the watered down choices make it feel more like a disposable streaming film than it should.
5.5/10
As a political thriller, "Navalny" works quite well, but as a documentary, the film falls short in my opinion. At almost no point does director Daniel Roher succeed in establishing the necessary distance from Alexei Navalny. Because of that, the film kinda looks like propaganda. You also don't learn anything about Navalny that you probably didn't already know. That is too little for a documentary with this title. The protagonist doesn't even come across as likeable; in fact, he seems like a radicalized narcissist in many places. The film is also very manipulative.
All of this is particularly unfortunate because Navalny is a fascinating character. The Kremlin critic is currently in prison in Russia on the flimsiest of grounds and may never get out. So it's clear that his work has touched a nerve with Vladimir Putin. This is also evident from the assassination attempt against the opposition politician. By far the best part of this documentary is the investigation into this crime.
In the end, though, I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know from numerous media reports. Everything concerning Navalny has already been covered by the media in such a way that the film offers nothing new. But as I said, as a political thriller, I can recommend "Navalny." The entertainment factor is definitely high. The overall production is also very competent. With a somewhat healthier distance from the subject, however, the documentary could have been much better.
This movie was unoriginal and boring. I really don't see what's so fun in seeing a movie about a underdeveloped character that just uses guns for the entire movie with terrible fight choreography. The fight scenes were at best like those of a low budget indie movie. Yes, before I've seen plenty of times movies that were of the same genre (most movies were with Jason Statham) but those were at least 7/10 this deserves a 3/10, the only things I liked in this movie were the gold coin system, the rain sequences (which had good camera work) and the cool muscle cars. Most people who like this movie are probably kids or people who haven't seen many action movies in their lives, I've seen most of them already, so I tend to have a more critical mindset towards those kinds of movies. The only time a dull movie like this one could become good would be if there was comedy in it like 21 Jump Street or Mr. Right. These days, I find that the only good action movies are the superhero movies and that's not because I only like superhero movies (if you see my ratings). Another thing I found pretty terrible was how the actors that play the russian mob don't look russian at all, they didn't even try. At least in Arrow, the russian mob really looks like how the real russian mob would look like but not here.
The film was very predictable, but good.
Hanna is a badass with no eyebrowns.
While this film had a lot of promise, I had a hard time getting past the overall darkness of the film. With mentions of a "War on God" and some of the pure torture found in this film, I couldn't help but wish that I hadn't went down this path placing such vivid imagery in my mind of such gruesome acts. Because of this and this alone, I can not recommend this to others though I am sure that in this day and age, many will find this as entertaining.
I always like Wan directing movies and his creativity in camera movements and the concept of this movie truly benefits from that. But I always felt he made mainstream horror, accessible to watch and, therefore, for genre fans not so pleasant. In this movie he tries to keep that mainstream but get closer to the fans with some heavy gore. While that is nice, that’s the lazy approach. A genre fan also like the drama and the mistery in the category. And on that it fails a lot. While the movie is playing around moving from one style to the other, it’s was always obvious to me who and where the evil was since the opening scene. Getting to know better why and how should always be there to the tension on the story. It’s hard for me to accept the hero reversing the roles at the end and even harder that the person that can explain the origin is totally ignored in the end. Seems that the movie doesn’t take the mythology serious and only uses it for the visual show off (and does that brilliantly)
Great, gripping and captivating movie! Amazing cast and direction. The editing was seamless between all the different viewpoints and the switching between the cast and original footage of the riots was poignant. I wasn't expecting to be hooked right from the beginning but it was surprisingly adrenaline-pumping for a court room movie.
There were a few embellishments in the movie, some to exaggerate (Jerry Rubin being seduced by a female undercover agent) and some to understate ( Bobby Seale's treatment was far worse than what was portrayed), some events were switched around as well for better storytelling purposes. Regardless, Aaron Sorkin managed to capture the restlessness and agitation of the environment during the trails and the utter injustice of it all which is the crux of the matter.
Overall, I enjoyed watching it and would definitely recommend it to friends. Personally, I think it is also a very apt movie for these times where I'm sure many of the younger generation can relate to the dissent and the desire for change.
